Canada’s arms export story is usually told as an overseas one. This story is not wrong, but it is incomplete. A large part of Canada’s export pipeline runs into the U.S., including equipment now being used by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).
In December 2025, reporting based on U.S. procurement records showed ICE moving ahead with a rush order worth roughly $10 million for 20 armoured vehicles from Roshel, a defence manufacturer based in Brampton, Ontario. The vehicles, designed to withstand bullets and blasts, are marketed for law enforcement, border patrol and military uses. This is not what most people expect when they hear “arms exports.” These are Canadian-made, or Canadian-supplied armoured vehicles intended to support ICE operations within the U.S.
Minnesota, where ICE operations have intensified, sits just across the Canadian border. Our geographical proximity to the current tensions makes the point unavoidable. Thus, Canadian armoured vehicles deployed there should be seen as a local problem to Canadians.
ICE has become synonymous with raids, family separation and the expansion of coercive state power against migrant communities. In Minneapolis, this enforcement has turned deadly. On Jan. 7, an ICE officer fatally shot Renée Nicole Good, and on Jan. 24, federal officers shot and killed Alex Pretti, with videos of the shooting raising alarm bells about the media narratives being spun. In this context, the presence of armoured vehicles is not only to use as transportation, but also to escalate fear and intimidate communities.
So, why is Canada still congratulating itself for being a “responsible exporter” while supplying this machinery? The short answer is Canada’s export controls treat the U.S. differently, and this difference creates an accountability gap.
Government guidance states that export permits are not required for most controlled goods or technology destined to a final recipient in the U.S., subject to limited exceptions. This means transfers that would trigger case-by-case reviews, assessments and ministerial scrutiny for other destinations can flow south with far less transparency. The result is that most arms exports to the U.S. are permit-free, and they bypass the case-by-case risk assessment Canada claims to apply through the Arms Trade Treaty aligned framework.
This is also why the U.S. loophole cannot be treated as a narrow technical issue. It is the same pathway advocates have warned can allow Canadian-made military components to reach Israel through U.S. transfers, even when Canadians are told exports are being paused or restricted. Roshel itself has been linked to controversy surrounding Israeli sales, including reports about plans to supply Israeli police with armoured vehicles and public debates about whether Canada should allow such exports.
The geography is different, but the structure is the same. Canada lets controlled goods move into the U.S. with less scrutiny, losing visibility over end use and then acting surprised when the consequences come to light, whether in Gaza or Minneapolis.
This is why Canada’s current economic attitude is so misleading. Governments love announcing manufacturing wins. They point to jobs, contracts and the pride of Canadian industry. But when a human rights lens is missing from our business deals, the contracts we sign become political choices, affirming both the harms we are willing to enable and the harms we are willing to ignore.
This is where Bill C-233 comes in. Introduced by MP Jenny Kwan, Bill C-233 would amend the Export and Import Permits Act by removing destination-based exemptions, narrowing permit-free pathways and strengthening human rights and humanitarian law safeguards, including end use certification and stronger reporting to parliament. Plainly, it targets the very logic that gives the U.S. a pass.
Critics argue that the Canada-U.S. defence relationship is deeply integrated, and they raise concerns about economic fallout. But integration is not an excuse for inaction. If supply chains are integrated, accountability must be integrated too. Otherwise “we did not know it would be used for this” becomes the permanent alibi of a country that keeps benefiting from the deal.
Canada cannot keep marketing itself as a human rights nation while treating arms exports as a jobs program and never an ethical question. If Canadian-made Roshel vehicles are supporting ICE operations, it should trigger the scrutiny our export regime claims to exist for. Parliament should move Bill C-233 forward, and Canadians should demand an export system that puts human rights at the centre, regardless of whether the buyer is our closest neighbour.
