The fact that our analysts are flagging the same things gives me confidence.
Clause 36 proposes to amend section 11 of the Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act by replacing the term “possesses” with “processes” in both language versions. This section pertains to a list of actions that prompt a requirement to provide information and keep certain records. While the explanatory notes provide some information with regard to how the use of “processes” would be consistent with international agreements and an internal cross-reference in the act, it is not entirely clear that the inclusion of the word “possesses” was an error.
Could you perhaps tell us why this change is necessary and how it would affect the operation of the Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act? I would like to know if the use of the word “possesses” was an error. If so and if both the English- and French-language versions were meant to be drafted concurrently, how would such an error be made in both versions? Last of all, I would like to know who pointed out this error. I am very curious to see where the request for correction came from.