Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act
Bill to Amend--Second Reading
December 2, 2020
Honourable colleagues, I rise today to speak on Bill S-2, An Act to amend the Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act.
With this bill, the government proposes to amend the act to add four new categories of controlled chemicals banned by the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. This bill would add nerve agents of the Novichok group to the list of banned chemicals.
When the bill’s sponsor, Senator Coyle, spoke to the proposed legislation, she noted the proposed amendments will come into line with those presented last year to the Chemical Weapons Convention.
Those amendments to the convention were proposed based on a joint Canadian, Dutch and American initiative to ban this new category of controlled chemicals.
Senator Coyle noted the principal reason this initiative was made by Canada and our American and Dutch allies was to respond to the use of this class of chemicals in an attack on several individuals in Salisbury, United Kingdom.
Russian operatives were implicated in that attack and the class of chemicals alleged to have been used are produced in the Russian Federation.
I do not believe that anyone in this chamber or, indeed, within the Parliament of Canada will object to the legislation that we have before us.
In her remarks, Senator Coyle described in some detail the history of the Chemical Weapons Convention and, in general, the revulsion which most countries in the international community have had towards the use of chemical weapons.
Over the years, there has been debate about the scope of the convention and over what chemicals should be included within it. However, the general importance of the convention itself has not been disputed. Indeed, 193 states declare that they adhere to the convention, including China and Russia.
The Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons itself confirmed in 2017 that Russia had destroyed 39,967 metric tons of chemical weapons.
Evidently, the Novichok class of chemicals was not included in that destruction because they were not covered under the agreement. Therefore, I think we can all agree that the provisions as used in this legislation should be enacted.
However, I do believe that we need to be realistic about what this enactment will achieve. That realism might then point us to more concrete action, since this bill by itself will not solve the issue.
The government has argued that this legislation points to the fact:
. . . that Canada is taking a strong stance for a safer world by controlling dangerous chemicals under the Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act.
Again, I certainly agree that this legislation is expressive of an important sentiment. However, by itself, this measure is probably unlikely to prevent a single similar attack.
As Senator Coyle noted in her speech just recently, a Russian opposition leader was allegedly subjected to a very similar attack to the one that occurred in the U.K. in 2018.
This suggests that adherence to these provisions is unlikely by states that simply choose not to abide by them. Moreover, a ban in Canada itself is entirely symbolic.
The chemicals that we are discussing in this legislation are evidently not produced in Canada. Senator Coyle stated in her remarks that the measure included in the legislation “. . . imposes no new burdens upon Canada, Canadian citizens or Canadian industry.”
In other words, this legislation does not cost us anything. That might be good news, but it also suggests that we should not be overly optimistic about our achievements.
This class of chemical weapons is produced in Russia, and, as of today, Russia has no intention of changing its practices. In fact, while Russia initially grudgingly supported these amendments to the convention, they are no longer in agreement.
It is unclear to me how the proposed ban will impact what Russia or other countries choose to do. In general, what concerns me in relation to this legislation is how the government is proposing to enforce the broader objectives related to the legislation.
I hope that the Senate committee that plans to examine this legislation will be able to ask for specifics from the government on that matter. Virtue signalling through domestic legislation is all well and good, but I would presume that every senator wants tangible results that actually prevent future attacks.
Therefore, what I am most interested in learning from the ministers and officials are the practical measures that Canada will pursue to prevent similar attacks. For instance, how do we plan to engage our allies on this matter in the years ahead? How do we plan to convince other countries, most notably Russia, that such chemicals must be controlled? How far are we prepared to go to impose sanctions on countries that violate these provisions? Are we prepared to sacrifice other interests in order to achieve the objectives of the legislation that we have before us today?
It is quite easy to declare that Canada is, as the government has claimed, taking a strong stance for a safer world. It is quite another thing to put in place a plan of action to make that happen.
Therefore, I support this legislation in principle. However, questions do remain and I would hope these will be addressed at committee and subsequently in the other place. Thank you.
Good afternoon, tansi. As a senator from Manitoba, I recognize that I live on Treaty 1 territory, the traditional territory of the Anishinabe, Cree, Oji‑Cree, Dakota and Dene and the Métis Nation homeland. Furthermore, because we have the privilege today of being in the Senate of Canada in Ottawa, on Parliament Hill, I recognize that we are gathered here today on the unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinabeg people.
Honourable colleagues, I rise today to support Bill S-2, An Act to amend the Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act, and I thank Senator Coyle for her leadership of this bill as well as her long-standing leadership on peace-building in venues ranging from local to global.
As we have just heard so well described by Senator Ataullahjan, this bill’s critic, the amendments in this bill are simple but crucial because they update Canada’s Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act by removing the old list of prohibited chemicals from the act, thereby enabling Canada to follow the current list maintained by the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, known in short form as the OPCW, established by Article VIII of the international Chemical Weapons Convention as the implementing body of the convention. We can be proud that Canada was one of the first countries to sign on and to ratify the Chemical Weapons Convention, which seeks to eradicate chemical weapons and prevent their re-emergence in conflict.
Weapons of mass destruction are nuclear, biological or chemical in nature. Their nefarious role has been and continues to cause insurmountable suffering, mass destruction and death to social and physical environments, ruining lives, communities, countries. Chemical weapons consist of liquids and gases that choke their victims, poison their blood, blister their skin or disrupt their nervous system.
After the world wars of the 20th century, nation states came together to ban these insidious weapons, but it was not until 1997 that the international Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on their Destruction, commonly known as the Chemical Weapons Convention, came into force with the mission to make our world free of chemical weapons; a world in which chemistry would be used only for peace, progress and prosperity of all humankind. However, we know that with economic and technological development come discoveries that can be far more dangerous than useful to the world.
The OPCW maintains a list of toxic chemicals readily available on their website to keep up with chemical development and prevent unfortunate mishaps. Their advanced list can serve as the bedrock for our chemical weapons convention act, bringing us in alignment with current international law and ensuring that Canadians can continue to benefit from chemistry, without endangering lives because legislation lags behind development.
Dear colleagues, by supporting Bill S-2, we can revise our legislation to avoid any miscommunication around the acceptability of obtaining, using or storing certain toxic chemicals. As we have heard in more detail, it was only two years ago that nerve agents were used in attacks that are attributed to Russia. A milder version of the attack in England was used against the opposition leader Alexei Navalny of Russia. Professor Gary Stephens, a pharmacology expert at the University of Reading, has explained that one of the main reasons these agents are developed is because their component parts are not on the banned list.
Let us remember, the only thing prohibiting nations from using chlorine gas, a choking agent, or mustard gas, a blistering agent, is that list of prohibited chemicals. But the truth of the matter is that a list of prohibited chemicals and our collective commitment not to cause mass suffering are the only things protecting us all. That is why, dear colleagues, it is of the utmost importance that we make the amendments stated in Bill S-2, and follow the prevailing list of prohibited chemicals maintained and updated by the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. In doing so, we renew our commitment to chemical disarmament and hopefully prevent even the smallest mistake involving dangerous chemicals on Canadian soil.
In adopting Bill S-2, we strengthen our stand against chemical weapons. Today I wish to take this opportunity to expand our vision of threats lurking beyond chemical weapons, and urge upon you the compelling logic of also turning our minds to taking a stand against the proliferation of nuclear weapons by prohibiting them, as we are prepared to do in this bill with its listing of prohibited chemical weapons.
The Peace Tower across the street from us is a centrepiece of Parliament. It’s dedicated to all Canadians killed during wartime and it is dedicated to the peace that they died or suffered to achieve. It’s a symbol of our principles and high aspirations as Canadians. Allowing the proliferation of chemical or nuclear weapons is a mockery of those aspirations. Nuclear weapons are quite simply the most dangerous weapons on earth. One can kill millions and destroy everything that humans need to live.
As we close out 2020, we know it has been a year like no other, and there may be some irony in the fact that this has also been a year of major milestones, including the seventy-fifth anniversary of founding our system of global governance — the United Nations — from which these treaties emanate. However, there is another seventy-fifth anniversary that is less acknowledged, perhaps due to unconscious collective shame, because 75 years ago the first nuclear bombs were unleashed on the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, accelerating the official ending of World War II.
This solemn anniversary is not only a remembrance of a tragic past event but also a reminder of an ever-present threat that we have failed to address effectively. When we face it, the truth is fearmongering, uninformed decision making and mistakes made by unhinged or irresponsible leaders can lead us all to nuclear destruction. Disarmament is the best protection against this grave danger to humanity.
No matter what the challenge at hand, a nuclear massacre will never be considered heroic or just. Standing by as nuclear weapons proliferate indicates a lack of leadership — a lack of responsibility to the human race. That is not who we are as Canadians.
Canada has sometimes been a progressive force on nuclear non-proliferation, and I speak particularly of the years in which former prime minister Pierre Trudeau travelled the world negotiating with leaders, including within NATO itself, on taking a different approach to nuclear weapons and not accepting them as inevitable.
We have been missing. Literally, Canada was not in the room in the development of the new United Nations Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons as it was developed at UN Headquarters in the summer of 2017. Some argue that we already have the international Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, so why this new treaty on the prohibition of nuclear weapons? Note the difference in titles. “Non-proliferation” in the existing treaty as it compared to “prohibition” in the new treaty; it is the logical step that we must be taking to realize a nuclear-free world.
In closing, colleagues, we all know that war is a monster on its own, made more horrific and nihilistic by chemical and nuclear weapons. Allowing chemical and nuclear weapons means accepting the inevitable destruction of life on this planet. Weapons of mass destruction, whether they be chemical or nuclear, can never be justified. In being silent and unengaged, how can Canada live up of our international reputation as a human rights defender, with commitment and expertise on arms control?
Honourable senators, please join me in supporting Bill S-2 and in advocating for Canada to sign and ratify the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. They are inextricably entwined for protection of humankind and our mother earth.
Thank you, meegwetch.
Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to and bill read second time.)
