An Act to amend the Export and Import Permits Act and the Criminal Code (amendments permitting the accession to the Arms Trade Treaty and other amendments)

How it changed on the way

54% of the text as introduced was changed or removed by the time it became law (5,343 words introduced, 3,947 passed). A committee amended it.

substantial changeintent mostly kept

The bill kept its main goals on brokering controls, reporting dates, fines, and the firearms list but added new rules forcing the minister to weigh peace, human rights, and gender violence risks before issuing permits. It also created a ban on permits if a substantial risk of harm exists and split the regulation-making power into required and optional considerations.

• Added a duty for the minister to consider specific risks when issuing export or brokering permits for arms.

  After: “Mandatory considerations — export and brokering 7.3 (1) In deciding whether to issue a permit under subsection 7(1) or 7.1(1) in respect of arms, ammunition, implements or munitions of war, the Minister shall take into consideration whether the goods or technology specified in the application for the permit (a) would contribute to peace and security or undermine it;”

• Added a prohibition on permits where substantial risk of negative consequences remains after mitigation.

  After: “Substantial risk 7.4 The Minister shall not issue a permit under subsection 7(1) or 7.1(1) in respect of arms, ammunition, implements or munitions of war if, after considering available mitigating measures, he or she determines that there is a substantial risk that the export or the brokering of the goods or technology specified in the application for the permit would result in any of the negative consequences referred to in subsection 7.3(1).”

• Changed the original clause on regulations for mandatory considerations into a split between required factors and extra regulatory ones.

  Before: “(b) authorize the making of regulations that set out mandatory considerations that the Minister is required to take into account before issuing an export permit or a brokering permit;”

  After: “(b) require that the Minister take into account certain considerations before issuing an export permit or a brokering permit; (c) authorize the making of regulations that set out additional mandatory considerations that the Minister is required to take into account before issuing an export permit or a brokering permit;”

• Broadened the security considerations section and removed the earlier discretionary wording.

  Before: “7.2 Subject to regulations made under paragraph 12(a.2) or (a.3), in deciding whether to issue a permit under subsection 7(1) or 7.1(1), the Minister may, in addition to any other matter that the Minister may consider, have regard to whether the goods or technology specified in an application for the permit may be used for a purpose prejudicial to (a) the safety or interests of the State by being used to do anything referred to in paragraphs 3(1)(a) to (n) of the Security of Information Act ; or (b) peace, security or stability in any region of the world or within any country.”

  After: “7.2 In deciding whether to issue a permit under subsection 7(1) or 7.1(1), the Minister may, in addition to any other matter that the Minister may consider, take into consideration whether the goods or technology specified in the application for the permit may be used for a purpose prejudicial to the safety or interests of the State by being used to do anything referred to in paragraphs 3(1)(a) to (n) of the Security of Information Act .”

How precisely it is written

vagueChallenging the law: EasyDisputing a charge: Easy

The bill supplies some defined terms and fixed numbers such as the $250,000 fine, yet repeatedly relies on subjective ministerial judgments and open-ended standards. This combination leaves the scope of controls, permits and offences open to prolonged dispute.

Open to argument

• “the Governor in Council considers it appropriate to permit the export”

  Replaces an objective test with the Governor in Council's subjective view.

• “the inspector reasonably believes the person or organization keeps records”

  Enforcement power hinges on an inspector's personal belief rather than a fixed factual trigger.

• “If the Minister is of the opinion that it is necessary for the administration or enforcement”

  Record-retention demands rest on the Minister's unfettered opinion.

Clear-cut

• “increase the maximum fine for a summary conviction offence to $250,000”

  Supplies a clear numerical ceiling.

• “broker means to arrange or negotiate a transaction that relates to the movement of goods or technology included in a Brokering Control List from a foreign country to another foreign country”

  Provides a concrete definition tied to listed items and cross-border movement.

Discretion. Ministers, the Governor in Council and inspectors retain broad power to decide what constitutes an appropriate country, a substantial risk, a necessary control, or reasonable belief, and to impose or extend record-keeping on their own opinion.

Challenging the law itself. Multiple subjective phrases such as 'substantial risk' and 'in the opinion of' readily support vagueness or overbreadth arguments under section 7 of the Charter.

Disputing a charge under it. A person or organization accused of an offence can dispute whether any risk met the 'substantial' threshold or whether demanded records were truly 'necessary' to show compliance.

Read by a language model from the royal assent text; every quoted phrase appears in the bill. A reading of the drafting, not legal advice.