Bill S-9

An Act to amend the Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act

This enactment amends the Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act by deleting the schedule to that Act and the references to that schedule in that Act, in order to avoid potential discrepancies between the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on their Destruction, as amended from time to time, and the portions of that Convention that are reproduced in that schedule.

Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act

[Gudie Hutchings, Liberal, Long Range Mountains, NL]

moved that Bill S-9, An Act to amend the Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I am very proud today to rise to speak in this House on Bill S-9, an act that would amend the Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act, and the important efforts to eliminate the use of chemical weapons globally.

I need to say the government was deeply disturbed and disappointed in how not once but twice the Conservative opposition has blocked the debate on this bill. I am glad we are finally here today.

On the eve of the Day of Remembrance for all Victims of Chemical Warfare, the Conservatives blocked debate on the bill, a bill to modernize the very act that would help those victims, the Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act. It also includes novichok, a deadly nerve agent implicated in multiple poisonings likely conducted by Russia.

Conservatives also did this just days before Remembrance Day, when we commemorate the thousands of brave Canadians who have fallen in defence of our freedoms, some of whom were among the first to fall victims of the horror of chemical warfare in Ypres in 1915.

More than century ago, during the second battle of Ypres, Canadian soldiers were among the very first in human history to fall victim to the horrors of chemical warfare when 160 tonnes of chlorine gas were released toward Canadian lines. By the end of the battle, 6,035 young Canadians, more than one in three, were killed or wounded by the new and terrifying weapon. By the end of the conflict, more than a million people suffered the effects of this new kind of warfare: chemical warfare.

Today, as we see the devastating images of the victims of war and conflict like never before from Khartoum to Kyiv to Khan Younis, it is incumbent on all of us to do what we can to promote peace and to work vigorously toward a world free of chemical weapons and other weapons of mass destruction. The use of chemical weapons to injure or kill is a vile act of barbarism and regrettably one that, despite our best efforts, has not yet been confined to the annals of history.

While the use of chemicals in war has a long history dating back to ancient times, advances in science and technology, with the possibility of creating so much good for so many people, have also been harnessed on an industrial scale to cause death and destruction. Thankfully, at the conclusion of the conflict, the Geneva Protocol was launched, which prohibited the use in war of either of these categories of weapons of mass destruction.

The way in which the consequences of chemical weapons on the battlefield left no one untouched demonstrated the sheer inhumanity of these types of weapons. However, the protocol did not prohibit their development or production. Consequently, for decades to follow, countries continued to develop massive chemical weapons stockpiles.

After more than two decades of effort, on September 3, 1992, the text of a Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on their Destruction was sent to the General Assembly of the United Nations by the UN Conference on Disarmament.

Canada signed it on the very first day, January 13, 1993, and proceeded to fully ratify it. The Chemical Weapons Convention entered into force on April 29, 1997. That same year, the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, OPCW, was formed to oversee the convention's implementation, supervise destruction of declared chemical weapons stockpiles and inspect the world's chemical industries to help ensure chemical weapons would never return.

Thirty years later, the Chemical Weapons Convention remains a key pillar of the rules-based international system. More than 190 states are party to it, making it the most widely adopted treaty on non-proliferation and disarmament. The convention's prohibitions are clear and comprehensive. No country party to the convention may develop, produce, acquire, stockpile, retain or use chemical weapons. They may not transfer chemical weapons to another party or otherwise enable another country or non-state actor to develop them. It affirms the right for all parties to engage in the free trade of chemicals and technology for peaceful purposes and that the prohibition on chemical weapons should not hamper unnecessarily the growth of the chemical industry and progress in chemical research. We need that as human beings. On that latter point, the OPCW employs numerous programs to promote chemical science and chemical industry, all for peaceful purposes, around the globe.

As of July 2023, the OPCW supervised and verified the destruction of 100% of the world's declared chemical weapons.

Unfortunately, the legal prohibition has not yet fully eliminated the risk of chemical weapon use. Since the CWC entered into force, chemical weapons have been used in multiple instances, even by countries that are party to the convention.

Competent international bodies, including the OPCW-UN joint investigation mechanism and the OPCW investigation and identification team have concluded that the Syrian Arab Republic used both the chemical warfare agent sarin and the toxic industrial chemical chlorine as weapons against opposition forces on no fewer than nine occasions and likely more.

The terrorist group Daesh used mustard gas in both Syria and Iraq. Kim Jong-nam, half-brother of North Korean leader Kim Jong-un, was assassinated with the nerve agent venomous agent X, or VX, in the Kuala Lumpur International Airport in February 2017, an act widely believed to have been orchestrated by the North Korean state.

In March 2018, a more complicated development occurred. Sergei Skripal, a former Russian military intelligence officer living in the United Kingdom, and his daughter, were found to have been poisoned by novichok, an extremely toxic nerve agent developed by the Soviet Union. The attempt at assassination left both Skripals and police detective Nick Bailey in the hospital for several months.

The novichok was believed to have been administered to the front door of Mr. Skripal's house using a perfume bottle, subsequently discarded in a public bin, which, when discovered by a local, believing it to be perfume, resulted in two further hospitalizations and the death of Dawn Sturgess. When the police recovered the bottle from Ms. Sturgess's home in nearby Amesbury, they assessed it to contain sufficient novichok to kill thousands of people. Eight locations had to be decontaminated to remove any trace of novichok, taking several months and costing millions of pounds.

Canada and its allies concluded that the state agencies of the Russian Federation were highly likely responsible for that attack. The British government identified and indicted, in absentia, three Russian intelligence agents.

Canada condemned the attack. The Prime Minister and then-foreign affairs minister issued statements. Four Russian diplomats were expelled from the Russian embassy in Ottawa and the consulate general in Montreal as part of an unprecedented collective response.

In total, 153 Russian diplomats were expelled from 29 countries, including some accredited to the NATO headquarters in Brussels.

The Chemical Weapons Convention contains an annex on chemicals, a list covering most chemical warfare agents and their precursors across three schedules.

Schedule 1 chemicals have only one use: to injure, to kill. They cannot be used in industry and so are prohibited from all purposes except for research and training for protection and defence against themselves, against chemical weapons.

Schedules 2 and 3 chemicals have increasing use in industry and so are subject to fewer controls, with the goal of preventing chemical weapons proliferation while avoiding unnecessarily hampering industry and trade and the benefit of humanity.

At the time of the Salisbury attack, novichoks were not on the annex on chemicals, thus not subject to declaration and verification requirements. It must be made clear that a novichok, as a weapon, indeed, any toxic chemical as a weapon, has always been a violation of the Chemical Weapons Convention, in accordance with the broad definition of a chemical weapon in article II.

Still, Canada and our close allies quickly took the position that the world would be much safer if novichoks were subject to OPCW monitoring like any other chemical warfare agent.

On November 29, 2019, as the result of tremendous leadership by Canada, the United States and the Netherlands, the Twenty-Fourth Session of the Conference of the States Parties to the Chemical Weapons Convention took the unprecedented decision to add four new categories of toxic chemicals to schedule 1.

This included the novichok used in the attempted assassination of Sergei Skripal. As a result of this amendment, states handling novichoks for defensive purposes such as research, development and testing of new protective gear or medical countermeasures or training police or armed forces in responding to their use must declare their activities to the OPCW and be subject to verification.

This amendment is also symbolic. The toxic chemical used as a weapon in Salisbury is now included in the same list of chemical weapons as sarin, mustard and VX.

The additions to the CWC's “Annex on Chemicals” came into force on June 7, 2020. The Chemical Weapons Convention requires that all states parties put in place domestic legislation to apply the convention's prohibitions to their citizens and all people on their territory. That is what Bill S-9 is about.

In Canada, this is done through the Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act, which makes it illegal for anyone in Canada, as well as Canadian citizens abroad, to develop, produce, acquire, stockpile, retain, transfer, use, prepare to use or assist in the use of chemical weapons.

It also prohibits Canadians from producing, possessing or using schedule 1 chemicals without explicit government authorization. Since June 7, 2020, this has included the four recently added categories. The CWCIA still contains a copy of the convention's original annex on chemicals, which has been out of date since 2020.

While subsection 2(3) states unambiguously that the provisions of the Chemical Weapons Convention take precedence should there be disagreement with the act, it is important for us to fix this discrepancy and show leadership on this important issue in this place. To this end, Bill S-9 seeks to repeal the schedule from the act, and repeal or amend two subsections that reference it. These changes would not just realign Canadian legislation with our international obligations but also future-proof it in case of further amendments in the future.

This bill is something all parties should agree to easily and expedite immediately. It has already passed through the other place without objection, so I hope that can happen in this place as well.

This legislation alone does not eliminate the risk of foreign states, such as Russia; non-signatories; or non-state actors, such as terrorist groups, using chemical weapons for nefarious purposes. It does, however, underscore Canada's steadfast support for the Chemical Weapons Convention and for other key agreements that form an essential part of the rules-based system that keep Canada, all Canadians and our allies safe.

As the foreign minister outlined the other week, our system, as well as our world, is cracking. The international rules-based order is under attack, and the world is increasingly marked by geopolitical turbulence, unpredictability and uncertainty. We must, therefore, continue to show leadership on the international stage, as we have in the past.

Canada can be proud of our leadership on these important issues, which also includes former foreign minister Lloyd Axworthy's landmark work on the Ottawa treaty to ban land mines; the launch of the Global Partnership Against the Spread of Weapons and Materials of Mass Destruction, which occurred when former prime minister Chrétien hosted the world leaders in Kananaskis in 2002; and work to spearhead the international convention prohibiting cluster munitions. These are all important, critical parts of keeping our world safe.

Another critical tool is diplomacy, which cannot help but strengthen our ability to maintain the safety and security of Canada and Canadians. We must work with allies and our partners to keep our world safe through a world security infrastructure. That is why we increased our footprint in the world. Diplomacy leads to better activity, which leads to a lesser degree of peace in our world being threatened. That is why we continue to do all that work.

We have missions around the world; our diplomats regularly coordinate with our allies and partners, as well as engaging host governments on the importance of buttressing our work on this convention. It was through concerted advocacy around the world that we were able to adapt the convention to the modern realities of today's world. It is through diplomacy that we continue to build peace. It is a trying challenge. It is something that we need to commit to every day in this place. It means we continue to monitor the situation, adapt and take legislation we have in this House, this place and this government, and adapt it to modern realities.

Our words need to be backed by meaningful actions, notably through funding the weapons threat reduction program housed within Global Affairs Canada. It represents Canada's flagship contribution to the G7-led Global Partnership Against the Spread of Weapons and Materials of Mass Destruction, hosted by former prime minister Jean Chrétien in Kananaskis, Alberta, in 2002.

Canada has contributed more than $1.6 billion towards threat reduction activities worldwide, including destroying chemical weapons and combatting their spread. This includes supporting the destruction of declared chemical weapons in Russia, Syria, Iraq and Libya.

Through the weapons threat reduction program, Canada is the single largest donor country to the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, which was set up to implement the CWC. It was honoured with the 2013 Nobel Peace Prize for its effort to supervise the destruction of more than 98% of declared global stocks of chemical weapons. With our $10 million commitment, Canada is the top individual donor to the OPCW's new Centre for Chemistry and Technology in The Hague, which opened this past May. The centre will strengthen and bolster the organization's investigative capacities and capabilities and support innovative efforts to keep pace with the ever-evolving chemical weapons landscape.

Canada has also provided defensive equipment, including masks and filters, to the Ukrainian military, given the threat of chemical weapons use by Russian forces. Let us be very clear: This bill is also about the defence of Ukraine against the illegal invasion of Russia into its territory. To counter Russian efforts to undermine the global norm against chemical weapons use, Canada has worked in close concert with allies to demand that Russia fully declare its novichok program.

Our government will continue to be a leader on the global stage and ensure that Russia is held accountable for its aggressions against Ukraine. This may be through providing defensive equipment or through Bill C-57, the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement, which Conservatives have voted against multiple times, to support the rebuilding of Ukraine when we win.

In August 2020, when Russian opposition figure Alexei Navalny—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

If members have questions they should wait for questions and comments.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

Madam Speaker, I look forward to the questions.

In August 2020, when Russian opposition figure Alexei Navalny was poisoned by a novichok agent, one that was sufficiently different from the novichok agent used against Sergei Skripal that it is not covered by the amended “Annex on Chemicals,” Canada's Minister of Foreign Affairs strongly condemned the assassination attempt. Moreover, Canada joined our G7 partners and NATO allies, which made similar statements.

We have continued the close coordination of advocacy and, as recently as August, announced sanctions against senior officials of the Russian government, judiciary and investigative committee, as well as federally funded courts. This includes the notorious Basmanny District Court, which has been directly involved in human rights abuses against Russian opposition leaders, including Alexei Navalny, Vladimir Kara-Murza and other Russian citizens.

Even now, as President Putin continues his war of aggression by Russia against Ukraine, Canada is working hand in hand with allies to counter blatant disinformation on chemical weapons by Russia. Moreover, it is preparing to hold Russia to account should it choose to use chemical weapons in Ukraine. This would be a bad decision on Russia's part.

Canada has joined its G7 partners in demanding information from Russia regarding allegations, supported by reports from Russian state-controlled media, that the Russian military has dropped grenades filled with a riot-control agent from drones in occupied Ukrainian territory. This would be another blatant violation of the Chemical Weapons Convention.

The threat of a resurgence in chemical weapons use is real. Canada will play a key role in upholding the tools of the rules-based international order that keep us safe, including the Chemical Weapons Convention. We will also continue in our fight against flagrant violations of international law and global norms. This legislation will bring us in line. It will signal to the world that we are serious about keeping up with the convention and that we will continue to move in pace as industry changes, as technologies emerge and as people continue to be unsafe.

Canada will stand on the right side. I ask all member of the House to support this bill, so we can get it done and bring it home.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Madam Speaker, I will be giving some remarks shortly on this; not to pre-empt them, but we support the bill.

I listened to the member's speech, and he saw fit to blame the opposition for this bill not having passed sooner. It should have been passed in the 43rd Parliament, not brought up on the last day before Christmas. Could he maybe take this opportunity to explain to Canadians why Liberals prorogued the House with this on the Order Paper in 2020 and why they called a snap election in 2021?

The member went there in his speech. Could he apologize for blaming Conservatives for the government's mismanagement of its calendar and for twice failing to get this bill approved?

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

Madam Speaker, the government does not live in the past. We live in the present.

We are very much looking at the future as we engage in this legislation. This is an important bill, which has been part of the antics of the opposition in this session of Parliament. Our government House leader called the Conservatives on it yesterday to remind them that perhaps they need a time out. Perhaps, when it comes to the eve of the day of remembrance for victims of chemical warfare, it is absolutely abhorrent to stop the piece of legislation by moving motions that are irrelevant in our House and doing the same activity.

Let us get over the antics. Let us get the work of this House done. Let us work on the international rules-based order. Let us move on and be grownups.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Order, order. The hon. members have had an opportunity to ask their questions. If they have more questions, they should wait.

It is not good to be throwing insults at members as they speak. I want to remind members to be respectful.

[Andrew Scheer, Conservative, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am hoping you will find unanimous consent for this motion, that for the sole purpose of disposing of—

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

There is no consent.

I am sure the hon. official opposition House leader knows that, if he is looking for unanimous consent, it is best to talk to the other House leaders to obtain it. If it is not obtained, then he knows it is not going to be accepted in the House.

The hon. member for Saint-Jean.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to pick up on the question asked by my colleague from Calgary Rocky Ridge. This bill has been debated several times at the Senate. It was supposed to be debated here in the House since Parliament opened, but it has been deferred several times.

This bill has garnered fairly broad consensus. It was passed quickly in the Senate because it is relatively simple. We are talking about harmonizing the provisions of the international Chemical Weapons Convention with domestic law. There is no issue with the substance of the bill.

The government says that it is the Conservatives' fault that this bill has not really been debated in the House. However, it could have been debated much sooner if Parliament had not prorogued in 2021, since the bill had already been introduced in 2020.

I would just like to know if the government can take even a small share of the blame for the fact that this bill has still not been passed.

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

Madam Speaker, I think that certainly bears repeating. We are now here, in the present. It is an opportunity for all members of the House to share their thoughts on the bill. We will have the opportunity to do something else in the new year.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the member's intervention on this important issue.

My question goes to the heart of an issue that many of my constituents of North Island—Powell River have. We know that there are currently 93 signatory countries to the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, including Mexico, New Zealand and Brazil. We know that Canada, shockingly, refuses to join the treaty.

Could the member explain to my constituents why that is?

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

Madam Speaker, that is an important question.

The proliferation of nuclear weapons continues to be a huge scourge on humanity. The Government of Canada has chosen to work with our allies through a variety of means. We continue to do that. We monitor that treaty very closely. We talk to our allies that are signatories to it.

At the present time, we will continue to find the best ways forward on this under the conventions that we have already signed and will continue to work for a world free of nuclear weapons.