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.

Indian Act

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

Mr. Speaker, today I stand before you to discuss a monumental step forward in our nation's journey toward reconciliation and justice for first nations communities. The proposed legislation, Bill C-38, seeks to amend the Indian Act in response to long-standing concerns voiced by first nations individuals and communities, as well as to address the residual discriminatory impacts highlighted by the Nicholas v. AGC litigation.

For too long, the Indian Act has been a source of division and inequality, its outdated provisions casting long shadows over the promise of equity and unity. Bill C-38 represents a pivotal moment in our collective history, a chance to right the wrongs of the past and lay the groundwork for a future where justice and equality are not just ideals but realities.

The proposed changes would be both comprehensive and transformative. First, the bill seeks to eliminate known sex-based membership inequalities from the act. This would be a critical step toward ensuring that all first nations individuals, regardless of gender, have equal rights and opportunities. By addressing these sex-based inequalities, we would not only uphold the principles of justice and fairness, but would also honour the resilience and dignity of those who have fought tirelessly for these changes.

Second, the legislation aims to address inequities caused by the practice of enfranchisement. This historical practice, which stripped first nations individuals of their status and rights, has left deep scars on communities. By rectifying these injustices, we would acknowledge the wrongs of the past and take a significant step toward healing and reconciliation.

Additionally, Bill C-38 would allow for deregistration from the Indian register. This change would recognize the autonomy and agency of first nations individuals, providing them with the freedom to define their own identities and affiliations. It would be a move toward self-determination, empowering individuals to make choices that reflect their personal beliefs and circumstances.

It is essential to emphasize the gravity of enfranchisement. The process unjustly stripped thousands of first nations individuals of their status, severing their ties to their communities and heritage. Although the practice was abolished 35 years ago, the shadows it cast are long and dark, with its harmful legacy still felt today. The scars left by enfranchisement are not merely historical footnotes; they are also lived realities for many, manifesting in lost connections, identities and rights.

In alignment with our commitment to reconciliation, and guided by the wisdom of first nations partners, our government is dedicated to confronting and eliminating these registration inequalities at a systemic level. Bill C-38 is not just a legislative measure; it is a testament to our resolve to address these injustices head on. By targeting these inequities, we are taking a stand against the vestiges of policies designed to assimilate and erase first nations identities.

Moreover, the bill's commitment to eradicating sex-based discrimination in the Indian Act would address a critical aspect of inequality that has persisted for far too long. These discriminatory practices, embedded in the act, have undermined the principle of equality and fairness. By confronting these injustices, Bill C-38 would be setting a precedent for the kind of nation we aspire to be, one where equality is not just a principle but also a practice.

Let us recognize that Bill C-38 represents a step forward in our journey towards reconciliation. It is a journey that requires our collective effort, commitment and compassion. As we move forward, let us do so with the understanding that true reconciliation involves acknowledging the past, rectifying injustices and working towards a future where the rights and dignity of all first nations peoples are respected and upheld.

Bill C-38 would commit to removing outdated and offensive language found in the Indian Act. Language shapes our perceptions and attitudes, and by eliminating derogatory terms, we foster a more respectful and inclusive dialogue. This change is not just about updating terminology; it is about reshaping the narrative and affirming the dignity of all first nations people.

In our journey toward progress and inclusivity, we encounter a significant obstacle: our legal code, a labyrinth of statutes, some of which date back a long time to a previous era. Among these laws are provisions that no longer reflect our current values, ethics and understanding. Even more concerning, some contain language that is offensive, discriminatory and wholly out of step with today’s standards of respect and equality.

The task before us is not merely administrative; it is morally imperative. To rectify the situation, we must undertake a comprehensive review of our legal system. The review should not only identify outdated and offensive provisions but also evaluate the relevance and applicability of laws in the contemporary context. The goal is not to erase history but to ensure that our legal framework is just, equitable and reflective of the society we aspire to be.

The process requires a collaborative effort involving legal experts, historians, ethicists and, importantly, the community at large. Public consultation would ensure that the process is transparent, inclusive and sensitive to the diverse needs and values of our society. Technology can aid in this endeavour, enabling more efficient review and broader engagement. Moreover, this effort presents an opportunity for educational outreach, helping the public understand the evolution of our legal system and the importance of laws that are just, inclusive and respectful. By engaging in this critical work, we affirm our commitment to democracy, justice and the dignity of all individuals.

The bill includes further required consequential amendments to ensure that the act would reflect the values of equality, respect and justice. These changes are not merely administrative; they are a testament to our commitment to addressing historical injustices and building a more equitable society.

Bill C-38 is more than simply legislation; it is a beacon of hope. It signifies a profound shift in our relationship with first nations communities, one rooted in respect, understanding, and partnership. As we move forward, let us do so with open hearts and minds, committed to the principles of reconciliation and equity.

Together we can build a future that honours the rich heritage and contributions of first nations peoples, ensuring that our nation's legacy is one of unity, justice, and mutual respect. The path to modernizing our legal system is both a challenge and an opportunity. It is an opportunity to reaffirm our values, to strengthen our democracy and to build a more inclusive society. Together let us embark on this journey with determination and hope.

Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, the member says he is recommending swift adoption, yet the childish behaviour we have witnessed from the Conservative Party, which comes from the Conservative House leadership, is truly amazing. Think about it: The last time we attempted to bring Bill S-9 to debate, the Conservatives moved a motion of concurrence in order to prevent members from debating it. They moved that motion in order to filibuster the legislation.

At the beginning of his comments, the member said that they want to debate the legislation, yet he prevents the debate from occurring, and now he says that he would like swift passage of the legislation. It is totally amazing and mind-blowing how the Conservative Party wants to play childish games. If the member supports the legislation, as he says he does, when will the Conservative Party stop playing these childish games and allow legislation to pass into committee?

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

Madam Speaker, it is likely this will be the last time I rise this year, so I wish you a Merry Christmas, as well as all other members of this place and those who support the work we do here, including the parliamentary pages, the desk officers, the Sergeant-at-Arms, the Parliamentary Protective Service and everyone else who helps us do our work on behalf of Canadians. All the best to everyone.

We are on the last day of this session, and the government has called Bill S-9, an act to amend the Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act. As I said earlier in debate, I support the bill, as I understand all of my Conservative colleagues do. It is a very important bill and one that needs to get done.

I must take a moment and register my disappointment that the government chooses to accuse the Conservatives of delay anytime we debate a bill. The parliamentary secretary delivered his remarks, and I am going to deliver mine. There may be other members of the House who want to deliver remarks on the bill. That is the process of debate and that is what we are elected here to do.

Debating a bill is not obstructing a bill, particularly when it is one that members have not yet had an opportunity to weigh in on. I agree that the bill is important and should pass expeditiously, but I will not be told by members of the government and its parliamentary secretaries not to speak because it is our job or duty to just let every bill collapse and go straight to a vote without debate. We are going to have debate on the bill, and I hope that all members will in fact support the bill, as I do.

Bill S-9 would ensure that Canadian law becomes properly aligned with the Chemical Weapons Convention. The convention was the world's first multilateral disarmament agreement to eliminate weapons of mass destruction such as toxic chemicals, poison and biological weapons. The convention was open for signature in Paris on January 13, 1993. Under the Mulroney government, Canada was among the first countries to sign it, and it came into effect on April 29, 1997. Canada's Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act is a Chrétien-era law that implements Canada's obligations under this convention as one of its original signatories.

Bill S-9 is identical in purpose to two bills introduced in the previous Parliament. It was introduced originally as Bill C-9 by the former minister of foreign affairs in the first session of the 43rd Parliament, and was reintroduced as Bill S-2 by Senator Marc Gold in the second session of the 43rd Parliament. Neither of these bills made it through the 43rd Parliament, and to be clear, it was not because of Conservative opposition to them or any procedural wrangling of the Conservative caucus. Bill C-9 was a casualty of the current government's decision to prorogue the House in the summer of 2020 amid the WE Charity scandal. Bill S-2 was a casualty of the current government's decision to call a snap election in the summer of 2021. Now here we are today on the third attempt to get this legislation through Parliament to update Canadian law and ensure that Canadian law aligns with the Chemical Weapons Convention.

Bill S-9 was introduced in the Senate by the government's representative in the Senate, Marc Gold. I thank him for introducing the bill. He did so on June 2, 2022, about a year and a half ago. The bill would make several amendments to the Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act to ensure that the act is consistent with the convention.

Currently, the schedule of the Canadian act does not reflect the Chemical Weapons Convention's latest listing of chemical weapons, which came into effect in June 2020, three and a half years ago. The latest listing of the convention includes additional toxic chemicals under schedule 1, which now includes novichok-style agents. Novichok is a comprehensive label. It encompasses various groups of nerve agents that originated during the Cold War era in the Soviet Union as a part of its chemical weapons program. Future listings of chemicals under the Chemical Weapons Convention are expected to take place from time to time as technology evolves and toxic chemicals and their precursors change and require the list in the convention to be updated.

That is why this bill is important. It is going to ensure that future legislation is not required to update the list of chemicals regulated in Canada under the Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act. This bill would delete the schedule in the Canadian act and replace it with reference to the Chemical Weapons Convention, so that for items listed in the Chemical Weapons Convention, Canadian law will automatically align with changes that are expected to happen from time to time under the convention. To be more precise, Bill S-9 states:

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.

The Chemical Weapons Convention and the Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act are very important, and here is why. Eight years ago, in 2015, Emilian Gebrev was poisoned in Bulgaria by novichok, which, again, is a Soviet era military-grade nerve agent. Five years ago, in 2018, a former Russian spy, Sergei Skripal, and his daughter were poisoned in the United Kingdom using a novichok nerve agent. That was by foreign agents working for the Russian Federation who carried out those attempted assassinations on foreign soil.

As the parliamentary secretary mentioned in his remarks, there is significant danger not only to the victims of Russia's security operations but to random victims as well, because these agents remain in place and any handling of them can result in serious illness or death, as we have seen in the case of the attempts on Sergei Skripal and his daughter's lives. Also, in 2017, Kim Jong Nam, the half-brother of North Korean leader Kim Jong Un, was assassinated with a different nerve agent, but nevertheless an item now covered under the new convention, at the Kuala Lumpur airport in Malaysia. Recently, Russian opposition leader Alexei Navalny was poisoned and placed into an induced coma. Fortunately, he survived.

These events are ongoing, and it is important that Canadian law give us the proper tools to deal with and deter this kind of activity.

Chemical weapons are being used today, and they threaten citizens around the world, including in western countries. The Russian Federation is using novichok. It appears to be one of its weapons of choice for assassinations on foreign soil. It is a lethal nerve agent that even in the smallest quantities can potentially kill thousands of people. It is a threat to the safety and security of western citizens, including Canadians. That is why we must have all tools available to stop the proliferation and use of chemical weapons, including by ensuring that the convention and Canadian law are kept up to date.

Just this year, on July 7, the United States announced that it had in fact destroyed the last of its chemical weapons. This is an important milestone and a testament to the success of the convention. There were 72,304 metric tons of declared chemical weapons destroyed worldwide. However, Russia, having completely destroyed its declared stockpile of chemical weapons, obviously has undeclared stockpiles as well, including novichok, which it uses to target people in western democracies.

Last month, we observed Remembrance Day. Canadians in communities all over Canada joined war veterans to commemorate the sacrifices of members of the Canadian Army, the Royal Canadian Navy and the Royal Canadian Air Force. Remembrance Day was originally called Armistice Day, to commemorate the first anniversary of the armistice. It was commemorated for the first time on that day in 1919 across the British Commonwealth, including in Canada. It marked the agreement that brought an end to the First World War. The occasion of Remembrance Day is an opportunity to reflect on the history of chemical weapons and their use. The First World War has now passed out of living memory, as no one is still alive with a living memory of that time. However, we do remember, and it is important that we do every year, and we recall, as we are debating this update to Canadian law, that during World War I, chemical warfare was employed by all belligerents, including Canada. Germany introduced chlorine gas into the battlefield for the first time during the Second Battle of Ypres. It targeted not only French and Algerian troops but also Canadian troops.

Initially, chemical weapons required very specialized troops for their handling, and relied on things like wind conditions to disperse them across the battlefield. Over time, new delivery systems, including artillery shells and gas projectors, were developed. Unlike chlorine gas, which had a distinctive colour and odour, subsequent gases became colourless and odourless, making their detection much more challenging. In response to these toxic agents, protective measures like gas masks and defensive tools were devised, and by the end of the war, the use of gas had become commonplace, with soldiers routinely donning masks before entering combat. Chemical weapons were used by all belligerents, particularly in the final 100 days of the war. In total, chemical weapons then injured 1.2 million individuals and resulted in 90,000 fatal casualties.

In the lead-up to the Second World War, there was widespread international concern regarding the potential extensive use of chemical weapons. Italy had deployed lethal gas against Abyssinia, and Japan deployed chemical and biological weapons in its invasion of China in 1937 and onward. It is worth noting that in the cases of both the Abyssinian War and the invasion of China, there was a disparity of access to these weapons. Only one side had access to gas, so gas was used by these belligerents.

In the Second World War, both sides possessed chemical weapons but refrained from using them, I guess one could say on an early application of the mutually assured destruction theory; both felt that they had to build up stockpiles, if for no other reason than deterrence. While chemical warfare was not ultimately used during that conflict, the threat of its use on a massive scale remained.

During the 1980s, we saw that Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran and also against its own Kurdish population. Chemical weapons have been used by the Assad regime in Syria, targeting civilians and deliberately killing hundreds of them. We have also seen that Daesh has used chemical weapons in both Syria and Iraq.

There is a long history of failure to ban and control the production and deployment of chemical weapons. Among the earliest examples of attempts to regulate chemical weapons was the Hague convention of 1899, which enacted prohibitions against the use of poisons in warfare and deployment of projectile weapons designed solely for the dissemination of asphyxiating gas. The powers that had ratified the convention then eventually amassed substantial stockpiles of chemical warfare agents and proceeded to use them indiscriminately during the First World War. The Hague convention of 1899 was not effective in preventing their use.

Following the war, the Geneva Protocol of 1925 prohibited the use of chemical weapons, and Canada ratified the protocol but nevertheless actively engaged in research and production of chemical and biological weapons. While there was not widespread use of chemical weapons in the Second World War that followed, the protocol itself did not prevent even countries like Canada that signed it from researching and developing their own chemical weapons capability.

That leads us to the Chemical Weapons Convention that is in force today. The convention includes a verification regime that is administered by the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, which is based in The Hague. It is important that we keep this convention current and that Canada keep its laws current. The convention has been successful. It does lack in some aspects; it is not perfect, and there have been uses since it came into force. For the most part, the convention does not ban, in its schedules, chemicals that act on the central nervous system; there is currently only one such chemical listed. Biological toxins, which are chemicals produced by animals and nature, and bio-regulators, which are chemicals produced by the human body, are not included in the schedules. These chemicals could be fabricated or exploited for military purposes, so this is something worth exploring during the next review of the convention.

As technology evolves and as new chemicals and chemical weapons emerge, the convention must rely on amendments to capture and prohibit new chemical weapons developments. Bill S-9 represents an opportunity for us to maintain Canada's unwavering commitment to limiting the harm of weapons of mass destruction, nuclear arms and biological weapons. Canada has made significant contributions to the convention by being among its first signatories. Our ongoing involvement is evident as Canada remains a dedicated member of the executive council of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, underscoring our ongoing commitment to this vital cause.

I would again like to thank Senator Gold for introducing the bill. My Conservative colleagues and I will support Bill S-9. I do urge its swift adoption in order to fulfill Canada's international obligations. I urge the House to ensure that Canada's own laws remain up to date and consistent not only with those of our allies but also with those among the broader community of nations that strives to suppress the use, proliferation, research and development of chemical weapons.

Since the horrors of the First World War, there has been a near-universal consensus that mass deployment of chemical weapons is barbarically inhumane, even in war. A combination of calculated self-interest over the past several decades, including this agreement, has mostly prevented nations from using them, and the world has not seen the mass-scale deployment of chemical weapons since the First World War. However, we have, sadly, seen numerous smaller-scale examples of the use of chemical weapons, and Russia continues to use them for political assassination in foreign countries. Therefore, modernizing the agreement by deleting the existing schedule of prohibited agents and merely adding reference to the convention itself would ensure that Canada's laws comply with our obligations and that we possess the most current tools for the deterrence and proliferation of chemical weapons.

[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—

[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.

Business of the House

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to see that the hon. colleague wants to discuss Ukraine, because Conservatives have blocked and filibustered on several occasions when it comes to Bill C-57. They have moved concurrence motions several times.

I would also remind the member that I actually think it is really important that the Conservatives reflect over the holidays and perhaps consider changing their position, because it would be really nice to be able to show Ukraine that solidarity and unanimity that the House has always shown Ukraine. I am going to give them the time and space to reflect, to speak to the Ukrainian Canadian Congress, to speak to Canadians of Ukrainian origin and to hear from them why this matters and why this is important, so that we can show the solidarity and unanimity that Canada has long been known for, which unfortunately the Conservatives, for reasons that I cannot understand but perhaps because of the right-wing American influence that we are seeing and the MAGA intentions of their leader, have decided not to support, based on falsehoods. Let us let them take the Christmas holidays to do that reflection.

This afternoon, we will continue with the second reading debate of Bill C-58 on replacement workers. Tomorrow, we will proceed with second reading debate of Bill S-9, which would amend the Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act, again, another bill that we have not actually been able to debate because the Conservatives continue to move concurrence motions.

I want to take this opportunity to extend my best wishes for the season to everybody who works here on Parliament Hill and to all of my colleagues. I want to express a special gratitude to the employees here in the House of Commons who have done an absolutely tremendous job, even when they were forced to stay here for 30 hours during a marathon vote, which was difficult not just for members of Parliament but particularly for the staff who were forced to work overtime and stay up all night.

With that, I wish everybody in this chamber, and indeed all Canadians, a very merry Christmas and a very happy holiday season.

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague knows that the Senate is independent. If he really has questions as to why that amendment passed, he should ask the one-third of Conservative senators who sit in his caucus and did not show up for the vote. I will note that the amendment only passed by one vote, so he should not take out the entire Conservative Party of Canada's frustration with its own caucus on the House of Commons or on Canadians.

I would also remind the member that, when it comes to the price on pollution, we learned this week, in fact, that 94% of low- and middle-income Canadians are better off with the rebate than without it. Again, in typical Conservative fashion, they are looking to take from the poor and give to the rich; the only folks who would benefit are the highest income earners, but that is typical Conservative policy.

However, I would be delighted to answer the usual Thursday question, because that was slightly out of character. Normally, this is not something we debate.

As we approach the adjournment for the holiday season, our priorities during the next week will be to complete second reading debate of Bill C-58 on replacement workers; Bill C-59, the fall economic statement implementation act; and Bill S-9, which would amend the Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act.

We will also give priority to the bills that are now in their final stages of debate in the House, including Bill C-57, the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement; I would remind the House and, indeed, all Canadians that the Conservatives have obstructed this bill at every single opportunity. We will also put forward Bill C-56, the affordable housing and groceries act, and Bill C-29, which provides for the establishment of a national council for reconciliation.

We will consider other bills reported from committee, such as Bill C-50, the Canadian sustainable jobs act. Moreover, I would invite any Canadian to watch the shameful proceedings of the Conservative members of Parliament at the natural resources committee last night. The House deserves better respect, but we will be here to stand up for Canadians every single day and to stand against bullies.

Public Accounts

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, as we can see, Conservatives are very sensitive about this issue, and I can appreciate why. There is no doubt, especially if one is from the Prairies, that one has to be concerned about the reckless behaviour of the Conservative leader today. In essence, he is mandating every Conservative MP to vote against a trade agreement. That is going to have a profoundly negative impact on how many Canadians perceive the Conservative Party today, because of the mixed messaging.

The president of the Ukrainian Canadian Congress even wrote a letter addressed to the leader of the Conservative Party. Maybe the members of the Conservative Party are not aware of this. I will not read the entire letter, but I will read a part that is very relevant to all members. One needs to keep in mind the reason we are debating what we are debating today; it is because Conservatives do not want to vote on this issue.

The issue is this: As the letter states, “The UCC therefore asks that the Official Opposition revisit their position on Bill C-57 and vote to support the Bill in 3rd reading.”

We were supposed to be voting at report stage today, which would ultimately see it go to third reading.

I suspect the reason for this is twofold. They bring up the issue of the price on pollution and food affordability. This is something we had a great deal of discussion on this past week, and we are going to continue to have that discussion; there is no doubt about that. However, today, the Conservative Party of Canada has taken a measure to prevent, once again, an important piece of legislation from being voted on. I find that very unfortunate, and I am not alone. I ultimately believe that not only people of Ukrainian heritage but also all Canadians will see through the games that are being played.

When Conservatives talk about the cost of food, let us recognize that one of the reasons Canada has some of the lowest food costs in the world is that it has things such as trade agreements. Our trade agreements provide opportunities in many different ways. I have often talked about the trade benefits in the province of Manitoba on many commodities. From canola to peas, pigs and all sorts of farm-produced products, the current government has consistently supported our farming communities, our rural communities. We recognize and value the many contributions they make, not only within the community and Canada but also throughout the world. Much of that is achieved by the status Canada has brought forward through the many trade agreements we have signed off on.

No government in the history of Canada has signed off on more trade agreements than the current Prime Minister and government have; we understand and appreciate the true value of trade agreements for all Canadians. That is why it is stunning and shocking to see the position the Conservative Party is taking on the Canada-Ukraine modernization agreement. It is not acceptable. This is something we would expect to see out of the MAGA conservatives in the United States, that far right element. This is why I am saying we have that Donald Trump element in the Conservative leadership across the way today. That is why we have the leader of the Conservative Party now instructing his members to vote against the Canada-Ukraine trade agreement.

I find that this is completely unacceptable and one of the reasons why I will continue to tell whomever is listening that this Conservative Party is reckless and it is not worth the risk.

We have seen that amplified today by the behaviour of the Conservative Party. Even if we had passed through and not had the debate on the Canada-Ukraine deal, we were then supposed to go on to Bill S-9. Bill S-9 deals with the convention of chemical weapons. We brought it in and we had to do it through the Senate. This is the second day that we have brought it forward, hoping to get it debated. The last time, it was on Wednesday. On Wednesday, the Conservative Party brought in another concurrence motion, in order to prevent Bill S-9 from being debated.

Draw a couple of lines and see where that brings us. On Bill S-9, I do not think Russia would be very supportive of it. If not directly then indirectly, there are some very strong links there.

That is the reason why, once again, I would suggest to us that we do need to listen to what Canadians are saying and listen to what some of the stakeholders like the Ukrainian Canadian Congress are saying.

Earlier, I asked if I could table the letter that was sent to the leader of the Conservative Party. Now I hope that they will ask for the leader to see a copy of it. Read the letter. Understand what it is that they are doing because it is not right.

Agriculture and Agri-Food

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Madam Speaker, I see the parliamentary secretary is troubled that we are not talking about the Senate's bill, Bill S-9, on weapons of mass destruction, even though that was not a Liberal campaign promise.

Would he not agree that, with two million people using a food bank every day and one in five families eating less food because they cannot afford it, it is more important for this House to be looking at solutions on how to address food insecurity, such as with this motion?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I have a lot of opinions and thoughts on farms. Members might not be necessarily surprised. After all, I come from the Prairies, and I was born and raised in the Prairies. I have lived on Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta. While in Alberta, I was a member of the Canadian Forces. I have grown a great appreciation for farms. How could one live on the Prairies for 60 years and not appreciate the value of our farms? I am going to get into some details on that, relatively shortly.

I really want to focus on why this is. I put it in the form of a question to the member who brought forward the motion.

Liberals in general are open to talking about the farming community. We understand the appreciation of agriculture and the importance it has not only to Canada but also to the world. Canada, in many ways, does help to feed the entire world. The types of products we produce on the Prairies and throughout Canada are second to none. No other country in the world has the diversity of product, not to mention the quality of product. Therefore, I understand and appreciate, as my colleagues do, the importance of our agricultural communities, our rural communities and the farmer.

I say that because I wanted to focus some attention on the behaviour of the Conservative Party today and the disturbing pattern we are witnessing day after day. I suspect that most members who came into the chamber today did not want or expect the Conservatives to move yet another motion for concurrence in a committee report. That is what this is: a motion for concurrence. The motion is that we, in essence, talk about farmers, agriculture, and the industry as a whole that feeds off of it.

Let us not forget that there was another very important issue we were supposed to be debating today. It was, in fact, Bill S-9. Bill S-9 is all about weapons of mass destruction. Canada plays a very important leadership role around the world, and one of the areas in which we play that role is the area of weapons of mass destruction.

I remember the day Lloyd Axworthy brought the land mine issue to Ottawa. We had a worldwide ban and a convention came out of it. Bill S-9 deals with the chemical weapons convention, the listing of chemicals, and it would reinforce that particular aspect of Canada's role. Fortunately, it was brought in through the Senate because of the legislative agenda we are trying to get through.

Even in some of the comments I heard from across the way in the previous two speeches, the members talked about the importance of affordability. Tomorrow and the following day, we will be talking about the fall economic statement because we understand the issues that are so critically important to Canadians.

I want to tell my friends across the way that using motions for concurrence in committee reports takes away from the government's ability to get its legislation through. It is interesting. When I posed the question to the mover of the motion, his response was that it is up to the government to get things through. The government is trying to get things through. We were planning on bringing forward Bill S-9 today in the hope that we would be able to get that legislation passed because I do not think anyone will be opposing it.

Now, we are losing a day to pass that legislation, so if we want to deal with Bill S-9, we will have to call it to the chamber again. Opposition members will say, “Who cares? It's not our problem. It's the government's problem.” If we cannot bring in items such time allocation, how can the government possibly pass legislation when we have an opposition party that is preventing the government from doing just that?

We are talking about food for the world. I have heard members on the other side talk about trade many times. Members can think about Ukraine, the trade agreement Canada has with Ukraine, and the impact that has on food supply, processing foods and so forth.

The Conservative Party, all its members, voted against that important piece of legislation, the trade agreement between Canada and Ukraine. The people of Canada understand and value the legislation, and they are not the only ones who want to see it pass. There is the Ukrainian Canadian Congress, the ambassador from Ukraine to Canada, the politicians in Ukraine and members from every other political party, except the Conservative Party.

The president of Ukraine came to Canada at a time of war and signed an agreement. The legislation was brought forward, and the Conservatives filibustered. They used the same tactic they are using right now with a concurrence report. Bringing in concurrence report after concurrence report, is limiting the number of debate days the government will have. Is this an attempt by the Conservative Party to prevent the Canada-Ukraine free trade debate from taking place at third reading?

Does the Conservative Party not understand that there is legislation, such as the fall economic statement, that needs to be debated in the chamber? If they continue to bring in concurrence reports, they will continue to take time away from debating the legislative agenda. Many, including myself, want to see a number of pieces of legislation debated.

This is not to take away from the issues the member is raising today concerning farmers and our agricultural community. As I said at the beginning, I am a very strong advocate for those two communities. I have given many speeches in the House, as I know my colleagues appreciate. Every week, when we are in session and in caucus, the rural agenda is there and being talked about. We understand and appreciate the needs of our rural communities, our farmers and our smaller municipalities, as well as how vital they are to Canadian society.

Why did the Conservative Party do this? We will have another opposition day next week. We have maybe 12 more sitting days before the break. How many of those days will we be dealing with the fall economic statement? We have an opposition day next week. The number of days is shrinking, and if the intent of the Conservative Party is to prevent the Canada-Ukraine deal from getting to third reading and passing, I say shame on them.

That is not the only legislation, but there is a lot of focus on it. The Conservatives wonder why we bring it up time and time again, and it is because we do not trust the Conservative Party. It has gone so far to the right. We see that attitude in the leader of the official opposition taking his party to a place where it votes in ways that are very hard to understand for one reason.

We already heard two members stand up to speak to this issue, and they strictly talked about the carbon tax, as they referred to it, or the price on pollution. The Conservatives are using that as an excuse for everything they are doing in the chamber. It is reckless. That is what we are witnessing. We have a leader of the official opposition who is not in tune with what Canadians are asking legislators to do here in Ottawa.

It is only a question of time before Canadians actually realize the destructive behaviour of the Conservative Party today. That is why I think it is important, as a Liberal member of Parliament, to amplify it and to ensure that Canadians know and understand what is in fact taking place, and that there are important things that need to be passed here.

The report talks about infrastructure. Recommendation 1 is to associate infrastructure with trade. It highlights infrastructure and trade. No government has spent more and committed more on infrastructure in the last 50 or 60 years than the current Liberal government has, because we understand and appreciate the importance of having a healthy infrastructure so we can get our product to market, whether a local market or an international market. It is one thing to talk about it, but it is another thing to see the action. With the Liberal government, we have seen action supporting investment in Canada's infrastructure from coast to coast to coast.

The Conservatives say “access” and “making sure”. Over the summer, a number of months ago, the former minister of transport was in CentrePort in Winnipeg, just outside my riding. It is a huge park, thousands of acres, strategically located near rail lines and a first-class long-haul trucking industry, the biggest in the province, possibly the biggest in the Prairies. There is an airport literally a couple of miles away. There is a great deal of focus on infrastructure and how we can get products to market. We see the agricultural community coming into CentrePort in a very real and tangible way.

It is not that we do not want to have those types of discussions. That is why we have standing committees. The New Democratic member stood up and said that it was nice we were having a debate on agriculture in the chamber today. I would like to think that we have debates and discussions on agriculture on an ongoing basis, whether they are budget debates, throne speech debates or the numerous private members' bill debates that take place.

One of the reasons we have standing committees is so we can actually look at and take a deeper dive into an issue. That enables, I believe, reports like the one we have today. With those reports, Canadians can get a better understanding of where the House of Commons or the collective parliamentarians would like to see the government of the day take some form of direction. That is what I like about the system.

What I do not like is when reports are consistently used as a mechanism, through concurrence, to prevent debates from taking place on government legislation. That is very problematic. The Conservatives will say that it is the government's responsibility to bring forward the legislation. We are bringing forward the legislation; it is the opposition that is preventing the legislation from being debated. It is the opposition that is choosing the tools it has in order to filibuster legislation.

Some members across the way are laughing. Our Ukrainian heritage community is not laughing; it is upset because it sees the games the Conservative Party of Canada is playing. That needs to change. I cited just one piece of legislation, but there are numerous ones. Even during the pandemic, with regard to financial supports to Canadians, we saw the Conservatives using concurrence as a way to prevent government legislation from moving forward. They used an excessive number of concurrence reports. They have the standard line: “This is an important issue; why would we not want to be able to debate the issue?" They make it sound as if the government were not being sensitive to the issue.

I ask my Conservative friends across the way, if the issues were as important, from a Conservative perspective, as they try to imply to Canadians, why are they not using them as opposition day motions? They have plenty of opposition days when they get the entire day to be able to debate the issues they want to debate, just like yesterday, when they chose to debate the Senate and the behaviour of the Senate.

It is rooted in the price on pollution, I must say, because the Conservative Party of today is very much infiltrated by individuals who are truly climate deniers. Maybe not all members of the Conservative caucus are; I suspect not. However, I do believe there is a preoccupation within the leader of the Conservative's party, which is, in fact, climate denial. The Conservatives are so fixated on the issue of getting rid of the price on pollution. Think about it in terms of this particular report. In the report, members are saying that the price on pollution is scaring farmers away and that they are going to shut down and go elsewhere with their produce.

During the last break week, I had the opportunity to go just north of Portage la Prairie to Roquette, a world-class pea processing facility. Did members know that the largest pea processing plant in the world is in the province of Manitoba? I can say that I am quite proud of that particular fact. The facility creates all sorts of opportunities for the farmers in the area. I am told it even has to bring in some yellow peas from other jurisdictions because it cannot keep up with the demand. The demand is going to continue to grow. The facility is actually diversifying, which is great news. It reinforces that the world is looking at Canada as a place to be able to invest in, and that includes our agricultural community. The role of the farmer is just as real today as it was in any day in the past. The innovators in our environment are often farmers. We do not give our farmers enough credit. Quite frankly, what I do not like is when they are used as a political tool. I was in opposition when the Conservatives got rid of the Canadian Wheat Board.

Suffice to say, I really and truly believe that the Conservative Party needs to get its ship in order, whether with the Canada-Ukraine trade agreement or stopping the filibustering and the preventing of legislation from being able to pass. There is a minority government; that means there is an expectation that opposition members would also behave. There is nothing wrong with criticizing. I was in opposition for 20-plus years, so I understand that role. There is also a role in terms of being a little bit more creative in one's opposition.

Carbon Tax

[Michelle Ferreri, Conservative, Peterborough—Kawartha, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Canada has seen the highest use of food banks ever in history. In Ontario alone, food banks had six million visits in one year. Why? Because people cannot afford the cost of food. Why is food so expensive? Because the Prime Minister is taxing farmers into bankruptcy. The Liberals are planning to quadruple the carbon tax.

One farmer in Alberta pays $180,000 a year in carbon tax and that does not include the GST on top of that. This is not sustainable. Food is not a luxury.

This can be fixed. Conservative Bill C-234 is a carbon tax exemption for farmers. It passed in the House, but the Liberal-controlled Senate is blocking the passing of this bill. Why? Because the radical environment minister has threatened to resign if any more carbon tax carve-outs are permitted.

Let us end this nonsense and implement common sense. Pass Bill C-234 and support the people who feed us, farmers.

Business of the House

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his question. As the Chair said, it is the most anticipated question of the week.

We are of course expecting unanimity on Bill C-56 tonight. Perhaps we can count on Conservative votes to help Canadians at this time. That is our hope.

This afternoon, we will continue with debate on the government business motion relating to Bill C-56, the affordable housing and groceries act. Tomorrow, we will resume second reading debate of Bill C-58, relating to replacement workers. We will return to Bill C-58 debate on Monday. Tuesday will be an opposition day. On Wednesday, we will call second reading of Bill S-9, concerning chemical weapons.

I would also like to note that it is the intention of the government to commence debate next week concerning the bill relating to the fall economic statement that was tabled earlier this week by the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance.

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for the question. I hope that his interest in this bill means that the Conservative Party has changed its position and is finally supporting it. Even though we have not yet received that confirmation, perhaps the Conservatives finally want to help Canadians with housing and competition. We hope to see the Conservatives reverse course soon.

Next week, of course, is a constituency week, when MPs will be able to connect with their constituents and have a chance to join them at Remembrance Day ceremonies over the coming weekend.

Our priorities when we come back will be Bill C-57, with respect to the Canada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement; Bill S-9, with respect to the Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act; and Bill C-52, to enact the air transportation accountability act. I would hope that, instead of playing dilatory parliamentary games, the Conservatives would allow for debate to happen on those bills, but I guess we will see when we come back.

Last, on Tuesday, November 21, at 4 p.m., the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance will deliver the fall economic statement.

Public Accounts

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I am sure the member can appreciate the fact that today we are having this particular concurrence motion being discussed and the Conservative Party now and on many occasions has brought in concurrence reports, which has really prevented government legislation from being passed. Today, for example, we were supposed to be dealing with Bill S-9. I believe the Bloc is actually supporting it, as are all political parties in the House.

I am wondering if the member can provide her thoughts. Much as they would not want opposition days constantly interrupted by concurrence reports, it does have a negative impact on legislation being ultimately passed. Would the member not agree?

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

I have a point of order on that same point.

I would be supportive of Ms. McPherson's continuing. There's a long tradition of members' being able to use their four minutes as they wish. The relevance is somewhat tangential at times, and I've heard that many times; however, I think it is the member's right to take that four minutes.

I hope that the clock is stopped right now so it doesn't interfere with her four minutes.

I would say that I'm supportive of it because, as she mentioned, there's a concurrence motion that the Conservatives have presented in the House of Commons that stopped the debate on Bill S-9. I thought we had agreement that it would be an important bill to get through the House quickly. We are now stopped on Bill S-9, which is about chemical weapons, warfare and updating the list to try to keep our planet safe.

As Ms. McPherson said, we have interrupted the House. It is a piece of business that was to come to this committee, so it is, I think, of interest to all of us. I would like to hear Ms. McPherson.

Thank you.