Davenport friends and neighbours,
Thanks to all constituents who have written, called and spoken to me about Bill C-233, the No More Loopholes Act over the last few months. The moral seriousness Davenport residents have brought to this issue is something I deeply respect.
The war in Gaza has been horrifying. I share your outrage and your grief. Our federal government has acted: since January 2024, no new permits for lethal weapons exports to Israel have been approved, existing permits were frozen and remain suspended, we have provided $300 million in humanitarian aid, and last September Canada formally recognized the State of Palestine.
Why I voted against Bill C-233
After consulting with the Minister of Foreign Affairs, with researchers at the Library of Parliament, and after carefully reviewing the bill itself, I concluded that C-233 would not achieve what its supporters hope. Let me explain what brought me to this conclusion.
Canada’s export controls are already among the strictest in the world. Our system applies a binding human rights threshold to every permit for military goods. In 2019, Canada became one of the world’s largest economies to bring its export controls into full compliance with the Arms Trade Treaty. In fact, we go further than the Treaty requires: we control a wider range of items, including dual-use goods, nuclear, chemical, biological, and missile technologies. We impose stricter criteria for denials, including risk of gender-based violence, terrorism, or organized crime. And in 2025, the Arms Trade Treaty Monitor described Canada as having the world’s most transparent export control regime.
The general export permit for the U.S. is not a loophole.
Under Canada’s system, Arms Trade Treaty controlled goods cannot be exported without authorization. For exports to the United States, that authorization is provided through General Export Permit 47 (GEP 47). This is not an absence of control.
It is a long-standing, internationally recognized mechanism that governs exports under clear rules and conditions. Businesses using GEP 47 must register with Global Affairs Canada before their first export, report every six months on what they exported, to whom, and in what quantities, and notify the government of any changes in end use. Violations carry significant penalties. General export permits are used by the United Kingdom, Australia, France, Germany, and the European Union. Canada applies them more narrowly than all of these allies — we grant general permit access to only one country.
C-233 would replace a calibrated, risk-based system with blanket administrative requirements.
Today, our system allows for discretion based on risk, destination, and context — while still applying a strict and binding human rights threshold. That flexibility exists in the systems of the United Kingdom, Australia, and the European Union. If passed, C-233 would require individual permits for every single item in the defence supply chain, including basic components like steel, textiles, and bolts, regardless of whether the destination is high-risk or a trusted NATO ally. This is a definition of “military item” that no other country recognizes.
The consequences would be real and damaging.
Canadian defence firms work with firms in allied countries, including the United States, to fill production orders for items like artillery rounds for Ukraine. This bill would disrupt those cross-border supply efforts that Ukraine relies on for its survival. It would introduce delays that compromise our Canadian Armed Forces’ operational readiness and ability to meet NATO commitments. Canada’s defence industry supports over 60,000 jobs and contributes over $7 billion to our GDP. At a time when Canada faces real threats to its sovereignty, this bill would weaken ourposition rather than strengthen it.
C-233 cannot fix the structural issue it claims to address.
The Library of Parliament confirmed that Global Affairs Canada “does not have the legal authority to control the re-export of Canadian-made strategic goods and technology from one foreign country to another foreign country.” Since 1956, Canada and the U.S. have operated under the Defence Production Sharing Agreement. No Canadian statute — including C-233 — can impose legal obligations on a foreign government or control transfers that occur outside Canada’s jurisdiction. The bill targets one country for exclusion from our system, but it does not close a loophole. As one of my colleagues, Karim Bardeesy, stated in his speech in the House: legislation like this does not end loopholes by targeting one country for exclusion; it only creates new ones.
What I believe we should do instead
I agree with the Minister’s publicly stated position that the 1956 defence arrangements must be updated. The moment has come for a thoughtful modernization of the Canada-U.S. defence framework — not a rupture of the partnership, but an update that reflects today’s security and human rights realities. As our Prime Minister reaffirmed in his speech in Davos in January, human rights is one of Canada’s core values, and we must do everything in our power to ensure we are upholding human rights here and abroad.
There are elements of C-233 that could contribute to this effort, such as the provision requiring end-use certificates in certain cases. We can and should pursue strengthened safeguards and enhanced transparency through targeted reforms, engagement with our allies, and the kind of multilateral cooperation that has produced results in the past — like the Ottawa Treaty, which led to the destruction of over 48 million antipersonnel landmines.
I will continue to push for the protection of civilians, accountability for those who violate international law, and a two-state solution that guarantees security and dignity for both Israelis and Palestinians. I remain committed to working with my colleagues, with stakeholders, and with you to ensure Canada’s export controls reflect our highest values.
Thank you again for your advocacy and your engagement. Your voice matters, and it strengthens our community.
My very best,
Julie Dzerowicz
Member of Parliament, Davenport