Wow! Exciting post Fred!!!! Key word I grabbed was "business" & yes, we are starting to work like a business & that's the key to a country being successful. Eventually we'll ban the orange ball entirely, until a NICE leader is voted back in, then things can change some. Thanks for the awesome post :)
That is awesome news. And considering how hard it can be to break into these blocks, even with agreements, etc. getting in over trusted suppliers these governments already work with is an accomplishment in itself. And doing so in just a year is again, quite an accomplishment.
So all the belly aching from people (doomsayers, trolls, etc) who expect instantaneous contracts, jobs, etc can take a powder. This is just about as quick as it gets when breaking into established procurement markets.
I think a lot of Canadians share your frustration, David.
One thing I'd add is that countries succeed when they encourage both innovation and investment while also keeping opportunities open for people willing to build something.
The good news in this case is that a Canadian company competed internationally and won business on merit.
That's exactly the kind of success story we need more of.
There is nothing to celebrate about Canada becoming an arms dealer.
B.C.-made rifles in the hands of Sudan fighters
Online researchers reveal Canadian weapons in war zones
STEVE STAPLES
JUN 20
A sniper rifle bearing the logo of a small British Columbia company shouldn’t be visible in social media videos from Sudan, Libya, or Yemen.
Yet that is exactly what a CBC News visual investigation has now documented — again.
UNAMID/Albert González Farran The war between rival militaries has claimed hundreds of thousands of lives and driven millions from their homes. (file photo)
The discovery is raising urgent questions about the Canadian arms trade, the enforcement of arms embargoes, and the gap between Canada’s stated values and its real-world record on weapons accountability.
The company is Sterling Cross Defense Systems, based in Abbotsford, B.C. The rifle is its XLCR precision bolt-action model. And the fighters brandishing it in verified photographs and videos are members of Sudan’s Rapid Support Forces (RSF) — a paramilitary group accused of civilian massacres, torture, and war crimes.
Images were first provided to CBC News by an online user known as streakingdelilah. CBC independently sourced and verified all photos and videos, sharing them with researchers at Bellingcat and the Centre for Information Resilience, which runs the Sudan Witness project.
Upgrade to paid
A pattern, not an anomaly
In November 2025, CBC verified at least nine separate images of RSF fighters carrying Sterling Cross XLCR rifles throughout Sudan — some geolocated, others confirmed by matching the distinctive logo on the rifle. The images date back to at least 2023.
The RSF has been one of the primary actors in a conflict that has killed an estimated 150,000 people and internally displaced more than 12 million civilians. The city of El Fasher, besieged for months, fell to RSF forces in October 2024, with reports of horrific civilian massacres following immediately after.
This week, CBC published a follow-up investigation showing the problem is not limited to Sudan. Canadian-made Sterling Cross rifles are now visible in the hands of a Libyan militia unit, and are openly advertised for sale online by arms dealers in Yemen’s capital, Sanaa. CBC identified a specific serial number on one of the rifles offered for sale in Yemen.
Canada has had an arms embargo on Sudan since 2004
Canada has officially maintained an arms embargo on Sudan for over two decades. Material and financial sanctions against entities involved in Sudan’s conflict were added in 2024. Sudan, Libya, and Yemen are all subject to Canadian arms restrictions — and, in several cases, UN arms embargoes — precisely because they are home to groups responsible for widespread human rights abuses and mass killings.
Yet the rifles showed up anyway.
The United Arab Emirates connection
Experts point to the United Arab Emirates as a likely intermediary. The UAE has long supplied the RSF, and Canada exports significant quantities of weapons and military equipment there.
As Emadeddin Badi, a senior fellow at the Global Initiative Against Transnational Organized Crime, told CBC: the UAE “does not have a domestic defence industry of its own robust enough to supply multiple paramilitary groups across the region” — making it a documented re-routing hub for Western arms flowing into conflict zones.
Prime Minister Carney at the UAE
Our Prime Minister arrived in the UAE last fall to a lavish military welcome put on by UAE Industry Minister Sultan al-Jaber. There was no press conference, and no opportunity for journalists to witness the meetings.
At the close of the visit, Prime Minister Mark Carney said Ottawa is working on a $1-billion project aimed at expanding critical minerals processing capacity in Canada, while securing the equivalent of $70 billion in investment from the United Arab Emirates.
“We welcome UAE investors to visit Canada — I will personally host them — to explore investment in Canada’s transformative projects,” he said, reported The Canadian Press.
Carney also told reporters that he raised the Sudan civil war with UAE President Sheikh Mohamed bin Zayed Al Nahyan, whose government denies accusations it is fuelling ethnic violence in that country.
“We did discuss the situation in Sudan,” Carney said, adding that this centred on the so-called Quad process, where the U.S., the UAE, Saudi Arabia and Egypt are working on “establishing a ceasefire and peace consistent with the initiative of President Trump.”
Canada not doing enough
It seems clear that the conflict between Canada seeking investment from the UAE is conflicting with the need to confront the Middle Eastern country over illicit sales of Canadian-made arms to RSF forces in Sudan.
“If Canada was doing enough then we wouldn’t see a pattern of the illicit diversion of Canadian weapons systems in violation of UN arms embargoes,” said Kelsey Gallagher of Project Ploughshares.
Canada presents itself to the world as a country committed to human rights, the rule of law, and multilateralism. We sign arms treaties like the Arms Trade Treaty. We impose embargoes. We issue statements of concern.
PeaceQuest readers know that we have frequently pointed out that the growing danger of Canadian arms exports ending up in terrible conflicts or the hands of human rights offenders is a growing threat.
Prime Minister Mark Carney made a pledge in February to expand Canada’s arms industries by 50%. This will be accomplished through a combination of massive Canadian military spending on local contracts, and sales of weapons abroad.
But Canada’s laws that aim to ensure that these weapons don’t end up in the “wrong hands” are completely inadequate.
Peace advocates and human rights defenders in Canada have been raising these concerns for years. The CBC investigations have now provided the documentary evidence the public needs to demand action. The question is whether the government will respond — or wait for the next investigation to reveal the next batch of Canadian-made weapons in the next war zone.
But the main point of Fred's article is that, instead of Canada just buying the stuff it might need, we are in a growing position to MAKE our own (and, hopefully, resell it to countries that are more like-minded to us), rather than just buying stuff made elsewhere.
Totally agree with you that we don't want to see Canadian-made stuff end up in some of the places where it does. And while a general assessment of the whole problem could be summed up as "a small problem in the overall supply. But not an insignificant problem that shouldn't warrant attention" -- meaning, most of the time, things are okay. But there's enough weakness in the supply chain that some stuff gets into the wrong hands, so better controls are in order.
But unfortunately, in the modern world, where bullies with large militaries think they can do whatever they wish (despite the law) -- Canada definitely must become a military manufacturer. But to your big point - we do need to figure out ways to tighten the supply chain to really minimize the abuse.
Hypothetical example (though hopefully a real one soon): If we start making Gripens in Canada, eventually with some of them ending up in Ukraine (per Saab's announcement to provide them with a whole bunch of planes), how do we make sure some future (or current) Ukrainian military person doesn't redirect a couple of planes to Iran/Sudan/etc.? I won't go on further -- and something like aircraft are far easier to track than small arms/bullets -- but realistically, after the War is over, is it realistic that a country like Ukraine might have too many planes, and then decides to sell them (to get money for reconstruction)? And what if Israel/Iran/Sudan/whoever is the buyer, especially if they are currently in peacetime with the world?
Important problem to solve (or at least limit the undesirable outcomes).
Good points, Grant, but I don't see how supply chain controls can be imposed. Once a piece of hardware or software is out in the world, Canada cannot control what others do with it. I just feel creepy about celebrating that Canada is increasing its arms manufacturing. Maybe it is just the world we live in.
. . . and you hit the problem, squarely on the head. Yes, it's near-impossible to tighten the supply chain (though at the moment, we should attempt to do).
Part of the problem (though not all), is that what Canadian arms manufacturing we do largely is sold to USA (and under very slack export rules, as they are our "friends and allies"). So what becomes of our stuff after that, we have very little control. I believe many of the bullets and small arms that you mentioned entered the Israel/Gaza theatre that way.
Now before I blame this all on the Americans, we certainly have done some direct sales to Israel and UAE (the latter being some equipment that then showed up in Sudan conflicts). So we do need some better effort in general at trying to minimize negative outcomes (and as you say, that's pretty hard to do).
The rock/hard place Canada faces on the topic of arms manufacturing (to defend ourselves) is that our market isn't big enough to do this properly. So if we do build a domestic market for our own defence (Gripens, submarines, drones, what-have-you), it almost always is 1) dependent on a joint-venture with some other country (who is also largely in the same predicament as us), and thus have to encourage export sales just to support the research/development and/or manufacturing scale.
This is one of the reasons why Saab is so eager to partner with Canada, and two (actually three) countries want our submarine business so badly that they are proposing significant economic investment here.
Rock, meet hard place.
(but politicians, really do look into how the heck the bad sides occur and give serious thought as to how to prevent it as much as possible).
The reality is that there are no perfect answers here.
A country that can't build critical defence equipment becomes dependent on others, but a country that does build it has a responsibility to minimize misuse.
As you say, it's a rock-and-hard-place problem.
The challenge isn't avoiding it... it's managing it responsibly.
Steven, the article wasn't about celebrating war or ignoring concerns about arms exports.
Those concerns are legitimate and governments have a responsibility to ensure export controls are enforced.
The point of this piece was that a Canadian company successfully entered a European procurement market through a lawful agreement between Canada and the EU.
That's a discussion about trade, diversification, and economic strategy, not an endorsement of how weapons are used once they leave the factory.
Quite true, but the point can be lost if trade, diversification, and economic strategy are isolated and not discussed in a larger context that includes the consequences.
Wow! Exciting post Fred!!!! Key word I grabbed was "business" & yes, we are starting to work like a business & that's the key to a country being successful. Eventually we'll ban the orange ball entirely, until a NICE leader is voted back in, then things can change some. Thanks for the awesome post :)
Exactly, Patsy.
Good businesses don't rely on a single customer, and smart countries shouldn't either.
Diversification isn't about picking a fight with anyone... it's about making sure Canada has options.
You are correct Mr. Ferguson haha. It's good we are now headed on a better path.
Diversification isn’t anti-American. “That’s basic risk management”. I couldn’t have said it better myself!
Exactly, Kevin.
Diversification isn't a statement about America... it's a strategy for Canada.
Every successful business, investor, and country understands the danger of depending too heavily on a single customer.
That's not politics. That's common sense.
Canada is on the move America is Dirty Dancing.
Hahaha, great description! Suddenly I feel like dancing haha
That is awesome news. And considering how hard it can be to break into these blocks, even with agreements, etc. getting in over trusted suppliers these governments already work with is an accomplishment in itself. And doing so in just a year is again, quite an accomplishment.
So all the belly aching from people (doomsayers, trolls, etc) who expect instantaneous contracts, jobs, etc can take a powder. This is just about as quick as it gets when breaking into established procurement markets.
Well said, Brian.
People often underestimate how these markets work.
Governments don't hand out defence contracts overnight, especially to new suppliers.
Going from agreement signed to first contract in roughly a year is actually impressive.
The size of the deal matters far less than what it proves... Canada is now inside the system.
That's where the real opportunities begin.
This should shut a few people up for a while. Especially those that don’t understand how building relationships work. Good job.
Thanks, Barb.
Relationships aren't built with a press release and a handshake... they're built over time through trust, reliability, and showing up.
This contract is a sign that the groundwork is starting to pay off.
The opportunities that follow are often much bigger than the first deal itself.
🇨🇦💙 We already know Trump is terrified of Carney, this trade deal is another slap upside the head. 🤔
Carney is Canada with a 20 year old Rolodex of the greatest most influential moneychangers in the world.
Whether people support Carney or not, one thing is becoming clear...
Canada is building options beyond a single relationship.
That's what caught my attention here.
The more doors Canada has open around the world, the stronger our position becomes at any negotiating table.
Innovation in Canada is non existent anymore it’s getting to be the same in america 🇺🇸, To many hands out for free shit !
Begging for scraps the Beginning of the socialist movement then it collapses the country.
Maybe go to jail for this post !!! Shut off my bank account. Shut my car down ?
I think a lot of Canadians share your frustration, David.
One thing I'd add is that countries succeed when they encourage both innovation and investment while also keeping opportunities open for people willing to build something.
The good news in this case is that a Canadian company competed internationally and won business on merit.
That's exactly the kind of success story we need more of.
Bravo! Keep it growing 🙏
Fred,
There is nothing to celebrate about Canada becoming an arms dealer.
B.C.-made rifles in the hands of Sudan fighters
Online researchers reveal Canadian weapons in war zones
STEVE STAPLES
JUN 20
A sniper rifle bearing the logo of a small British Columbia company shouldn’t be visible in social media videos from Sudan, Libya, or Yemen.
Yet that is exactly what a CBC News visual investigation has now documented — again.
UNAMID/Albert González Farran The war between rival militaries has claimed hundreds of thousands of lives and driven millions from their homes. (file photo)
The discovery is raising urgent questions about the Canadian arms trade, the enforcement of arms embargoes, and the gap between Canada’s stated values and its real-world record on weapons accountability.
The company is Sterling Cross Defense Systems, based in Abbotsford, B.C. The rifle is its XLCR precision bolt-action model. And the fighters brandishing it in verified photographs and videos are members of Sudan’s Rapid Support Forces (RSF) — a paramilitary group accused of civilian massacres, torture, and war crimes.
Images were first provided to CBC News by an online user known as streakingdelilah. CBC independently sourced and verified all photos and videos, sharing them with researchers at Bellingcat and the Centre for Information Resilience, which runs the Sudan Witness project.
Upgrade to paid
A pattern, not an anomaly
In November 2025, CBC verified at least nine separate images of RSF fighters carrying Sterling Cross XLCR rifles throughout Sudan — some geolocated, others confirmed by matching the distinctive logo on the rifle. The images date back to at least 2023.
The RSF has been one of the primary actors in a conflict that has killed an estimated 150,000 people and internally displaced more than 12 million civilians. The city of El Fasher, besieged for months, fell to RSF forces in October 2024, with reports of horrific civilian massacres following immediately after.
This week, CBC published a follow-up investigation showing the problem is not limited to Sudan. Canadian-made Sterling Cross rifles are now visible in the hands of a Libyan militia unit, and are openly advertised for sale online by arms dealers in Yemen’s capital, Sanaa. CBC identified a specific serial number on one of the rifles offered for sale in Yemen.
Canada has had an arms embargo on Sudan since 2004
Canada has officially maintained an arms embargo on Sudan for over two decades. Material and financial sanctions against entities involved in Sudan’s conflict were added in 2024. Sudan, Libya, and Yemen are all subject to Canadian arms restrictions — and, in several cases, UN arms embargoes — precisely because they are home to groups responsible for widespread human rights abuses and mass killings.
Yet the rifles showed up anyway.
The United Arab Emirates connection
Experts point to the United Arab Emirates as a likely intermediary. The UAE has long supplied the RSF, and Canada exports significant quantities of weapons and military equipment there.
As Emadeddin Badi, a senior fellow at the Global Initiative Against Transnational Organized Crime, told CBC: the UAE “does not have a domestic defence industry of its own robust enough to supply multiple paramilitary groups across the region” — making it a documented re-routing hub for Western arms flowing into conflict zones.
Prime Minister Carney at the UAE
Our Prime Minister arrived in the UAE last fall to a lavish military welcome put on by UAE Industry Minister Sultan al-Jaber. There was no press conference, and no opportunity for journalists to witness the meetings.
At the close of the visit, Prime Minister Mark Carney said Ottawa is working on a $1-billion project aimed at expanding critical minerals processing capacity in Canada, while securing the equivalent of $70 billion in investment from the United Arab Emirates.
“We welcome UAE investors to visit Canada — I will personally host them — to explore investment in Canada’s transformative projects,” he said, reported The Canadian Press.
Carney also told reporters that he raised the Sudan civil war with UAE President Sheikh Mohamed bin Zayed Al Nahyan, whose government denies accusations it is fuelling ethnic violence in that country.
“We did discuss the situation in Sudan,” Carney said, adding that this centred on the so-called Quad process, where the U.S., the UAE, Saudi Arabia and Egypt are working on “establishing a ceasefire and peace consistent with the initiative of President Trump.”
Canada not doing enough
It seems clear that the conflict between Canada seeking investment from the UAE is conflicting with the need to confront the Middle Eastern country over illicit sales of Canadian-made arms to RSF forces in Sudan.
“If Canada was doing enough then we wouldn’t see a pattern of the illicit diversion of Canadian weapons systems in violation of UN arms embargoes,” said Kelsey Gallagher of Project Ploughshares.
Canada presents itself to the world as a country committed to human rights, the rule of law, and multilateralism. We sign arms treaties like the Arms Trade Treaty. We impose embargoes. We issue statements of concern.
PeaceQuest readers know that we have frequently pointed out that the growing danger of Canadian arms exports ending up in terrible conflicts or the hands of human rights offenders is a growing threat.
Prime Minister Mark Carney made a pledge in February to expand Canada’s arms industries by 50%. This will be accomplished through a combination of massive Canadian military spending on local contracts, and sales of weapons abroad.
But Canada’s laws that aim to ensure that these weapons don’t end up in the “wrong hands” are completely inadequate.
Peace advocates and human rights defenders in Canada have been raising these concerns for years. The CBC investigations have now provided the documentary evidence the public needs to demand action. The question is whether the government will respond — or wait for the next investigation to reveal the next batch of Canadian-made weapons in the next war zone.
But the main point of Fred's article is that, instead of Canada just buying the stuff it might need, we are in a growing position to MAKE our own (and, hopefully, resell it to countries that are more like-minded to us), rather than just buying stuff made elsewhere.
Totally agree with you that we don't want to see Canadian-made stuff end up in some of the places where it does. And while a general assessment of the whole problem could be summed up as "a small problem in the overall supply. But not an insignificant problem that shouldn't warrant attention" -- meaning, most of the time, things are okay. But there's enough weakness in the supply chain that some stuff gets into the wrong hands, so better controls are in order.
But unfortunately, in the modern world, where bullies with large militaries think they can do whatever they wish (despite the law) -- Canada definitely must become a military manufacturer. But to your big point - we do need to figure out ways to tighten the supply chain to really minimize the abuse.
Hypothetical example (though hopefully a real one soon): If we start making Gripens in Canada, eventually with some of them ending up in Ukraine (per Saab's announcement to provide them with a whole bunch of planes), how do we make sure some future (or current) Ukrainian military person doesn't redirect a couple of planes to Iran/Sudan/etc.? I won't go on further -- and something like aircraft are far easier to track than small arms/bullets -- but realistically, after the War is over, is it realistic that a country like Ukraine might have too many planes, and then decides to sell them (to get money for reconstruction)? And what if Israel/Iran/Sudan/whoever is the buyer, especially if they are currently in peacetime with the world?
Important problem to solve (or at least limit the undesirable outcomes).
Good points, Grant, but I don't see how supply chain controls can be imposed. Once a piece of hardware or software is out in the world, Canada cannot control what others do with it. I just feel creepy about celebrating that Canada is increasing its arms manufacturing. Maybe it is just the world we live in.
. . . and you hit the problem, squarely on the head. Yes, it's near-impossible to tighten the supply chain (though at the moment, we should attempt to do).
Part of the problem (though not all), is that what Canadian arms manufacturing we do largely is sold to USA (and under very slack export rules, as they are our "friends and allies"). So what becomes of our stuff after that, we have very little control. I believe many of the bullets and small arms that you mentioned entered the Israel/Gaza theatre that way.
Now before I blame this all on the Americans, we certainly have done some direct sales to Israel and UAE (the latter being some equipment that then showed up in Sudan conflicts). So we do need some better effort in general at trying to minimize negative outcomes (and as you say, that's pretty hard to do).
The rock/hard place Canada faces on the topic of arms manufacturing (to defend ourselves) is that our market isn't big enough to do this properly. So if we do build a domestic market for our own defence (Gripens, submarines, drones, what-have-you), it almost always is 1) dependent on a joint-venture with some other country (who is also largely in the same predicament as us), and thus have to encourage export sales just to support the research/development and/or manufacturing scale.
This is one of the reasons why Saab is so eager to partner with Canada, and two (actually three) countries want our submarine business so badly that they are proposing significant economic investment here.
Rock, meet hard place.
(but politicians, really do look into how the heck the bad sides occur and give serious thought as to how to prevent it as much as possible).
That's a thoughtful analysis, Grant.
The reality is that there are no perfect answers here.
A country that can't build critical defence equipment becomes dependent on others, but a country that does build it has a responsibility to minimize misuse.
As you say, it's a rock-and-hard-place problem.
The challenge isn't avoiding it... it's managing it responsibly.
Fair comment, Steven.
I don't celebrate war.
What I do celebrate is Canada building capacity, creating jobs, and becoming less dependent on a single market.
The challenge, as you point out, is making sure strong controls follow the products we export.
Good points, Grant.
I think most Canadians would agree that stronger end-user controls are worth pursuing.
The reality, though, is that in today's world Canada can't simply outsource its defence needs and hope for the best.
Building the capacity to manufacture critical equipment at home strengthens both our security and our economy.
The challenge is making sure those products stay in the right hands.
Steven, the article wasn't about celebrating war or ignoring concerns about arms exports.
Those concerns are legitimate and governments have a responsibility to ensure export controls are enforced.
The point of this piece was that a Canadian company successfully entered a European procurement market through a lawful agreement between Canada and the EU.
That's a discussion about trade, diversification, and economic strategy, not an endorsement of how weapons are used once they leave the factory.
Quite true, but the point can be lost if trade, diversification, and economic strategy are isolated and not discussed in a larger context that includes the consequences.
Fair enough, Steven.
Consequences matter.
My focus in this article was on the diversification strategy itself and what it means for Canada's future.
Both discussions are worth having.