Bill C-1 (Historical)

An Act respecting the Administration of Oaths of Office

Criminal Code

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK]

moved that Bill S-215, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (suicide bombings), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am indeed pleased to rise and express the government's support for Bill S-215, An Act to amend the Criminal Code. This bill is identical to Bill S-205 which was passed by the other place on June 10, 2009 and debated at second reading in the House of Commons last November. Bill S-205 was then referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights in November 2009, but died on the order paper in December.

Please allow me to provide an explanation of the contents of this bill for the benefit of all hon. members.

The bill seeks to explicitly include the act of suicide bombing within the context of the Criminal Code definition of “terrorist activity”.

Suicide bombing is a monstrous way to wreak havoc because it shows the utmost contempt for human life. Suicide attacks are committed with the intention to kill and maim innocent people and inflict extensive property damage with the attackers prepared to die in the process. The damage from a suicide attack can be devastating, as demonstrated by the September 11 attacks on the World Trade Centre in New York City, killing nearly 3,000 people.

It is also clear that suicide attacks are becoming an all too common terrorist tactic. The July 7, 2005 London bombings, the 2008 attacks in Mumbai, India, and the most recent bombings in Moscow, Dagestan and Afghanistan are part of a world trend of terrorizing ordinary people.

The definition of terrorist activity is currently defined in paragraph 83.01(1)(a) and (b) of the Criminal Code. Bill S-215 seeks to amend section 83.01 of the Code by adding the following after subsection (1.1):

(1.2) For greater certainty, a suicide bombing is an act that comes within paragraph (a) or (b) of the definition “terrorist activity” in subsection (1) if it satisfies the criteria of that paragraph.

To begin with, the first part of the definition of terrorist activity incorporates, in part, criminal conduct as envisaged by the International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings; one of the United Nation's counter-terrorism conventions.

Further, the general definition of terrorist activity found in the second part of the definition includes terrorist activity which intentionally causes death or serious bodily harm or endangers a person's life. Thus, it could be argued that a suicide bombing committed for a terrorist purpose already falls within the definition.

While a general definition of terrorist activity, which encompasses suicide bombing, would be sufficient for the purposes of prosecution, distinguished Canadian criminal lawyers told the Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs that explicitly covering suicide bombing in the Criminal Code can help prosecute and punish the organizers, teachers and sponsors of suicide bombing.

Explicitly including “suicide bombing” in the definition would also serve to denounce this horrendous practice and to educate the public that such suicide bombing is repugnant to Canadian values.

In addition, by passing this bill, Canada would show international leadership by likely being the first nation in the world to adopt this reference in its legislative definition of terrorist activity.

For these reasons, I agree that there are benefits in making an exclusive reference to suicide bombing in the definition of “terrorist activity”. However, it is also important in doing so not to adversely affect the current definition of terrorist activity. Fortunately, this bill has been drafted with precision in order to address this concern.

As mentioned earlier, the proposed amendment involves a “for greater certainty” clause that when added to 83.01 would state:

(1.2) For greater certainty, a suicide bombing is an act that comes within paragraph (a) or (b) of the definition “terrorist activity” in subsection (1) if it satisfies the criteria of that paragraph.

The bill expressly states that it is only seeking to include within the definition a suicide bombing in circumstances that satisfy the criteria for terrorist activity as stated in the definition of a terrorist activity. In this way the wording of this provision ensures that any other type of suicide bombing with no connection to terrorist activity is not included in the definition.

To be clear, the proposed amendment is a definitional clause intended to make clear that suicide bombing is included in the definition of terrorist activity only when committed in the context of a terrorist act.

The amendment is designed to provide for maximum precision to make certain that suicide bombings unrelated to terrorist activity are not caught by the definition, by ensuring that it is not overly broad or vague but still fulfills its intended purpose.

The changes brought by this bill to the definition of terrorist activity would continue to give Canada the necessary tools to prosecute persons for terrorist suicide bombings, the suicide bomber himself or herself where there has been an unsuccessful suicide bombing, as well as persons involved in the preparation or counselling of the terrorism offence.

The bill also provides that it would come into force on a day to be fixed by order of the Governor in Council. This provision would allow for maximum flexibility and would provide the government with an opportunity to notify the provinces before the bill comes into force.

In my view, this bill merits support. It is pursuing a worthy aim. It is seeking to denounce an abhorrent practice, one that is becoming a scourge throughout the world.

This bill is precise and circumscribed in its application. Making the legislative amendment would show that Canada is taking a strong stand in denouncing suicide bombing in the context of terrorism.

This bill has a lengthy history. It was originally introduced as Bill S-43 on September 28, 2005; reintroduced as Bill S-206 on April 5, 2006; reintroduced yet again as Bill S-210 on October 17, 2007; and reintroduced a fourth time as Bill S-205 on November 20, 2008.

Previous versions of the bill all died on the order paper. The present version was introduced on March 24, 2010. It was reviewed by the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, reported without amendment, and passed without amendment.

The Toronto-based group called Canadians Against Suicide Bombing supported previous versions of this bill and created an online petition in favour of them.

Prominent Canadians who have supported previous versions of Bill S-215 include former Prime Ministers Kim Campbell, Jean Chrétien, and Joe Clark, as well as former NDP leader Ed Broadbent, former Chief Justice and Attorney General of Ontario Roy McMurtry, and Major General Lewis MacKenzie.

No other country is known to include suicide bombing specifically in its definition of terrorist activity. So Canada would be the first to signal to the rest of the world our abhorrence of these heinous and cowardly acts by adopting this bill.

The House of Commons has an incredible opportunity to be an example to the world. Bill S-215 promotes a worthy aim and I urge all members of the House to support it. By supporting and passing this bill we can ensure that anyone who organizes, teaches, or sponsors suicide bombing is criminally liable in Canada. The time has now come for the House to take action in support of this bill.

[François Lamoureux, Assistant to the Executive Committee, Confédération des syndicats nationaux (CSN)]

Good afternoon to everyone. First, I would like to thank committee members for inviting us and hearing our views on Bill C-308, which was sponsored by the member of Parliament Yves Lessard.

I would like to point out that the CSN represents 300,000 workers in every economic sector in Quebec. I say “every economic sector in Quebec” for the following reason. The CSN welcomes Bill C-308 because we believe that this bill contains elements, important tools to help fight poverty and inequity between unemployed workers in every part of Canada.

The CSN supports this bill because, in our view, it is based on an understanding of the real problems which unemployed workers in Quebec and in every economic sector are experiencing. All of the workers from the various economic sectors represented by the CSN have been harshly affected. This mainly applies to the manufacturing sector which is going through a major crisis. But there's also a major crisis in the pulp and paper industry, there is a major crisis in the shipbuilding industry, and there is a major crisis in the steelworking industry.

Today, workers who have lost their jobs in these sectors are experiencing situations which have led to family crises. The CSN agrees with all of the proposals contained in Bill C-308, but we support in particular the proposal that sets the eligibility threshold at 360 hours.

We wish to express our position as follows. Why do we need an eligibility threshold? For us, it is a matter of treating all unemployed workers, regardless of where they are in Canada, fairly. In our opinion, an unemployed worker is an unemployed worker, and this person needs a temporary income in order to look for work. Premiums are not based on the regional unemployment rate. Premiums are the same, whether one is a part-time worker, a seasonal worker, whether one works on call or full time, whether one is young, a man or a woman. Workers are not responsible for being laid off. A worker can be laid off in a region with a very low unemployment rate, either because that person was working for a company which went bankrupt, which decided to decrease its activities or terminate its operations, or a company that is operating in a shrinking economic sector.

Why do employment benefits depend on the unemployment rate of the region we live in? Do we receive less health care in a region where there are fewer sick people? No. Does it make sense for people who are laid off by a company, but who live in different administrative regions for the purposes of employment insurance, not to be eligible for the same benefits?

In our view, workers who lose their jobs in a low unemployment area suffer just as much as those who lose their jobs in a region with a high one. Losing a job is a personal tragedy which leads to a loss of income and an increase in stress. Everyone needs a temporary income to find a new job, regardless of what the regional unemployment rate is.

Canada seems to be the only industrialized country, with the exception of certain U.S. states, to apply variable eligibility standards. Why should we have a threshold of 360 hours? We think it will make the system fairer. Despite what some unemployment statistics might indicate, the Parliamentary Budget Officer, who is an independent government official, estimated that if the threshold was brought down to 360 hours, 165,000 additional unemployed workers would be eligible for regular benefits, excluding new recipients.

In the same document, the Parliamentary Budget Officer noted that the department estimated that over 330,000 additional unemployed workers would be eligible for benefits if the 360-hour threshold applied to everyone, that is, to all categories of beneficiaries, including those eligible for regular and special benefits.

A little earlier, questions were raised about how this would affect women who work part-time. When the eligibility criteria were changed from weeks worked to hours worked, the purpose was to help more workers qualify for benefits, at least in theory, including people working fewer than 15 hours per week. So, theoretically, these changes were supposed to benefit women, because 40% of women work in irregular employment, such as part-time or casual work. In this regard, the statistics are interesting. The eligibility criteria were established in such a way that the original objectives were not met and, in fact, they greatly penalized workers, especially women, who engage in irregular types of work.

From 1971 to 1978, a woman working 15 hours a week on a part-time basis could qualify for benefits with 120 hours, or 8 weeks. However, over time, this same worker would need between 150 and 210 hours from 1978 to 1989, 210 hours in 1990, from 150 to 300 hours from 1991 to 1994, from 180 to 300 hours from 1994 to 1997, and from 420 to 700 hours since 1997. That's more than double.

In our opinion, the 360-hour threshold is essential, because, pending a major overhaul of the system, it is the only way to restore a minimum degree of fairness for workers, whose employment regimes vary. We believe the current system discriminates against women, and that the new rules had a huge impact on women. Indeed, in total, the average number of hours worked by women was set at 33.8 hours per week, but women work, on average, 29.8 hours per week. Therefore, women need to work more hours to qualify for benefits, and they are entitled to fewer weeks of benefits. Eighteen per cent of jobs are part-time, which explains why, in 2007, barely one-third of workers, and especially women working part-time, were eligible for employment insurance benefits.

In our opinion, this bill is a step in the right direction as far as the fight against poverty is concerned, and it also creates more fairness in the way all workers are treated.

OATHS OF OFFICE

[Michael Ignatieff, Liberal, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order relating to Bill C-1, which has just been introduced in the House. By dealing with this bill as the first order of business, the House is affirming an important principle.

This is an important constitutional principle: the government must be accountable to the House of Commons for its actions, and not the other way around.

In this spirit I would like to seek unanimous consent to adopt a motion that underscores the supremacy of the House of Commons and seeks common ground on the issue of prorogation.

I move that this House hereby establishes a special committee to be structured along the lines of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, and having all the powers of a standing committee, to conduct an immediate examination into the issue of prorogation, to advise the House on the circumstances in which it is appropriate, or inappropriate, for the Prime Minister to request that Parliament be prorogued, and to repair such necessary changes to the Standing Orders or legislation, or both, and that the committee report to the House no later than April 15, 2010.

[Stephen Harper, Conservative, Prime Minister]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-1, An Act respecting the Administration of Oaths of Office, and sought the unanimous consent of the House to have the bill printed.