Debates of Dec. 15th, 2023

Response to the Report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

Colleagues, I rise to make a statement in response to the tabling of the report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs yesterday.

I would like to thank my colleagues for their work and consideration of the serious matter before them.

I made a serious mistake. I should never have recorded that video, not in the Speaker's uniform, not in the Speaker's office and not for a friend who is an active politician. I am deeply sorry. I want to reassure members that nothing like this will ever happen again.

My office is putting in place a more rigorous communication protocol to protect the neutral role of the Speaker. I will ensure that requests are subject to intense scrutiny and considered in consultation with the House administration under the leadership of the Clerk to ensure the utmost impartiality. I will continue to rely on the sage advice and counsel of former Speakers and parliamentary experts in Canada and in other Westminster parliaments.

To those members who have generously extended me a second chance to serve as Speaker, I thank them from the bottom of my heart. To those members who are opposed to this second chance, let me say that I can understand their point of view and I will spare no effort to regain their trust.

To all members, my door is open. I want to hear from them so we can work together in collaboration. I ask them to please reach out.

It is essential that the Speaker be impartial and non-partisan in every act, every gesture and every appearance.

I know that this issue has become a distraction at a time of year when members' agendas are full and we have a busy legislative program. Allow me to reiterate how honoured I am to be your Speaker.

I accept full responsibility for my actions. I pledge to fulfill every measure that was recommended by the committee's report.

I thank members for their attention.

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.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am very grateful to the member for North Island—Powell River for raising the issue I had planned to raise here. I want to thank the hon. parliamentary secretary for his thoughtful remarks on the Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act and getting it on the record.

Clearly, Green Party MPs will vote for this. However, the ultimate weapons of mass destruction are the nuclear weapons arsenals around the world. With the hon. member for Vancouver Kingsway and the hon. member for Edmonton Strathcona, I attended the second Meeting of States Parties to the Treaty on Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons at the United Nations in New York. I want to stress that other NATO countries sent an observer group to that session. Canada did not even send observers.

As parliamentarians from the NDP and Greens, and one independent senator, we were there, wishing our government was there with us. Could the hon. parliamentary secretary explain why Canada has chosen not to even send an official delegation of observers to this all-important convention for the prohibition of nuclear weapons?

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

Madam Speaker, I would be very happy to sit down with the three members of this House and the independent senator who attended those meetings at the UN in New York and get a briefing from them, because obviously their wisdom on this issue and their experience at that meeting would be very helpful for us. The government will always be happy to listen to them with their suggestions.

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

Madam Speaker, I found it interesting when Conservative members said that the legislation is not being passed because of the government. When we brought forward the legislation, one of the first initiatives the Conservatives took was to move a concurrence motion in order to prevent debate of it. It seems to me that every member of the House is supporting the legislation, and the desire of the government is to see the legislation pass.

Could my colleague provide his thoughts on that? Would it not be nice if the Conservatives allowed the legislation to pass and made a suggestion that there is unanimous support for it? Let us see if we can get it passed and allow the debate to collapse. Would he see that as a good, positive thing before Christmas break?

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

Madam Speaker, if we could end this debate quickly and move on, we could get to the other important work this House wants to do. This piece of legislation would amend something that we are all in agreement with. The faster we can get it done, the better, and then we can move on to other work.

This legislation is the kind of thing that Canada, when we speak on the world stage, should speak to with one voice, to be strong and to be heard. Let us get it done.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to ask the parliamentary secretary about another bill from the House that is currently in the Senate, Bill C-281, the international human rights act. That bill was passed by this House. I believe it was unanimous in the end.

It is another important bill that deals with international human rights issues, and as far as I know, it has not moved forward in the Senate. Is the government trying to stop the bill? Are members making phone calls to senators? Does the government want to allow this bill to move forward?

Important human rights legislation, wherever it comes from, should get the support of the House. We would like to see Bill C-281, which was passed unanimously by the House, be brought into law. Can the parliamentary secretary update us on what is or is not happening on this important legislation in terms of the government's conversations with the senators it has appointed?

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

Madam Speaker, I have been in this place long enough to know it is not wise to comment on legislation that is in the other place. I will allow the other place to do its work and will be respectful as senators do their deliberations on all legislation that comes before them.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Madam Speaker, Russia developed the novichok nerve agent to circumvent the Chemical Weapons Convention, as it is more difficult to detect.

Can the hon. parliamentary secretary illustrate how Russia is still using this agent?

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

Madam Speaker, I am not an expert on chemical weapons, particularly novichok. What I do know is that this convention will allow us to do further research.

There are several different kinds of novichok. They masquerade. They hide behind each other. I hope this bill will allow us to do the right research into them to prevent them and then continue to find ways to eliminate them.

[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.