Canadians deserve to know details about the due diligence Global Affairs Canada performs when approving export permits for arms sales to rampant human rights abusers like Saudi Arabia.

Canadians shouldn’t expect the federal government to swear off facilitating trade deals with repressive regimes entirely. Such a policy wouldn’t be possible — and besides, isolating a country isn’t always the best way to prod it toward better behaviour.

Canadians should expect, however, that such deals be part of a broader foreign policy that works to improve the world, and to pursue Canada’s interests in it. And they should expect to see that policy in action, without having to take the government’s word for it. For starters, they need to know more about the human rights assessments drawn up for Global Affairs Canada when Canadian contractors ask for permission to sell weapons overseas. It’s a critical part of the public’s ability to decide whether Canada is benefiting economically from preventable misery in other nations.

And shining a light on how Canada justifies arms sales could be good for the federal government as well. Foreign Affairs Minister Stéphane Dion, who faced new questions this week about London, Ont.-based General Dynamics’ $15 billion contract to supply light-armoured vehicles to Saudi Arabia, recently unveiled a tagline for the Liberal government’s vision on foreign affairs; he called it “responsible conviction.” While the Liberals are attempting to articulate a position that makes room for both selfish and altruistic aims, their mantra lacks precision and detail. Under the umbrella of ‘responsible conviction’, the Liberals can set their moral redlines wherever they chose. By explaining the threshold for human rights protections in the export permit process, Dion could give Canadians a clearer idea of what ‘responsible conviction’ actually means.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau spoke of the Saudi deal as a continuity-of-government issue on Thursday, saying that Canada can’t afford a reputation for tearing up commercial contracts because of a change in government. That’s a fair observation, although it’s slightly hypocritical given the fact that the Liberals promised to scrap plans to buy Lockheed Martin’s F-35 jet fighters during the election (only to waffle on the contract once in power).

But Trudeau could strengthen continuity by making public more aspects of the human rights assessments. By having a clear idea of what’s at stake in these assessments, they’ll become less political. To debate them, antagonists will have to delve into their contents. Right now, they make easy fodder for anyone prepared to blast them with innuendo and conspiracy theories.

Dion has promised to release the documents that helped him come to the decision to sign General Dynamics’ export permits. These documents, he said, will show that the LAVs are unlikely to be used on civilians and that they will be used to pursue interests Canada shares — such as reducing the scope and influence of the Islamic State. But the devil will be in the details.

There are two critical documents. One is a human rights assessment of the actual contract and the second is a human rights report on Saudi Arabia itself. Canadians need to know details about the first — not just the more general findings of the country assessment, a sanitized copy of which Dion has promised to release. And second, Canadians need to know the scope of the LAV-specific assessment; how many factors were taken into consideration?

The federal government can’t avoid the tough moral questions that come with pursuing any foreign policy. But it can clear the mystery around its decisions to approve arms sales. Giving the public an accurate picture of foreign affairs — now that takes responsible conviction.