Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by acknowledging the sincere intention of my NDP colleague, the member for Vancouver East. Above all, bill C-233 is based on a completely valid concern, that of ensuring that Canadian exports do not contribute to human rights violations or armed conflicts. I think that everyone here in the House can agree on this fundamental objective of defending human rights and upholding international law.
That said, recognizing that legislation is well-intentioned does not necessarily mean that the proposed measures are the right ones. As I said, it is completely valid to ensure that the weapons, ammunition and military equipment produced in Canada, including dual-use equipment, are not used against civilians. The Bloc Québécois is concerned about the situation in Gaza, which is why we proposed several realistic measures that could help to improve it, including repeatedly calling for a complete moratorium on arms exports to Israel.
The Bloc Québécois has always been critical of arms export to countries that violate human rights, such as, for example, Saudi Arabia. We also strongly oppose the export of light armoured vehicles to that country, which is known for its systematic human rights violations. While the Bloc Québécois has never hesitated to denounce Benjamin Netanyahu's deadly policies, the question is whether Bill C‑233 would have a real impact on the situation in Palestine or elsewhere in the world. The Bloc Québécois believes that it is preferable for the government to have some discretion, which promotes predictability and allows for pressure to be applied on rogue countries.
The Bloc Québécois recognizes the importance of better regulating military exports to avoid any complicity in human rights violations. However, we believe that the current wording of the bill is too rigid and too broad to achieve its objectives. As a result, we unfortunately cannot support it. Bill C‑233 primarily seeks to address a sobering international situation, but in our view, it adds overly restrictive conditions and limitations.
Although well-intentioned, Bill C‑233 raises a number of concerns. We are obviously aware that the situation with the United States is unique because of the agreement under which Canada is considered a domestic supplier. Indeed, under American law, since 1956, Canadian manufacturers have been considered domestic suppliers, allowing them to integrate the Pentagon's supply chain and to participate in research and development projects in America's defence apparatus.
In reality, it seems this bill would have two possible outcomes: Either the United States will stop procuring from Canada or it will simply not comply. Indeed, the United States could simply circumvent the restrictions in this bill. The idea that the United States would start asking for Canada's approval to ship small arms and light weapons is wishful thinking.
Since the tariff crisis began, it has become quite clear to us that we have little, if any, control over the decisions that are made by the United States. If Canada and Quebec stop supplying the United States, it will change suppliers, and Israel will still receive arms and munitions from the United States. Passing this bill would not even achieve its intended goal, and chances are that its greatest impact would be to weaken a number of our industries, which are already suffering from American tariffs, and I think everyone in this House wants to avoid that. As I said earlier, the intent of the bill is certainly more than respectable, but we feel that, in its present form, it would only yield mixed results. I believe that we should rather keep working at improving existing mechanisms in partnership with our allies and with all the relevant stakeholders.
The measure proposed under Bill C‑233 is also unenforceable because it stipulates that Canada should prevent arms and munitions exports if there is any risk of misuse. Let us face it: There is no such thing as zero risk. It is also a difficult term to define.
Indeed, while genocide is obviously enough to justify the denial of an export licence, the threshold of attacks directed against “civilian objects...protected as such” is rather vague. Moreover, I have serious doubts about Canada's ability to quickly obtain the information needed to make a decision without relying on in-depth investigations by recognized organizations that often have much better knowledge of the situation in the various war zones.
Thus, in our view, it would be best to leave government some discretion rather than opting for an approach that seems difficult to apply, like the one proposed under Bill C‑233. That does not mean, however, that we should abandon our commitment to a responsible approach that respects international human rights and is based on a balanced legislative framework. I would like to reiterate that we appreciate the intent of the bill. Unfortunately, however, we believe that passing this bill would miss the mark regarding military exports.
It should also be noted that Canada has one of the strictest arms export control systems in the world, particularly since its accession to the Arms Trade Treaty. That framework already imposes on the government a duty to assess the risks associated with military exports, including the possibility that the equipment may be used to commit serious violations of international humanitarian law. I acknowledge that it is far from perfect, but in our attempt to close certain perceived loopholes, I fear that we may complicate a system that is already governed by rigorous control mechanisms.
I believe we have a collective responsibility to find the right balance between coercion, protecting human rights and honouring international commitments. For these reasons, while we sincerely commend the dedication of the member for Vancouver East, we cannot support Bill C‑233 in its current form. That is why we will not support it as written by the New Democratic Party at this time. Again, this does not mean that we do not commend the member for Vancouver East's objective.