Bill S-9 (Historical)

Nuclear Terrorism Act

An Act to amend the Criminal Code

This enactment amends the Criminal Code to create four new offences relating to nuclear terrorism in order to implement the Amendment to the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material and the International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism.

Nuclear Terrorism Act

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Halton, ON]

moved that Bill S-9, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the second reading debate on Bill S-9, the nuclear terrorism act. I will begin my remarks by drawing attention to the words of the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard University in its 2011 report entitled, “The U.S.-Russia Joint Threat Assessment of Nuclear Terrorism”. It noted, “Of all varieties of terrorism, nuclear terrorism poses the gravest threat to the world”.

Al-Qaeda, for example, has a long-standing stated desire to acquire weapons of mass destruction. Our government has acknowledged this threat. The March 2010 Speech from the Throne noted the danger to global peace and security posed by the proliferation of nuclear materials and related technology. In light of this threat, the international community and individual countries have taken a number of steps to combat nuclear terrorism. Two key international efforts are the genesis for Bill S-9. It is important to take a moment to discuss these two treaties that are its genesis.

The original Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material, the CPPNM, was signed by Canada in 1980 and ratified in 1986. It established measures related to the prevention, detection and punishment of offences relating to nuclear material, principally during international transport. In July 2005, state parties to the CPPNM, including Canada, adopted by consensus important amendments calling on states to protect nuclear facilities and material in peaceful domestic use, storage and transport; to provide for expanded co-operation among states; and to criminalize a range of acts involving nuclear material and nuclear facilities. I will refer to this instrument as the CPPNM amendment.

That same year, the International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism, or ICSANT, was negotiated and adopted by the United Nations General Assembly. It covers a broad range of acts and possible targets, including nuclear facilities, and applies to nuclear material, radioactive material and radioactive devices, and includes provisions relating to interstate co-operation. Given the clear overlap between the criminal law requirements and subject matter of the CPPNM amendment and the ICSANT, Bill S-9 is designed in a way that proposes to implement into Canadian law the criminal law elements of both instruments.

For Canada, as with other dualist states, domestic legislation is required to ratify international treaties. Ratification is the formal act by which we signify our consent to be legally bound by the terms of the conventions. Bill S-9 proposes four new nuclear terrorism offences in our Criminal Code.

First, it proposes an offence for the making of a nuclear or radioactive device, as well as the possession, use, transfer, export, import, alteration or disposal of nuclear material, radioactive material or device, or the commission of an act against a nuclear facility or its operations with the intent of causing death, serious bodily harm or substantial damage to property or the environment. Those who are found guilty of this offence are liable to a maximum term of life imprisonment. I would note that the prohibition against the making of a device was added through an amendment made while Bill S-9 was being studied by the Special Senate Committee on Anti-Terrorism, and I would certainly say that it adds to the strength of this important bill.

Second, the bill proposes an offence for the use or alteration of nuclear material, radioactive material or device, or the commission of an act against a nuclear facility or its operations with the intent of compelling a person, a government or international organization to do or refrain from doing any act. This offence also carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment.

Third, Bill S-9 also calls for an offence for the commission of an indictable offence for the purpose of obtaining nuclear or radioactive material or device, or access or control of a nuclear facility. The offence is designed in this way to comply with the requirements of both the CPPNM amendment and the ICSANT to specifically address the commission of various crimes, such as theft and robbery perpetrated to obtain nuclear or radioactive material or a device.

As a result, this offence would require the Crown to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that both the underlying offence was committed, with its requisite elements, and that it was done with the intent to obtain nuclear material, radioactive material or a device, or to obtain access to a nuclear facility.

Again, given the seriousness of such an offence, the proposed penalty is a maximum term of life imprisonment.

The fourth and final offence proposed in Bill S-9 addresses threats to commit one of the above nuclear terrorism offences. Both the CPPNM amendment at article 7(9) and the ICSANT at article 2(2) require states to criminalize the threat to commit one of the treaty offences.

The Criminal Code does contain an offence of uttering threats, found at section 264.1. However, this offence has a maximum punishment set at five years, which was not seen as severe enough in the case, for example, of threatening to unleash a radiological dispersal device, or dirty bomb, in public. The maximum penalty proposed for this offence is 14 years' imprisonment.

It is important to state that the offences in Bill S-9 and their very specific intent requirements have been set out to be absolutely clear so that lawful activity is not captured. In other words, these proposed four new offences would not capture lawful medical procedures involving radiation, the lawful exchange of material or devices or other lawful activity in the nuclear industry.

These four offences make up the essential elements of Bill S-9, but there are other important areas that require brief comment.

First, the terms “nuclear material”, “radioactive material”, “nuclear facility”, “device” and “environment” are defined in Bill S-9. All of these definitions are based either on existing law or on the CPPNM amendment and the ICSANT.

Second, as is consistently the practice in treaties of this nature, countries are called upon to assume extra-territorial adjudicative jurisdiction, which means ensuring that our Canadian courts have the authority to try offences committed outside of Canada in certain situations. It is for this reason that Bill S-9 would provide for jurisdiction to try these new offences in situations, for example, where the offence is committed outside Canada but by a Canadian, or when the person who commits the act or omission outside Canada is later present in Canada.

Third, given that the majority of Criminal Code offences are prosecuted by the provinces and territories, as is the established practice for other terrorism offences, Bill S-9 would provide the Attorney General of Canada with concurrent prosecutorial authority along with the provinces and territories over these new nuclear terrorism offences.

In addition, as called for in the treaties and consistent with Canadian law in this area, Bill S-9 contains a military exclusion clause. These amendments do not apply to the activities of the Canadian Forces and to persons acting in support of the Canadian Forces who are under the formal command and control of the Canadian Forces while in the performance of their official duties.

The military exclusion language used in both the CPPNM and ICSANT is similar to that used in the International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings, which is presently in Canadian law at section 431.2 of the Criminal Code.

Moreover, it is significant to note that Bill S-9 would add both the CPPNM amendment and the ICSANT to the list of existing terrorism treaties making up the first part of the definition of terrorist activity at section 83.01(1)(a) of the Criminal Code.

The significance of this addition is that by virtue of the operation of the definition of terrorist activity, a number of other provisions would apply to those charged with the nuclear terrorism offences. These provisions include a reverse onus at bail hearings, the availability of one-year wiretap authorizations as well as the dispensation of the requirement to demonstrate investigative necessity.

In addition, for this terrorism offence, the law would provide for the application of the consecutive sentencing regime for multiple terrorism offence convictions and an increased period for parole ineligibility.

All of these powers currently exist in Canadian criminal law and so the only change brought about by Bill S-9 is the addition of the nuclear terrorism offences to the pool of offences to which these tools apply.

Outside of the criminal law, the physical protection measures contemplated in the CPPNM amendment are already in place in Canada.

Under the Nuclear Safety and Control Act, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission is responsible for setting physical protection standards in Canada and ensuring that those standards are met. The nuclear security regulations set out the physical protection measures that licensees must implement to meet minimum security standards. However, due to the pressing threat posed by the possibility of terrorists acquiring dangerous nuclear or radioactive materials or devices, the securing and disposing of these materials remains a high priority for Canada and its international partners.

In this regard, at the invitation of United States President Obama, 47 world leaders, including the Prime Minister, participated in the inaugural April 2010 Nuclear Security Summit held in Washington. At this summit the leaders agreed that strong nuclear security measures were the most effective means to prevent terrorists, criminals or other unauthorized actors from acquiring nuclear materials, and in this regard the summit work plan called upon participating states to ratify and work toward achieving the universal implementation of the CPPNM amendment and the ICSANT.

The second Nuclear Security Summit was held in March of this year in South Korea. The summit again brought together world leaders to exchange views on the threat of nuclear terrorism and the pressing need to further develop and implement internationally coordinated efforts to enhance nuclear security worldwide. World leaders, including our Prime Minister, joined together to state:

Nuclear terrorism continues to be one of the most challenging threats to international security. Defeating this threat requires strong national measures and international cooperation given its potential global political, economic, social, and psychological consequences.

The summit produced a comprehensive action plan aimed at preventing nuclear terrorism, with emphasis on the management of nuclear materials, protection of nuclear facilities, prevention of trafficking of illegal nuclear materials and the promotion of the universality of key nuclear security instruments.

Therefore, it will come as no surprise that Canada is not alone in pursuing domestic legislation on this front. The United Kingdom became a state party to the CPPNM amendment through amendments made by its Criminal Justice and Immigration Act, 2008, and the ICSANT through the Terrorism Act, 2006. In addition, Australia modified its laws to achieve ratification through the Non-proliferation Legislation Amendment Act, 2007, and more recently, the Nuclear Terrorism Legislation Amendment Act, 2012. I would also note that the United States has a bill before the United States Congress aimed at domestic ratification.

Upon review of these foreign precedents, members will note many similarities in how countries, including Canada, through Bill S-9, have adopted or proposed laws to implement the criminal law requirements of the CPPNM amendment and the ICSANT. These specific efforts are only part of the international community's efforts at universal ratification. Indeed, there are currently 55 states parties to the CPPNM amendment and 79 states parties to the ICSANT.

Without a doubt, Canada strongly supports the work of the International Atomic Energy Agency. Canada was in fact one of the architects of the CPPNM amendment and the ICSANT, and we are encouraged by the adoption of these two conventions by a significant number of countries and we actively encourage others to follow through on their commitment to become parties as Canada is doing.

Bill S-9, once passed and followed by the ratification of the CPPNM amendment, as well as the ICSANT, would give credence to Canada's commitment to the strengthening of the global national security architecture. It would provide Canada with additional tools to counter this threat as well as enhance our ability to work with partners to mitigate the consequences should this threat ever materialize.

On this last point, it is important to note that both international instruments have specific obligations relating to extradition and mutual legal assistance that would be triggered in the event of a nuclear terrorism investigation or offence. While the global spread of the use of nuclear technology and nuclear materials brings great benefits, the increasing number of users also creates vulnerabilities. Terrorists will seek to exploit any gap in security anywhere in the world and it is our duty to ensure that Canada has the laws in place to ensure that we will not present any such opportunities.

Bill S-9 is both targeted and timely. With the adoption of specific nuclear terrorism laws and the eventual ratification of these two important counterterrorism treaties, Canada can build on and demonstrate its continued commitment to secure nuclear materials as well as to punish those who would inflict unimaginable harm.

Bill S-9 sends a strong message to the global community that Canada is a willing partner in the fight against terrorism and is committed to measures that contribute to global security.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Delta—Richmond East, who managed to turn a rather dry, complicated and very technical bill into something more easily understood. I certainly appreciate the urgency and importance of this bill, which we will support at second reading.

Why has the government not made this a priority before now? For the past five years now, we could have been honouring our commitments under international treaties. Why did it take five years?

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, Delta—Richmond East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague and I work together very well on the justice and human rights committee and I continue to welcome her input on these important legislative measures.

The fact is that there were attempts to bring forward many of these measures during the time of minority Parliaments but they were not accepted. Now we are in a majority situation and we are bringing them forward. I hope the opposition members will see the need for this and understand the legal effect of ratifying our international obligations. Ratification is the formal international act by which Canada signifies its consent to be legally bound by these conventions, which we were part of the architecture of them as well as agreeing with them. This is a real and continuing threat and we are now taking our place among our international partners.

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with my colleague from Gatineau. That was a very helpful and extremely clear introduction of the bill by the parliamentary secretary.

The International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism includes, among the listed acts that are an offence or need to be made an offence in domestic law, the making of a radioactive device. That was not originally in the government's bill before the Senate and the Senate has made an amendment to add that offence to the bill.

Could the government explain why that rather obvious offence was not included in the original bill?

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, Delta—Richmond East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I cannot speak to why it was not included originally. What we are dealing with now are four new offences. It is important for all of us to understand, members considering this, as well as the Canadian public, that is what is happening here with this bill.

There would be an offence for the possession, use, transfer, export, import, alteration or disposal of nuclear material, radioactive material or device, or the commission of an act against a nuclear facility or its operations. There is an offence for the use or alteration of nuclear material, radioactive material or device, or the commission of an act against a nuclear facility or its operations. There is an offence for the commission of an indictable offence for the purpose of obtaining nuclear or radioactive material or device, or access or control of a nuclear facility. There is also an offence for a threat to commit one of those offences.

As I said in my speech, the threat here can bring about an unimaginable toll, one we do not want to ever have to deal with on Canadian soil. We need to take these strong preventive measures and join our global partners.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, another question comes to mind after listening to the hon. member for Delta—Richmond East.

How does the government plan to deal with the problems that could result from the fact that these new Criminal Code offences will have a broader scope than the offences included in separate international agreements?

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, Delta—Richmond East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as I said in my speech, one of the proposed methods is to have concurrent prosecutorial authorities for the attorney general of Canada, as well as the provinces and territories which are the ones, under our constitution, that generally administer the law. They are the ones applying what terrorism offences exist now. That is one of the ways we will be dealing with this.

This is where we are sort of partnering Bill S-7 and Bill S-9 together. We are taking steps to bring this together now in order to deal with it effectively and in a timely way. That is the understanding on the concurrent jurisdiction.

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the nuclear terrorism act, currently in the form of Bill S-9, would amend the Criminal Code to align our law with obligations under two international agreements, as the parliamentary secretary has so ably outlined. One is ICSANT, the International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism of 2005, and an amendment to another treaty in 2005, the Convention for the Physical Protection of Nuclear Materials.

In broad terms, those two instruments, along with the underlying Convention for the Physical Protection of Nuclear Materials, deal with the protection of radioactive material, nuclear material and nuclear facilities, and the protection from nuclear or radioactive devices.

The creation of criminal law offences is one aspect of the protection scheme, alongside ensuring there is a broad, in essence, kind of universal jurisdiction to prosecute for most aspects of these offences.

The present bill, Bill S-9, is overdue if one looks at the dates of the two instruments, both 2005, although this delay is mitigated by the fact that Canada is not yet bound to either instrument because it has not yet ratified. We have signed but that is not the same thing as ratification. The passage of Bill S-9 will put us in a position to be in compliance and, thus, to ratify.

However, why we have left this combined ratification and implementation for so long does remain a mystery to me, despite the answer just given by the parliamentary secretary. This is not a controversial bill from any side of the House and I cannot imagine a minority Parliament would have held it up.

As I have already indicated, the NDP very much supports the bill going to committee. We will vote for it at second reading and we expect to do so at third reading. Overall, we are completely behind the bill as a necessary measure as part of Canada's international co-operation against threats related to nuclear terrorism of various forms.

In a world of heightened technological sophistication that increases the ability to steal material, attack installations, make radioactive devices and so on, it is impossible to overstate the importance of such co-operation and, indeed, Canada's role in that co-operation.

We wish to see this bill become law as rapidly as possible. At the same time, we also emphasize that some close technical scrutiny of the bill in committee is still called for to ensure that it has been drafted in the best way to fulfill our obligations under these two treaties so that we can then go on and not be in non-compliance once we ratify.

It may be that some slight amendments will be needed in committee. I say this for three reasons.

The first reason is that there was what seems to have been a major omission in the government's bill that went to the Senate before coming to us. What was that omission? I referred to it in my question just now to the parliamentary secretary. Whereas ICSANT's article 2(1)(a) includes the offence of making a radioactive device, Bill S-9, in its original form before the Senate, did not include this activity despite mentioning every other conceivable form of activity that also was in the two treaties: possession, use, transport, export, import, alteration and disposal.

The Senate caught this omission, assisted, no doubt, by an alert Library of Parliament preliminary summary of the bill, and the mistake has been rectified in what we now have coming from the Senate.

However, and this is my main point, the situation does give one reason to pause and ask a question. If something as significant as making a radioactive device, which appears clearly in the text of the relevant treaty, was missed, has anything else been overlooked, or has there been some other slippage in the tightness or the accuracy of the drafting of this bill? The committee needs to ensure this is not the case.

The second reason there may be a need for amendments following directly on from the just asked question is that the commitment may need to consider amendments in that there is some reason to believe that parts of Bill S-9 have been drafted in terms that are not just more general in their phraseology than the specific treaty articles they are meant to implement but are broader in the sense of criminalization of more than is required by the treaties.

I will, in a moment, outline where this may be a problem in Bill S-9, but a prior problem may be that the Minister of Justice and officials before the Senate committee do not appear to agree that there are any such aspects of over-breadth. The reason this is a problem is that such denial makes it impossible to go to the next stage of analysis, which is to ask whether over-breadth in relation to what is strictly required by the treaties is actually of any real concern.

If the treaties permit state parties to go further in what they criminalize, and the treaties probably do permit this, then it becomes a matter of sound public policy discussion as to whether we do wish to go further. However, if the government denies that Bill S-9 does go further, we cannot even have that discussion.

The third reason we may need to entertain a small amendment or two in committee is that there may, and I emphasize the word “may”, be under-breadth in terms of the coverage of one aspect of Bill S-9 offences. Now I may have misread the corresponding treaty provisions in relation to the sections of Bill S-9 in question, but one reading of them is that Bill S-9 may not go as far as required in one respect. If this is the case, then our legislation would put us in non-compliance after ratification. I will identify this possible glitch in a moment.

I will now proceed with a bit more detail on these points to illustrate why it is that we may have to pay some close attention in committee.

First, on the issue of potential over-breadth, and I do apologize to everyone listening that this will be as technical as it is starting to sound. In particular, with respect to proposed sections 82.3 and 82.4, article 2 of ICSANT is rather inelegant in expressing the need for specific intent on top of general intent for some of the offences mentioned. It talks about any person intentionally possessing, using, making a device and so on with the intent to cause death or serious bodily injury or with the intent to cause substantial property damage or harm to the environment.

The first point to note is that this double use of intentionality does cause a certain degree of inelegance. Bill S-9 does not repeat that. It uses simpler language, for the most part going straight to the specific intent formulations. This seems wise.

However, the problem that then appears on one reading of proposed sections 82.3 and 82.4 is that the specific intent formulations of the ICSANT treaty regarding use or damage to a nuclear facility are not reproduced in Bill S-9. Instead, proposed sections 82.3 and 82.4 of the bill merely assume a general intent standard. This is because, and again this is a very technical point, in proposed sections 82.3 and 82.4 the acts listed after the words “or who commits” are cut off from the specific intent references earlier in the provision.

In a similar vein, the amendment to the CPPNM treaty on acts directed against nuclear facilities also has a specific intent requirement that Bill S-9 does appear to omit.

Here is another point about over-breadth that I will simply state as a very clear problem, as there is no doubt or debate about this one. The references to crimes of threat in Bill S-9 go further than necessary under the treaties. This is very helpfully laid out in the very well put together legislative summary provided by the Library of Parliament.

Finally, there is a provision in Bill S-9 that talks about committing an indictable offence with intent to obtain material or a device versus the treaty provisions, which actually list the specific other forms of offence that are attached to this search for intent to obtain material or a radioactive device.

We have created a much broader tacking-on of this notion of committing any indictable offence as opposed to the offences specifically listed in the treaties: theft, robbery, embezzlement, fraudulent obtaining and so on.

All of this is as dry as the hon. member for Gatineau promised it would be. However, I did want to get this on the record so that it helps us at the committee stage to ask whether this is a correct reading, and if so, what needs to be done about it.

There is something quite significant however about the fact that if there is over-breadth in any respect, there is a multiplier effect that occurs throughout Bill S-9. That is because a number of other provisions tack themselves onto the offences. Four of them in particular are worth mentioning. One is the extraterritorial scope of the offences. The second is that they enter into the definition of terrorist activity, which is thereby broadened. The third is that the electronic surveillance provisions of the Criminal Code would be kicked in by the offence definitions, as are fourthly, the DNA sample provision of the Criminal Code.

The issue is not that these offences are simply more broadly worded in and of themselves, which may strike people as a slightly semantic issue. It is how one multiplies the potential significance of that across all of the other provisions I have just listed. It is what I call an amplification effect.

I mentioned that there is possibly an odd twist here. There may be one instance of narrowing our treaty obligations in Bill S-9 in such a way that might mean that Bill S-9 does not go far enough and, thus, may put us in breach of the treaty.

The new CPPNM amendment in article 7(1)(d) criminalizes “the intentional commission of...an act which constitutes the carrying, sending, or moving of nuclear material into or out of a State without lawful authority”. Yet proposed section 82.3 of Bill S-9 would make the import and export offence subject to the specific intent portions of that section, which are not in Article 7(1)(d) of the treaty amendment. This could possibly be a misreading of the treaty amendment on my part or of what is intended by Bill S-9, but there does appear to be the possibility that we have under-inclusion in that respect.

All of this adds up to the fact that the committee will need to pay some attention to whether or not this legislation has been drafted as well and as tightly as needed, particularly in light of the fact that in asking questions of the parliamentary secretary just now, the responses that came back were fairly general. It is not at all clear that the government has its head around these problems, despite the warning of some of these questions being asked in the Senate.

I would like to say a few words about parliamentary democracy as it relates to this legislation. One might assume that I am referring to the fact that the bill started in the Senate, the unelected, second chamber of our Parliament. In fact, that is not my immediate concern. A much more real concern and affront to this chamber is that Bill S-7, on which debate started earlier today, first went to the Senate.

Having listened to myself for the last 10 minutes, Bill S-9 is very technical in nature. It may well be the kind of bill that can fruitfully be started in the Senate so that the House benefits from some preliminary cleaning up and does not have to allocate undue time to studying the bill. The fact that the Senate caught the omission of the making a device offence may actually prove my point, in part.

My immediate democracy concern does not relate to the Senate. Rather, it relates to the methods we use in Parliament to implement treaties and statutes. Again, I am not referring here to the mess that many in this room know exists with respect to the lack of consistency in the way that statutes are drafted to accomplish implementation of a treaty.

By one count in a law journal article I read some time ago, there are well over a dozen methods employed, ranging from verbatim reproduction of treaty text to very general language that does not even hint at there being an underlying treaty motivating the legislative change. While this is an important issue and while it does bear directly on how Bill S-9 may be over-broad in parts, I will leave that for another day.

Therefore, I turn to what my concern actually is.

What I want to discuss is much more procedural in nature. The way in which bills are introduced, presented and reported from stage to stage is close to a travesty when it comes to the twin goals of transparency and accountability. Parliament, and thereby the Canadian public, must be given every opportunity and tool to be able to understand precisely what is in a bill and how that content relates, in this context, to an underlying treaty or another international instrument such as a Security Council resolution.

However, that is not what happens here in Canada. Treaty-implementing bills almost always get plunked onto Parliament's desk with nothing resembling an overview, let alone a road map, from the government of how a statute's provisions line up with related treaty provisions. Parliamentarians end up reading a bill as if they have a jigsaw puzzle to solve. They track down the related treaty and then try to connect the dots between the treaty and the statute with absolutely no help from the government by way of a commentary that could easily provide explanatory charts showing side-by-side text so that Parliament's role of scrutinizing critically and effectively can be facilitated.

Instead, valuable energy is wasted at the preliminary stage of understanding what is going on in the relationship between the statute and the treaty text. As some members will be aware, I am speaking as someone who was not only a law professor in a previous life but has been an international law scholar for over 20 years. Therefore, if there is anyone in a position to put the jigsaw puzzle together it would be someone with my background. However, even I find it very frustrating.

More importantly, I find it undemocratic. Why? Anything that makes legislative details needlessly inaccessible gets in the way of clear and focused analysis and debate, both by and among parliamentarians, and in terms of how journalists and the public in general will have difficulty grasping analysis and debate if there are no well-presented documents that make the subject of analysis and debate reasonably easy to follow. At multiple levels, democratic scrutiny is undermined and the distance between Parliament and society is exacerbated.

Without dwelling further on the details of an ideal system of clear and transparent presentation of treaty-implementing bills, which this bill lacks, at minimum the government must be required to include alongside a bill a document that does at least the following three things.

First, the document should show the text of the treaty and statute in a side-by-side comparison that makes clear what the statute is intended to implement.

Second, the document should explain and justify the method of implementation that has been chosen. For example, if general language is used or if a treaty text is reproduced nearly but not entirely in verbatim form from the treaty, we need to know why that decision was made.

Finally, the document should provide a clear account of what is not in the implementing bill by reason of the fact that either Canadian law may already cover off the area, the treaty provisions in question may only operate on the international plain or the matter must be dealt with by a provincial legislature.

In order to appreciate that this is not simply a cranky protest, all we have to do is to consider what everyone knows about how inaccessible even basic bills are when presented to Parliament in terms of how well we can understand the underlying statute that is being amended. We also can refer to budget bills that do not come anywhere close to meeting OECD transparency guidelines.

In this immediate context, my main point is to draw attention to one problem we have with a very procedural dimension of accountability in this Parliament, which is not alone in the way we deal with legislation.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I quite liked the speech by my colleague from Toronto—Danforth, especially the last part, since the first part had to do with the technical aspects. We understand one another because have studied this matter at length. I was especially glad to hear him share his concerns over how democratic this process is. I do not want to issue a challenge to my colleagues, but this bill is not an easy read. I know what my colleague means when he says that it might be a good idea for the department or the minister, when he introduces this type of bill, to provide explanatory notes that are more complete than those that are usually included.

I would like to share something Senator Dallaire said during the review of Bill S-9 in the Senate. The hon. member will be able to make additional comments, because Senator Dallaire shared the same view:

I wish to concisely come back to the point of all these different bills coming at us. [We reviewed Bill S-7 this morning and now we are looking at Bill S-9.] We are covering the bases that are presented to us, but there is no feeling, even within reading the report, the 2010 report, of what the delta of gaps are in the security with regard to terrorism or anti-terrorism. It seems to me that it is fine to go through and do our legislative duty; however, without that framework, it seems to me that, as a committee, we are a bit ill-equipped to get a warm, fuzzy feeling that we are going down the road that we feel maybe should be done expeditiously enough by the department or by the ministries with regard to anti-terrorism.

It makes me shudder to read such quotes from people who have spent hours and hours studying the bill. I would like my colleague to say a few words about this.

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the points are extremely well put. I had not been aware of that passage from Senator Dallaire.

In general, my point, and the point Senator Dallaire made in some frustration and that the member echoed, is that there is a certain kind of almost archaic tradition that governs many affairs in the House, but some things are not traditions that we need to keep. They are long past their usefulness in ages when we had less complex bills. For example, with respect to treaties, the fact is, and this may be an erroneous statistic, something in the region of 50% of statutes have some connection to an underlying international instrument or treaty. Therefore, the complexity we are dealing with is not just amending Canadian laws but also looking at background treaties and we do not get any kind of guidance that allows us to do our job. We spend too much time actually getting up to speed as opposed to engaging in the critical task that we should be as legislators.

Therefore, the point from Senator Dallaire about the 2010 report not leaving him all that much wiser is another instance of how parliamentarians can be frustrated by not having enough basis on which to make a decision. I would refer to an intervention from my colleague from the Liberal Party earlier in the debate on Bill S-7 when he made almost the same point with respect to parliamentarians' knowledge around terrorism and its incidence and whether we actually did not need a specific process in Parliament for a certain number of parliamentarians to be informed in ways that none of us were at the moment.

[Paulina Ayala, NDP, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, there is something that worries me. I remember, in the past, in my experiences in Chile—those were difficult years—that someone could be imprisoned just because he was suspected of something. And that is how the story started.

Here, if I understand correctly, someone can be arrested because he is suspected of something. There is a danger here for the country. There is no proper trial. There is not really any evidence behind it all, and the person is only suspected of something.

Moreover, a judge may think that someone should enter into an agreement. If the person does not agree and does not comply with the agreement, he or she can be put in jail. This brings back bad memories of things that happened in my life.

There is a lack of respect for fundamental rights. I would appreciate it if my colleague would go a little deeper into this issue.

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I regret I will not be able to add a lot to the excellent answers given earlier today by my colleague from Gatineau, because that deals mostly with Bill S-7, but the member is correct to ask the question simply because the government is presenting the two bills as a package.

The reason we are very concerned about these provisions dealing with recognizance and potential detention, if one actually refused to accept the conditions or breaches the conditions, is precisely that the standard is much lower than it would be for any other kind of process in terms of criminal prosecution. The basic concern is that it is a much lower threshold. I do not have the historical experience the member has drawn on in the case of Chile to know how easily in some countries and some times and some contexts a system like this could be abused.

Regretfully in the Chilean context, at least for a large part, probably no system at all was needed for the abuse to occur because there was no rule of law respected. What we would experience here would be a kind of slippage. The concern would be that this kind of provision would be used in a way that slowly would become wider and wider than anyone thought it should be from the beginning.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I asked the parliamentary secretary a question a little earlier, and her answer surprised me. She said that it took five years for the government to introduce Bill S-9 and that it did not need Bill S-7 in order to comply with the international treaties that it had signed.

I would like to hear from my colleague about this. How does he explain this time frame, when we are being told here that the bill is so necessary and so important it must be passed quickly? This is certainly something that we are going to hear on a regular basis from witnesses suggested by the Conservative members.

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I cannot say anything other than it remains a bit of a mystery. The member's fundamental point is correct. We do not need Bill S-7. The government is choosing to bring them together, but we do not need Bill S-7 to bring forward Bill S-9. Bill S-9 is indeed extremely important, but it is also quite technical and it is not facing any resistance in the House. It would not have faced any resistance in a minority government.

The best I can imagine is that Canada has been reminded of the fact that its ratifications are outstanding for these two instruments and that it had better get its house in order. The Prime Minister had to make a recommitment to ratifying the instruments recently in Korea and somewhere along the line the system clicked into gear, even though that should have happened four to five years ago.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the previous member seemed to imply that he might have been delivering a cranky protest, However, if that is the case, I would urge him to protest crankily more often because it was a very erudite speech. It informed the House on so many aspects of what is an important bill, despite its dry nature.

I knew this, but I was quite interested to hear it repeated in the House by the hon. member who spoke before me, that something so fundamental as an offence against making a nuclear device was left out of the bill. It really shakes our confidence when something so fundamental that should almost be central to a piece of legislation like this is actually left out of the bill. I commend the Senate on catching that omission. I assume that if the bill had been brought to the House before the Senate, we would have caught it as well and if we had not, that the Senate would have been as good at catching it later on instead of at the very start.

I also take the point of my hon. colleague that it would help if legislation as complex and technical as this were accompanied by some notes that would allow us to clearly link its provisions to important international treaties that attempted to bring the world together in common action on such an important issue as nuclear terrorism.

In regard to that point, this is a general problem that we have in the House. We have heard how it is very hard for parliamentarians to truly understand the spending plans of the government because the documentation is not available. In fact when the Parliamentary Budget Officer attempts to add clarity to the government's spending plans, he meets a brick wall that is put up by the government. I do not think in this case the intent was to somehow make the issue opaque, it just was not something the people preparing the communications materials or the bill itself thought of doing. This is something we have to do in the future.

The reason it is important to link the bill clearly with our international instruments designed to prevent the threat of nuclear terrorism is that it is very important for Canadians to understand there are legal solutions to some of these fierce international problems that face the world and that we hear discussed on the news every night. For example, many Canadians are probably not aware that the United Nations is active on these kinds of issues, creating a legal framework for co-operation within which international legal action can be taken to dissuade, say, rogue states from pursuing very threatening and destructive agendas.

As an aside, I would like to draw attention to an article that my colleague, the member for Mount Royal, published in the Montreal Gazette not long ago on the subject of Iran's behaviour on the international stage. The headline was, “We have juridical remedies to halt Iran's genocidal threat”. He talks about Iran's nuclear program. What he is saying is that certain actions like recalling our diplomats are important symbolic actions, but at the end of the day all we have to hang our hat on really is law, not only domestic law but international law. He suggests a number of ways whereby Iran could be coaxed into better behaviour. These ways involve going to the Security Council and asking it to make complaints to the International Criminal Court and so on.

I would draw attention to the point raised by the previous speaker, which is that we have had seven years, to ratify the International Convention on the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism and the amendment to the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material. However, the law and order government is a government that acts tough on the international stage and takes all kinds of symbolic actions but seems to be leaving behind the maybe less interesting, less headline making actions that need to be undertaken by any country that really wants to call itself a citizen of the world and call itself an important player at the United Nations.

Maybe the government does not really want to be as active at the United Nations as it could be. Maybe it does not necessarily want Canada to take the multilateral route as often we used to. Nevertheless, it is an important route to take.

As I say, Canadians are sitting at home, we are sitting here in this Parliament and we are not aware of the options that are available to combat nuclear terrorism because we are unaware of the fact that these treaties exist. In fact, there are four UN resolutions and international treaties relating to nuclear terrorism that I believe deserve some mentioning here.

First, we have the United Nations Security Council resolution 1373, which, I believe, was adopted in 2001. That requires member states to adopt certain anti-terrorism legislation and policies, including those to prevent and repress the financing of terrorist acts; freeze the financial resources available to terrorist organizations; suppress the supply of weapons to terrorist organizations; as well as deny safe haven to the those who finance, plan, support or commit terrorist acts. It also calls on member states to become party to and fully implement the relevant international conventions and protocols related to terrorism as soon as possible.

That resolution was passed in 2001. I am pleased to say that the Anti-terrorism Act of 2001 was essentially a response to that United Nations Security Council resolution. The government of the day did take that resolution seriously and started to move in the direction of what that resolution called upon national governments to do.

A second resolution adopted in 2004 is another one worth mentioning. It is the United Nations Security Council resolution 1540, which focused specifically on non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. It asked member states to take steps to prohibit non-state actors from acquiring nuclear weapons and to put in place additional controls on nuclear materials.

Resolution 1540 also asked member states to: (a) adopt and enforce effective domestic controls to prevent the proliferation of nuclear chemical and biological weapons; (b) adopt legislation to prevent the acquisition, use, or threat of use of nuclear weapons by state or non-state actors; (c) to extend such criminal legislation to apply to citizens extraterritorially, which is one of the features of Bill S-9; and (d) include internal waters, territorial waters and airspace in the territory from which nuclear weapons are prohibited.

This is very important because we know that we are vulnerable. Our ports are vulnerable to the threat of nuclear terrorism. I know that since 9/11 the government has worked with port authorities, local police forces and other authorities to make it, hopefully, impossible for a nuclear terrorist attack to occur in a port, and Canadians should feel somewhat reassured by that.

That is another important issue that we obviously need to be vigilant about.

A third instrument and one that was mentioned before is the International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism, ICSANT, adopted in 2005. This was the first international convention related to terrorism open for signature after 9/11. It builds on both the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material and the International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombing.

ICSANT is comprehensive and contains detailed language on what particular aspects of nuclear terrorism should be criminalized. ICSANT is the inspiration for the bulk of this bill, Bill S-9. Several ICSANT articles are codified in Bill S-9, such as article 2 which outlines new offences created in section 82 of the bill, article 4 which exempts the acts of armed forces during conflicts, article 5 which provides that the offences in the treaty be appropriately punished given the grave nature of these offences, and article 9 which allows states to establish extraterritorial jurisdiction in order to prosecute nuclear terrorism.

Finally, we have the amendment to the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material which was also adopted in 2005 and came out of a diplomatic conference convened in July 2005, three months after ICSANT opened for signature. The convention was signed in Vienna, Austria in March 1980. It is the only legally binding undertaking in the area of the physical protection of nuclear material and establishes measures related to the prevention, detection and punishment of offences relating to nuclear material.

The meeting in 2005 was meant to update and strengthen the convention's provisions. Obviously Bill S-9 is helping to bring Canada into line with the convention so that we can ratify it.

It is a very technical bill and I know there will be many important technical points raised at committee. We hope that the government understands that it is complicated and that parliamentarians are grappling with it, including Senator Dallaire, an eminent Canadian who has written many books, who knows a few things about international law and who has trouble in many ways wrapping his great mind around this bill.

We hope that the officials in the department who drafted the bill will see to it that committee members are well briefed and that officials appear for a lengthy period of time to explain the bill and answer questions that we might have.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am still trying to get answers to my questions and up until now, I am not sure the answers have been given. I am curious to find out what the Liberals think of the fact that it took five years. When we put the question to the parliamentary secretary, she said it was because at that time the government was in a minority situation. In terms of Bill S-9, I have not seen any opposition to it and I did not see any opposition in previous years either, except that it does not seem that any bills were introduced then either.

I wonder what my hon. Liberal colleague thinks about this. In his view, why did the Conservatives take so long to introduce Bill S-9?

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is perhaps because, in those days, the government was more concerned about generating vote-winning headlines. In addition, this is a very technical bill that will not make headlines, despite the fact that it is very important. It is ironic, because we know the government really likes to talk about its law and order agenda. But when it is time to take real action, which is not as interesting in terms of political communications, it puts off taking action for too long and at some point it really must act. This is not a bill that is going to make headlines. This is a government that is very concerned about political communications.

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to return to a question I asked earlier when we started the debate on Bill S-7. The hon. member made a very interesting suggestion about the need for a parliamentary committee that would have access to more information on the state of threats, specifically terrorist threats, to the country. I could well assume that would include elements related to Bill S-9 as well, with specific focus on the state of protection of nuclear facilities, radioactive material and so on.

I wonder if the member sees that connection and whether he could elaborate or offer some thoughts on how such a committee could actually assist, at least the understanding of Parliament, on the whole question of nuclear terrorism.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, totally there is a connection because this is obviously a domestic piece of legislation. It is inward-looking. It is about adapting our legislative framework to our obligations under international treaties. However, in order for Canada to help combat nuclear terrorism, we need to work with our allies. We need to share information. For example, we are a party to the global initiative to combat nuclear terrorism which emphasizes the importance of member states assisting other states to meet their commitments and so on.

We might like to know, in an in camera session of a special committee, how the government is working with other nations. We would also like to get some information on how it is helping other nations and ourselves implement the provisions and the goals of these treaties. Obviously, this information would be very sensitive so we would need some kind of committee where members would be under oath and where information could be shared with confidence that it would not compromise national security.

[Francine Raynault, NDP, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech.

In his view, how is the government going to deal with the potential problems stemming from the fact that the new Criminal Code offences have a broader scope than those found in individual international agreements?

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I believe that the member for Toronto—Danforth talked about it in his speech.

It may not be intentional; perhaps it is a drafting error. For that reason, the bill will go to committee, where the experts will tell us if better alignment is needed to ensure that the bill's measures do not go too far in either direction. It can go either way. These important questions must be raised. This could be the issue in committee.

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise a second time because my hon. colleague said that he was rather shocked by the omission of making a device from the bill that went to the Senate. In light of the fact that he has had more legislative experience than I have, I wonder if he has had other experiences to know what it is about the legislative drafting process or the decision-making process that could account for that, especially the fact that the government does not seem to have even mentioned it in its presentation.

What should parliamentarians take away from this experience to this point when we cannot even get a direct answer from across the aisle?

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I think it has to do with where the political part of the government puts its emphasis. If the government is interested in legislation that has media appeal, it will ask its public servants to spend more time on that legislation. On the other hand, if it has to produce very technical legislation that will not really create much of a bang but which is required in order for us to meet our international commitments, it may send a message, unwittingly perhaps, to public servants that this is something to get rid of rather quickly because we want to get back to the business of introducing big headline legislation. It could be that this was not made a priority within the bureaucracy because the political leadership communicated the message to the public servants that it was not a big deal.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, what my colleague from Lac-Saint-Louis had to say was very interesting. I would like to ask him a question about a statement by Senator Dallaire, for whom I have a great deal of admiration. On the subject of Bill S-9, the senator said:

...this legislation does not necessarily give us the warm fuzzy feeling that, with regard to the movement of nuclear-related devices, material or their ability to enter this country, we have covered all the gaps in any of the areas where some of this stuff might be able to sneak in under the radar.

Does the member agree with Senator Dallaire?

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, if I have understood correctly, Senator Dallaire is saying that it is well and good to have laws and legislative provisions that prohibit this or that, but that the resources must be provided, either by the Department of National Defence or by the Canada Border Services Agency. The resources must be on the ground in order to intercept the movement of dangerous devices and materials.

It is one thing to have laws. But in order for them to be effective, they must be accompanied by the necessary resources. We cannot sit on our laurels once the law is passed and forget about it.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I feel fortunate because it is now my turn. I am tempted to pick up where the previous speakers left, namely the members for Toronto—Danforth and for Lac-Saint-Louis. The latter told the former that he should resort to political rants. I almost feel like doing just that because I see a problem. It is not the first time, because several justice bills are brought forward. You are aware of that because at one point you were our justice critic. Now, we are faced with the same scenario. A parliamentary secretary introduces a bill and then we hear nothing more from the government side.

We lack information regarding bills. Indeed, the bill is all we have. Again, all hon. members should read it, because it is fascinating. For some, this may be a relaxing exercise that will help them get to sleep, given how dry the document is. This legislation is not easy reading stuff. It is not what the member for Lac-Saint-Louis called a bill that is introduced following a big news story. It is not always easy to understand.

If these stages are followed in the House—and you know that Mr. Speaker, because you have been here a long time, probably longer than many of us—it is because they are all important. There is the first reading stage, when the minister introduces his bill. That is usually done quickly. This is followed by the second reading, which begins with a speech in which the government must explain its intentions. We ask some questions, but we do not always get answers. Then it is over, because there is nothing but silence from the other side, when we could already have an idea of where the government is headed with its legislation, what it is contemplating and whether it has considered all the issues. As the member for Toronto—Danforth pointed out, when listening to the parliamentary secretary, we got the impression that, maybe, something had been omitted. I am not imputing motives to her, but it is as though the government does not realize that it has been amended in the Senate. A rather important substantive amendment was made, but the government has not said much about it.

When we asked why it took the Conservative government so long to introduce Bill S-9, which does not present any problem—and we asked that question a number of times—we were told that it was part of our international commitments. And to quote the member for Toronto—Danforth, it may not even go far enough. We will see at committee stage. I am not sure I share this opinion. In any case we will see in committee, “but why five years”? Is it because, as the member for Lac-Saint-Louis suggested, the government thinks this legislation is not sexy enough—if I may use that expression—because it does not make headlines, because it will not be mentioned on the 11 p.m. news bulletin? I agree, but these are extremely important measures which seriously affect people's safety, and that is again the case here.

What is Bill S-9? This legislation was introduced in the Senate on March 27, 2012. If hon. members listened to my speech this morning on Bill S-7—at the beginning of the debate at second reading—they know that I am absolutely, and always will be, opposed to the introduction of a bill in the Senate first. In this House, we have elected members who represent the population. If a government wants to propose measures, it should introduce them in the House first. I realize that, sometimes, it may be practical because it seems that the other place has time to conduct studies. However, since we will have to do those studies in any case, I have a serious problem with that. Is that problem serious enough to prevent me from supporting the bill? It has to do more with the form. I am making a substantive criticism of the form, but Bill S-9 must fundamentally be approved by this House so that it can at least be referred to a committee.

We have various concerns regarding Bill S-9. The member for Toronto—Danforth presented a number of those concerns but I want to go back to some of them.

Bill S-9 amends the Criminal Code to implement the criminal law requirements contained in two international treaties to combat terrorism, namely the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material, the CPPNM, which was amended in 2005, and the International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism, the ICSANT, signed in 2005.

As one can see, that is not necessarily an easy process. That is basically what the bill does. It simply allows us to join these treaties.

The bill on nuclear terrorism includes 10 clauses that create four new offences under part II of the Criminal Code.

It will make it illegal to: possess, use or dispose of nuclear or radioactive material or a nuclear or radioactive device, or commit an act against a nuclear facility or its operations, with the intent to cause death, serious bodily harm or substantial damage to property or the environment; use or alter nuclear or radioactive material or a nuclear or radioactive device, or commit an act against a nuclear facility or its operation, with the intent to compel a person, government or international organization to do or refrain from doing anything; commit an indictable offence under federal law for the purpose of obtaining nuclear or radioactive material, a nuclear or radioactive device, or access or control of a nuclear facility; and threaten to commit any of the other three offences.

The bill seeks to introduce into the Criminal Code other amendments that are incidental to these four offences, but are nonetheless significant.

The bill also introduces definitions of certain terms used in the description of the new offences including, as the parliamentary secretary indicated, a definition of “environment,” “nuclear facility,” “nuclear material,” “radioactive material and device,” and the amendment to the definition of “terrorist activity.”

It will not be easy. The committee that will examine this bill will have to carry out several studies in order for everybody to properly understand the scope of the amendments being introduced.

The bill would also introduce a new section in the Criminal Code in order to ensure that individuals who commit or attempt to commit one of these offences while abroad can be prosecuted in Canada.

I am sure that members of the House have already heard about the concept of double jeopardy, which means being accused a second time for a crime for which the individual has already been found guilty or innocent.

A clause has been added under which it would be impossible to prevent the Canadian government from filing an indictment against a person found guilty abroad when that person is on Canadian soil.

The bill has a number of implications that will certainly need to be reviewed in committee.

The bill also amends the provisions in the Criminal Code—and this too is extremely important—concerning wiretapping so that it applies to the new offences. The bill will also amend the Criminal Code in order that the four new offences be considered primary designated offences for the purposes of DNA warrants and collection orders. It would also modify the Canadian rule concerning double jeopardy, as I stated earlier.

I should add, as background, so that people understand—because it is not always clear—that the bill meets Canada's international obligations under the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material and the International Convention on the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism. In my opinion, this is the cornerstone of the bill.

Concerns have been raised, but before speaking about this, it is important to remind members that Canada has not ratified either the CPPNM or the amended version of the ICSANT. This is explained by the fact that no legislation is in place criminalizing the offences contained in the CPPNM or those presented in the amended version of the ICSANT.

Canada will not be a party to the international treaties until Bill S-9 has been adopted. I think that this is extremely important. This is probably why all the parties in the House will support Bill S-9 so that it can be sent to committee as quickly as possible.

Here are some concerns raised during the review of the bill by the Senate committee. First, there was the issue of excessive scope. The intention of the Department of Justice was to adhere as closely as possible to the convention's provisions. The member for Toronto—Danforth made the point very well. Some of the new Criminal Code offences are even broader in scope than the offences included in the international agreements. Therefore, we will have to ensure that the excessive scope of these new clauses is not going to trigger undue criminalization and does not violate the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

There is also the issue of sentences. I was very pleased to see, at last, the Conservatives introduce a bill that does not include minimum sentences. This means we can take a serious look at their legislation without having a problem from the outset, even when we agree with all the rest. However, the maximum sentences that may be imposed for one of the four new offences are heavy. Three of the four offences may result in a maximum penalty of life imprisonment. This meets the requirements of the ICSANT and of the CPPNM, which provide that member countries must impose sentences in line with the serious nature of these offences.

The Senate brought an amendment regarding the development of a nuclear or radioactive device, which is prohibited by the ICSANT, but which was not in the original proposed amendments to the Criminal Code. I am very pleased that the Senate amended this part of the bill and that the amendment was unanimously adopted. It was an oversight. However, because of this kind of oversight, when I see that a bill—which has gone through so many stages at the justice department, through so many supposedly experts and which was approved by the minister before being introduced—contains such a glaring error, I worry about other oversights in this legislation. It is the lawyer in me that always makes me worry about that.

It goes without saying that we will take a close look at this bill in committee. We are not going to give the Conservatives a blank cheque because if they made such a serious mistake, they may have made other ones. We will see about that during the committee stage of Bill S-9.

It is important to understand some facts and numbers. The term “nuclear” usually sounds scary to people. Between 1993 and 2011, the International Atomic Energy Agency identified close to 2,000 incidents related to the use, transportation and unauthorized possession of nuclear and radioactive material. That information was provided by the director general, Non-Proliferation and Security Threat Reduction, at Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada.

Canada ratified the CPPNM in 1980. That convention promotes the development of measures related to prevention, detection and the imposition of penalties for crimes related to nuclear material. The CPPNM was adopted under the auspices of the International Atomic Energy Agency, the IAEA. There are many acronyms here.

The message I want to share with the House is this: we believe that we need to take a serious look at nuclear safety and that we need to meet our international obligations in order to co-operate better with other countries as regards strategies used to fight nuclear terrorism. There is no question about that.

I used to ask, again and again, why we were talking about five years. But I get the impression the Prime Minister really felt some pressure during his recent trips abroad: action was needed because relatively few countries have ratified the treaties.

In that context, since Canada usually enjoys a rather enviable reputation worldwide, if we can finally meet our international treaty obligations and pass a bill that makes sense, it may encourage other countries to do the same. At least, I hope it will.

Finally, we fully intend to foster multilateral diplomacy and international co-operation, obviously, especially in areas where we share common concerns, including nuclear terrorism. We must work with the leading countries that are in the process of ratifying these treaties. Since we have agreed to be legally bound by the treaties, it is important that we fulfill our international obligations. We cannot officially ratify the treaties until we have implemented national legislation. As we believe in co-operation and in the importance of this bill, we will support it at second reading so the committee can review it more thoroughly.

When it comes to nuclear issues, we have to be careful. Using less uranium would probably reduce risks. At committee, we will have a chance to bring forward some points about new technologies used to create isotopes. Members of the House will remember the isotope crisis. We have to be careful when we talk about burying nuclear waste. Will transporting nuclear waste be considered an act of terrorism? We also need to be careful when it comes to the methods used to bury nuclear waste.

[Francine Raynault, NDP, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her work.

Does she think that the government is capable of finding cases in which Bill S-9 goes beyond what is required by the amendment to ICSANT and CPPNM?

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that is a good question. I thank the member for Joliette, who has paid careful attention to the entire debate, which started this afternoon.

I do not know whether the government is capable of finding cases in which Bill S-9 goes beyond what is required by the amendment to ICSANT and the CPPNM. The question was asked of the parliamentary secretary, but there was no answer. It would have been a good opportunity to tell us whether the government was capable of finding an answer.

Is it because there is no answer? Or rather that there is an answer but the government does not necessarily want to give us the information?

Earlier, members spoke of a lack of transparency, which after a while becomes a little irritating. Although we want to work co-operatively, it is sometimes extremely difficult to do so. We are never sure whether the unstated objective is simply to have us vote against legislation and then turn around and make ridiculous accusations afterward, or whether it is simply because the Conservatives themselves do not know.

A select few in the Prime Minister's Office, along with a number of ministers, have their lips tightly sealed. That is why we do not get any answers to our questions when we ask others, or even when we ask the people concerned.

I do not know whether they have answers to these questions, but we are certainly going to ask them again when the bill is referred to committee.

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Gatineau, the justice critic for the official opposition, spoke extremely persuasively about the problem of Canada's reputation abroad and alluded to the fact that the government seems to have a different opinion of its reputation. I am just wondering if, along the lines of the rather acute analysis by the member of Parliament for Lac-Saint-Louis, if she could comment on what might be the impact on our reputation of the fact that we have taken so long to bring in domestic legislation to ratify a treaty that we could have ratified five, six, seven years ago.

That said, there may possibly be no problem with Canada's reputation abroad. After all, the Prime Minister just received the World Statesman of the Year award from an organization so important that he skipped speaking to the UN, even though he was in the same city. The award was presented by a famous humanitarian named Henry Kissinger. Surely, all is right with the government's reputation in the world.

I wonder if the member can sustain her point that Canada's reputation is suffering.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

As I said, we still have a good reputation. When we speak to people, when we travel, we find that people from other countries still hold Canadians in high regard. Is the same true of governments? That is something else entirely. I was speaking more about how the citizens, not the governments, of the countries in question see Canada. I am sure foreign governments must be somewhat surprised to see how Canada has changed its style.

Allow me to make an aside. On the weekend, people in my region were asking questions. It seems that the government is getting ready to change the name of a museum in Canada. They want to change the name of the Canadian Museum of Civilization and call it the Canadian History Museum.

[Royal Galipeau]

That is rubbish.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

I hope that it is rubbish, Mr. Speaker. However, it was a respected journalist who wrote an article on this, which caused a lot of concern among people.

I would like to comment on something, if I may. It is easy to see how panic can quickly set in. Why does this happen? I am not panicking, because I am waiting to see the facts. Panic sets in quickly because this government has set the tone through its previous actions.

At home, when we were young, my mother always said that she knew her daughter might have done such and such, because she knew us very well. For example, if a glass was broken, it might have been me because I was clumsy, but if it was something else, it was more likely someone else. We see the same thing happening with this government. In other words, we often wonder what there is underneath it all. The same is true on the international scene. When I was a child, before coming to the House, we talked about the blue berets and the great tradition of protecting people, of peacekeeping. Now, more often than not, the talk is about terrorism and they say we have to get tough on crime and change this or change that, and I could go on.

When we look at it all, we get the impression that things are changing at the government level. At least it has not yet reached the level of the public, but it will perhaps not take long for that to happen.

We must wonder, however, why it took so long to introduce this bill when we are being told how fundamental and necessary it is, and the reason why it was not introduced for so long while they had a minority government is not related in any way, shape or form to that fact.

That is hogwash, and those answers do not stand up. It always disturbs me, and that is why we are always suspicious when we consider bills like this. The government is never transparent with us and never gives us the straight goods. We have to keep scratching away until we uncover the facts.

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, everyone in this afternoon's debate has spoken of the need to treat this bill with some dispatch. Obviously, the government has put us in a situation where the bill probably needs to be treated with more dispatch than should have been necessary. This could have been done some time before. If the committee is going to treat this bill responsibly but also with dispatch, what requisite information would the member like government officials to come to the committee with so that we can do exactly that?

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

I agree that this bill has to be passed relatively quickly. Although it is necessary—even long overdue—we cannot set aside our responsibility as legislators by rushing such a bill through. It is a fact that it should have been enacted several years ago. However, the fact that the Conservatives should have introduced it in the House a long time ago does not mean that the committee should have to rush through it. We are going to examine it diligently and intelligently, but no one is going to force me to skip over important testimony that needs to be heard.

Mr. Speaker, I am sending the government this message through you: for goodness’ sake, when the witnesses appear, particularly witnesses from the department who have facts to convey to the committee, let us not play hide and seek, because that will take more time before we can complete our work in committee.

So I urge people to come in with the information. We want everyone to work together in the same direction. On the question of procedural stumbling blocks, it would be stupid to find ourselves five years later in the same kind of situation, just to prevent the speedy passage of this bill. We are going to do our work seriously.

[Christine Moore, NDP, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to be able to speak about Bill S-9, the Nuclear Terrorism Act, which amends the Criminal Code. I would like to point out that this bill comes from the Senate.

The bill was introduced with a view to implementing the requirements of two international treaties signed by Canada, but not yet ratified. For a treaty to be ratified, the laws that apply to it must have come into force.

The purpose of these two international treaties is to combat nuclear terrorism. They are the amended 2005 version of the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material, or the CPPNM, and the International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism, or ICSANT. Canada signed both of these treaties in 2005.

In Canada, there are several steps involved in signing an international treaty. To begin with, there are negotiations and the signing. Then comes ratification, which is the implementation stage, after which the treaty comes into force. For both treaties, we are still only at the signing stage.

Signing an international treaty is only the first step in the process. Signing means that a country is in principle in agreement with the terms of the treaty and that it intends to comply with them. After signing the treaty, Canada must avoid actions that are contrary to the purpose and intent of the treaty, but it is not officially bound by the treaty until it has been ratified. There is still a long way to go before these treaties come into force in Canada.

To be able to ratify these two treaties, Canada needs to amend some of its statutes. In practice, this means that we need to introduce legislation to criminalize the offences described in both treaties. That, moreover, is the purpose of this bill: to make the required amendments to the Criminal Code in order to be able to ratify the two treaties and move one step closer to having them come into force.

It is therefore important at the outset to ask what these two treaties would like to introduce.

The Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material, which was ratified by Canada in 1980, was at the time intended to develop measures designed to prevent, detect and punish crimes related to nuclear material. However, the field of application of the CPPMN was limited to “nuclear material used for peaceful purposes while in international nuclear transport”. In 2005, amendments were made to cover nuclear material used for peaceful purposes while in domestic use, storage and transport as well as domestic nuclear facilities. The amendments also introduced changes to foster co-operation between states with respect to the development of measures to recover stolen or smuggled nuclear material, mitigation of the radiological impacts of sabotage and measures to fight crime related to nuclear material.

This amendment clearly affirms that the objective of the convention is to prevent and combat offences involving nuclear material and facilities throughout the world and to facilitate co-operation between states. Canada ratified the 1980 version, but has not yet done so for the 2005 version, which introduced the amendments I have just mentioned.

The purpose of the International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism was to provide for new criminal offences for acts of nuclear terrorism and to impose the obligation to “extradite or prosecute” in the event of acts of nuclear terrorism.

The bill that was introduced creates various clauses to implement the provisions contained in these two conventions. It is important to take a few moments to understand why I support this bill as a member of the NDP and why the NDP in general has chosen to support it.

We all agree that nuclear terrorism is a major threat to international security. It is one of the most significant threats in the world because the consequences—as we have already seen, unfortunately—can be devastating. Currently, we know that it does not take much to cause significant damage. People here in Canada and around the world are quite concerned about nuclear terrorism and are very concerned when they hear there is a possibility that some countries have nuclear programs. This is something that is very important to people not only on a national level—to Canadians—but also on an international level.

I also want to note that we are committed to diplomacy and international co-operation. Ratifying treaties to ensure the co-operation of countries when it comes to terrorism and nuclear terrorism seems like common sense to me. When it comes to such worrisome situations as this for security, we cannot bury our heads in the sand. We have no choice but to co-operate with every democratic body in order to obtain results and ensure the security of every citizen not only of our country, but of all countries.

There is one reason, among others, that I want to support this bill. In the NDP, we are proud of our international reputation, even though it has been tarnished a bit by the Conservative government many times over the past few years. Taking one step closer to ratifying these treaties shows that we have not forgotten our international commitments and would allow us to get back on the right track with regard to the image Canada wants to project on the world stage.

As several witnesses testified during consideration of the bill in the Senate, one of the main ways to prevent terrorists from getting their hands on radioactive material is to beef up nuclear security and, whenever possible, to limit military applications of radioactive materials. It is simple logic. By limiting the use of nuclear materials as much as possible, such materials will become more scarce and terrorists will have a much harder time stealing them and using them to harm our society. It is a first step. The military is increasingly moving away from nuclear weapons. This should spare us quite a few problems in the future.

I would like to highlight something that Matthew Bunn, Associate Professor of Public Policy at Harvard, told the Senate committee:

At scores of sites around the world, dramatically improved nuclear security has been put in place, and, at scores of other sites, the weapons-usable nuclear material has been removed entirely, reducing the threat of nuclear theft at those sites to zero. More than 20 countries have eliminated all of the weapons-usable nuclear material on their soil. These successes represent, in a real sense, bombs that will never go off.

The five last words of that quote are worth repeating: “...bombs that will never go off.” This goes to show that if we can limit or eliminate the use of such material, there will be fewer bombs hanging over our heads, and more bombs that will never go off.

To that end, Canada must take concrete steps to support nuclear safety throughout the world, and I think that this bill is a step in the right direction. Although it applies to Canada's laws, it is based on a worldwide effort.

Canada is only one of the countries that signed these treaties, and since this is an international effort to reach a common goal, it is important to ensure that every country does its part to reduce the risk to our fellow Canadians. This bill involves international co-operation among various entities.

In the past, Canada was known on the world stage as a country that values co-operation. We must continue to do our fair share and follow through on our international commitments. If Canada wants to once again play a leading role in diplomacy and international co-operation and if it wants to convince other countries to adopt a responsible approach to reducing the risk of terrorism and the theft of nuclear material and weapons, then we have to set an example and take responsible measures immediately.

Canada's ratification of these treaties will also encourage other countries to take measures to ratify the treaties and thereby help us to take one more step in improving global security.

I would like to digress for a moment. Although I am emphasizing the importance of adopting these measures, the fact remains that nuclear safety is a fairly complex issue. Everyone agrees on that. However, the desire to ratify and implement measures fairly quickly does not mean that we should avoid doing the work in committee. What is important here is taking the time to carefully examine the issues so that we only have to do the work once and so that we do not have to make changes later. Although there is a somewhat urgent need to act, we must take the time to do things right because the safety of our fellow Canadians is at stake. I would like to point out that the Conservatives have been in power for a long time and that they could have introduced this type of bill a long time ago.

As soon as it is ratified by Canada, the treaty will become the legal basis for Canada's collaboration with the other parties to the treaty in areas such as criminal investigations, mutual legal assistance and extradition. This will quite clearly strengthen international co-operation and contribute to the fight against the nuclear threat.

The bill must be seen as a way to give effect to the treaty provisions on an international scale. To that end, however, the committee will have to undertake an in-depth study of the bill and review its technical aspects.

The bill seeks to enact provisions related to those found in the two international treaties. The committee will have the opportunity to go through every clause to make sure the bill achieves its goal, which is to ratify these two treaties signed in 2005.

As I mentioned earlier, we have to understand that several aspects of the issue of nuclear security are highly technical. The committee will need to take the time to study the issue in depth to make sure the bill includes all the necessary provisions and that it goes far enough without going too far. We have to act in a non-partisan fashion to protect the security of our fellow Canadians as well as international security.

Considering the number of Canadian travellers who like to gallivant around the world, even if a nuclear bomb were used by terrorists outside of our borders, this could have a serious impact on Canadians abroad. It is therefore important to create a bill that we can be proud of and can serve as an example to other countries that have not yet ratified the two separate conventions, in terms of what they can do to move forward on nuclear safety.

Quite apart from the technical details of the bill that will be thoroughly examined in committee, I would remind the House that it is extremely important to go ahead with the ratification of these treaties in order to support efforts to ensure global nuclear safety.

Between 2010 and 2012, Canada and several other nations taking part in the nuclear summit agreed to ratify these two conventions. Furthermore, at the 2012 summit in Seoul, participating states agreed to enforce the CPPNM amendments made in 2005 in time for the 2014 summit.

However, for that to happen, two-thirds of the 145 participating states must ratify the treaty. So far, only 56 have done so, when at least 97 ratifications are needed. If Canada were to ratify the treaty, this would be another positive step towards international implementation of this amendment to the convention.

This represents another step forward for the entire population towards enhanced nuclear safety in our country, as well as around the globe.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue, who gave an excellent speech on a bill that is not a very easy read. I mentioned that a number of times in my own speech.

I asked the same question of the Liberal member earlier, and I would like to hear what my NDP colleague has to say. During the Senate committee's examination of the bill, Senator Dallaire said:

I wish to concisely come back to the point of all these different bills coming at us. We are covering the bases that are presented to us, but there is no feeling, even within reading the report, the 2010 report, of what the delta of gaps are in the security with regard to terrorism or anti-terrorism. It seems to me that it is fine to go through and do our legislative duty; however, without that framework, it seems to me that, as a committee, we are a bit ill- equipped to get a warm, fuzzy feeling that we are going down the road that we feel maybe should be done expeditiously enough by the department or by the ministries with regard to anti-terrorism.

My colleague works very hard on the national defence files, and I would like to know if she agrees with Senator Dallaire.

[Christine Moore, NDP, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, to know whether a bill will truly promote nuclear safety, we must know the dangers and risks. As the senator pointed out, when we do not know these dangers and risks, it is difficult to know whether we are truly preventing these nuclear materials from being used for terrorism.

There are two different contexts. We want to prevent terrorists from potentially using these materials, but the bill must also allow reasonable access to nuclear materials that will be used for medical purposes, for example.

In terms of nuclear safety, we must be able to balance these two things. If we are truly not aware of the dangers and gaps in the current system, it is really difficult to know whether we are eliminating these dangers.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will continue this dialogue.

I would be tempted to ask my colleague the same question I already asked many other members today, regarding how long it took to introduce Bill S-9. We regularly see Conservative members put on a big show when it comes to terrorism, heavy-handed military measures, and so on.

The fact is, we are not against this bill, and neither are the Liberals, I believe. Why did it take five years, once the treaties were signed, to introduce Bill S-9 in the House?

[Christine Moore, NDP, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question.

I, too, was surprised that it took five years for this bill to be introduced in the House of Commons. Nuclear safety is such an important issue that I cannot understand why it has not been discussed earlier. It is my understanding that just about all my colleagues in the House of Commons intend to support this bill. I do not understand, however, why it has taken five years. Clearly, this was not a controversial bill. It has to do with the safety of the Canadians we represent. Yet, for me, it is a little incomprehensible.

When the decision was made to introduce this bill, it opened the door to an analysis of current security threats. This is another very interesting aspect for discussion. Is there currently any danger in Canada? For example, should our military get more training on how to respond to the possibility of a nuclear threat? This bill will give rise to a whole host of questions.

It really surprises me that it has taken five years. I do not suppose that members were waiting for my arrival in the House of Commons, but I still find it passing strange.

[Paulina Ayala, NDP, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I know that my colleague has a lot of experience concerning the armed forces; I, myself, do not have much.

I would like to know what improvements she would make to this bill. I know—and we hope—that it will be referred to committee for amendment. I would like to hear what my colleague has to say about this.

[Christine Moore, NDP, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know if this is an amendment per se to the bill, but if the intention is to enhance nuclear safety, it might be useful to ask whether our responders are adequately trained to respond when there are threats to nuclear safety.

As a military officer, I received basic training on how to respond to a nuclear threat, but it was only basic training.

It is worth raising the issue even though it would not result in an amendment per se. Perhaps the adoption of this bill, or discussion thereof in committee, will give rise to questions, such as whether our military personnel, police forces and others are sufficiently trained to respond when nuclear material has been stolen or tampered with. Canada is a big country, and if we only have one specialized team, a response on the ground may take some time.

Should we, therefore, be giving more training to our police officers, firefighters, and other front line responders, including medical staff?

I am an intensive care emergency room nurse, and in my hospital, nurses have no training whatsoever to treat patients who have been exposed to nuclear material. Perhaps rapid intervention by qualified medical staff who are trained to know what to do would be more appropriate.

That is a matter that should be raised in committee. I would really like to have the opportunity to discuss it. That is why the committee has to take as much time as it needs to study this bill.

[Francine Raynault, NDP, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech and all her work.

New Democrats are determined to promote multilateral diplomacy and international co-operation, especially in areas of common concern, such as nuclear terrorism.

Why must we work with the other countries that are in the process of ratifying these treaties?

[Christine Moore, NDP, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, when talking about international diplomacy, the example that comes to my mind concerns the use of nuclear materials by the military.

Often, when there is the possibility of a conflict between two armed forces, neither will preclude the use of these weapons as long as the other side does not. This requires diplomacy. There are discussions and one side will say that it is prepared to stop using these materials as long as the other side is also willing to do so. Through diplomacy, these people can stop resorting to these materials, or stop having them in their possession.

Diplomacy and co-operation among countries results in the measured reduction of available nuclear materials that can be stolen and possibly be made into bombs that will be used to threaten us.

[Ève Péclet, NDP, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise in the House today. We are dealing with a fairly difficult issue that concerns all Canadians and people throughout the entire world. As my colleague mentioned, this issue concerns everyone and is a worry for everyone. The NDP supports this bill. It is important that I start my speech by saying that we will work with the government.

However, I am wondering why it took the government five years to decide to talk about terrorism and nuclear weapons. And, why did this bill originate in the Senate? I do not wish to belittle the work of the senators who worked hard on this bill, but I do not understand why the government did not take the initiative to introduce it. Why, after years of discussion, did the Senate introduce this bill, when the government had numerous opportunities to do so?

Of course, the Conservative members will say that they were a minority government at the time, but that is no excuse since everyone was in favour of drafting and passing a bill to ratify two conventions—the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material and the International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism.

I would like to ask the government the following questions. Why did it wait five years before debating this subject in the House? Why did it wait for the Senate to introduce such a bill? Why did the government not take the initiative? The government used nuclear issues and terrorism to its advantage whenever it pleased but, when it came to taking action, we had to wait five years for this topic to be discussed in the House.

To add insult to injury, today while we are examining this bill in the House, the Conservative members are not asking any questions and are not trying to debate this issue. They are letting the Senate do all the work and, when it is time to debate and to ask the government what it wants, the government just lets things happen and lets the opposition debate the issue alone. Who is going to answer my questions? I wonder. The government is once again refusing to debate bills designed to ensure the safety of Canadians.

We have seen this not only with regard to nuclear issues but also with regard to food safety. As we have seen over the past two weeks, food safety is not really a priority for the government.

I would now like to talk about Bill S-9 and give a little background information. In order for a convention to be ratified and apply in Canada, an implementation act must be passed. That is what Bill S-9 does. The NDP would never oppose the fact that Canada must respect its international obligations. The Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material has already been ratified, but no bill has been passed to implement it. The Conservatives have finally decided to implement the convention. It would great if the government would do the same for all of the conventions it has ratified, particularly the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which, I seem to recall, Canada did sign.

I would like to take this opportunity to reach out to the government and tell it that we in the NDP are determined to use multilateral diplomacy, to promote multilateralism and international co-operation, especially in areas that concern not only Canadians, but everyone on the planet.

Everyone, all nation states, are concerned about terrorism, which affects everyone around the globe. We all know how important this is. The NDP fully supports the criminal offences created by Bill S-9.

We need to work with other major countries that have begun a similar ratification process. For instance, in front of the UN General Assembly, the Minister of Foreign Affairs criticized the very organization that had invited him to speak, one that merely acts on the recommendations of its member states. Criticizing the UN is tantamount to criticizing the 191 member states, and our own allies. Why not use diplomacy and our influence instead?

I have a feeling that this government has forgotten that Canada has a great deal of influence on the international stage. Unfortunately, this influence has diminished considerably since the Conservatives came to power in 2006. As an extra little dig at my colleagues opposite, I would remind the House that Canada lost its seat on the UN Security Council for the first time.

This bill is a good opportunity for this government to realize the influence and the importance of the role it can play in the fight against terrorism and nuclear threats.

It is important to understand what the UN is. The minister does not seem to understand what it is for. The UN is a forum for discussion among states, to ensure that problems are resolved through dialogue whenever possible. The NDP does not think we should wait for a problem to arise before taking action, whether we are talking about terrorism, nuclear threat, criminal justice or food safety. We must prevent a problem, conflict, food safety crisis or crime. We must not take action after the fact.

That is why we have such an important role in diplomacy and at the UN. We must use our influence to ensure all the states ratify these two conventions, apply them and adopt them, as we will do in the coming weeks, when Bill S-9 is passed. These conventions must be implemented immediately and not after five years, as the Conservative government is doing. There is a problem now and we are talking about it now.

We can use the UN forum to ensure that all states benefit from Canada's policies. Instead of withdrawing from talks, why not step forward and offer our assistance? Why not use our influence to help other countries adopt the same kind of bill? Why not?

Canada has always supported multilateralism. It should make more of an effort in this regard. Even the United States, which had abandoned multilateralism under George Bush, has understood the mistake it made.

We cannot criticize the UN if member states refuse to take action on a given situation or are divided on how to respond to a crisis. The UN never had a mandate to make decisions on its own. The member states, including Canada, give it the mandate to take action in response to a given situation.

When the Minister of Foreign Affairs decides to criticize the UN and withdraw Canada from work that he called fruitless, he is giving up on improving any situation and preventing conflict, on improving how the UN works. This also jeopardizes the resolution of future conflicts, for example, in Syria.

The government must work together with the opposition today to create multilateral institutions and to create a strong Canada that can use its influence in the interest not only of every Canadian, but of every human being. We have to improve the current situation to resolve problems, to be proactive and not reactive.

To have a foreign policy that is worthy of Canada is to do things that show the entire world the values that we are defending today in the House. Through the policies we adopt and the speeches we make here, like the ones we are making this evening, we can show that Canada is a leader that defends the values of democracy, human rights, peace and justice.

That is why the NDP will vote in favour of this bill. Mostly, the NDP will be voting in favour of multilateral diplomacy and international co-operation, which might benefit everyone. We know that terrorism is of concern to everyone. For example, as my colleague was saying, we all know where we were on September 11. I remember where I was. It was my first week of high school. It was a defining moment for someone entering adolescence. I remember very clearly that all my classes were cancelled because something significant was happening.

Why has it taken so long to talk about this? I was 12 when that happened. Today, I sit in the House of Commons and I am asking the government: why did it take so long? Why did it wait for the Senate to introduce such a bill instead of taking the lead internationally, as it so often forgets to do? The government could have taken concrete action on a problem that all Canadians and all human beings on Earth are dealing with today.

The bill reinforces Canada's obligations under resolution 1540 of the UN Security Council that was adopted in 2004. Today, as far as I know, it is 2012. That is a big time span. The government can blame others; it can point fingers at the other side of the House, but it was the government's responsibility. It had a choice and it chose to wait for the Senate to introduce the bill.

What would have happened if the Senate had decided not to introduce Bill S-9? Would the government have acted? I would like to know. Would the government have waited another 10 or 20 years, or would it have waited for a major conflict before passing Bill C-9 and not Bill S-9? None of this diminishes the Senators' excellent work on the bill. I know they work very hard.

As I said, what we want is for Canada to abide by its international obligations. That is a principle that Canada has always advocated. However, since the Conservatives have been in power, we have veered more toward unilateralism and bilateralism and away from multilateralism. Why? Here again, the government could clarify the matter for us. But what does it decide to do? It rejects all debate and leaves the opposition to try to improve bills and work with the government to adopt good laws that protect the safety of Canadians.

It has to be said that, try as they might to generate political capital over the safety of Canadians, when the time comes to act, I really wonder where the Conservatives stand.

We have to take a serious look at the issue of nuclear security. We must use not just the UN, but also every other international institution and organization, to dialogue with other governments in order to prevent these kinds of acts from occurring. Terrorism is clearly a terrible thing. I did not mention it at the start of my speech, but our hearts go out to all the victims and families who have suffered the loss of a loved one. It is truly terrible to lose someone.

Every measure taken to protect people's lives is worth debating and presenting before this House. I would like to see some active participation on the government's part. As I said, I was 12 years old when it happened; now I am 23. We have been talking about combating terrorism for 11 years. Why have we waited all this time to implement treaties whose purpose is precisely to criminalize and eradicate terrorist acts?

It would be good for the government to lead the debate and to explain to us what it wants today. Unfortunately, it has not yet managed to pursue that course. We know the government is an ardent advocate of democracy around the world, except in Canada, of course. Everything is done very quickly; bills are passed very quickly. The New Democratic Party is asking that this bill be carefully studied in committee, that we take the necessary time and hear from witnesses so that we can pass a good bill that will criminalize acts of nuclear terrorism and obtain justice for the victims.

The New Democratic Party supports the victims of nuclear terrorism and asks the government to take the necessary time to properly discuss this bill, to study it so that we can say at last that we are taking measures to eradicate nuclear terrorism.

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for such an impassioned speech, which led me to make some connections that I had not been making in preparing my own speech. By that I mean what we have to do with these treaties and this implementing act to protect nuclear materials, radioactive materials, nuclear facilities, and prevent radioactive devices from perhaps being made with some of that material that might be stolen or otherwise diverted.

However, the big piece that seems to be missing in how we think about prevention is that the reason we have so much radioactive nuclear material, and nuclear facilities making such material or contributing to it, includes the fact that nuclear weapons are still such a huge scourge in our world today, that we still have countries with stockpiles of nuclear weapons that could obliterate us hundreds of times over.

How would you ask us to think about the connection between the existence of nuclear weapons, the material that is needed to feed them and the preventive goals of these treaties?

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I would just remind hon. members to direct their questions through the chair. The hon. member for La Pointe-de-l'Île.

[Ève Péclet, NDP, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that is truly interesting. States definitely make frequent use of nuclear weapons during a cold war, which is a struggle for power between states. Nuclear weapons are used as a form of intimidation. We need to criminalize the possession, use and disposal of nuclear or radioactive devices and the commission of acts against a nuclear facility or the operation thereof, in order to make it illegal to use nuclear weapons as a form of intimidation. If acts like these are considered crimes and the conventions are enforced in all states, including those that possess nuclear weapons, the use of this form of coercion will be reduced. If these actions are criminalized, states will no longer be able to use nuclear weapons as a form of pressure or diplomacy. Enforcing these conventions would diminish the importance of these weapons and reduce cold wars between states.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite referred a number of times to the use of nuclear weapons. I want to ensure that Canadians know that Canada only uses nuclear technology for peaceful reasons.

Is the member opposite aware of the key role Canada has played in nuclear non-proliferation? She referred to the cold war. When Canada and the United States were reducing the number of missiles, the technology at Chalk River Laboratories near Deep River actually took the uranium from nuclear warheads from Russia and made it more valuable by turning it into a fuel. That is the sort of thing Canadians are doing to make the whole world safe.

[Ève Péclet, NDP, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, to begin with, yes, I am very much aware of the role Canada played. In my statement, I said that it was important not to forget the role that Canada had played. And it must continue to play that role because, unfortunately, under the Conservatives—I illustrated this clearly in my comments—there has been no dialogue or diplomacy with a view to non-proliferation of nuclear weapons, as my colleague, among others, mentioned.

The government has really done away with the possibilities that existed. For example, by criticizing the UN and withdrawing from multilateralism, it is doing away with all our former international influence.

I would just like to remind the government that it should not forget this influence and that it should use it to our advantage to protect not only Canadians, but all human beings on this planet.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I really appreciated the comments made by the Conservative member regarding Chalk River. I am from the region and so is she. In the Outaouais, the dumping of waste in the Ottawa River, sometimes in Chalk River, is always a source of concern. It is a constant reminder of how we need to be very careful with this material. What I really like about Chalk River and the work being done there is that they are always trying to find new technologies.

The hon. member is right to point out how Canada is a leader in technological development and works very hard to try to stay away from that material which, as everyone will agree, is dangerous. That is why we are trying to pass Bill S-9. I know that the member who just spoke talked at length about the fact that we have been waiting a long time for this bill and that if we want to comply with our treaties, we should have already passed it.

Is she sending to the committee the message that we should act more quickly, or should we still take the time to properly review this bill, notwithstanding this five year delay by the Conservatives?

[Ève Péclet, NDP, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I may have seemed very passionate in my comments when I said it is important to work with the government to adopt Bill S-9. However, the fact remains that this is a highly technical issue that concerns everyone's security.

So yes, we should adopt this bill and we should try to do so quickly, but not without a debate or a review. That is why we are here today. The idea is to study and to work. This is a very sensitive issue. It is urgent to act, but we must never forget that a bill rammed through Parliament is never a good piece of legislation, because we forget things and leave gaps, as my colleague knows. It is important to work properly on a bill, particularly when it deals with an issue as important as nuclear terrorism. If we had discussed it earlier, there would not have been any problem, because we would have had ample time.

The Conservatives will probably tell us the situation is so urgent that we must adopt the bill now, without discussing it, but they should have assumed their responsibilities earlier and deal with it sooner.

[Alexandrine Latendresse, NDP, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from La Pointe-de-l'Île for her very enlightening speech. We know that she has a good handle on her files and the issues before us.

I would like to come back to a particular point she made a few times in her speech. I would like her to speak more about the message the government is sending Canadians by having the Senate introduce this bill. An unelected body is introducing this crucial bill. The member explained this.

What kind of message is the government sending by not having the House of Commons, the MPs, the elected body of this Parliament, introduce this bill? I would like her to comment a bit more on that.

[Ève Péclet, NDP, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I was saying that several Senate bills have been introduced in the House of Commons. I do not wish to belittle the work of our senators, but I would like to know why the government is letting the Senate do the government's job. Is it because it values the opinion of unelected people more than the opinion of the people Canadians elected? Does it not value Canadians' opinions or is it just trying to score political points on certain important issues? When the time comes to take action, the government lets the Senate take the lead.

If the Senate had not introduced Bill S-9, would the government have moved on it? Would we have Bill C-9 instead of Bill S-9? I truly doubt it. I agree with my colleague. We are elected to work on behalf of Canadians, and the Senate should not be doing the work of elected members.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I was just going through my notes for a moment and I was trying to listen to the conversation at the same time and some of the back and forth on what was happening. In my eight years of being here a lot of the legislation comes from treaties, as signatories to significant treaties, whether from the United Nations, or the Council of Europe or the European Union. With these technical amendments, we find ourselves in line with all these treaties for all the right reasons.

Some of the colleagues pointed out that Bill S-9 came from the Senate. I will not dwell on that too much as to why this came from the Senate as opposed to the House of Commons. It has been somewhat of a pattern, but nonetheless it has been some time. This is a fallout from the 9/11 terrorism attacks in the United States. As a result, through international forum, we have come up with what we feel is a way to protect our societies from nuclear terrorism and also to look at how we can codify this within our specific legislation. That could be from each and every member state from the United Nations.

In our case, we find ourselves in a situation where we now have to codify what we set out to do. We are signatories as we signed the first treaty in 2007 and, as a result, we now have to codify this. We saw this recently with copyright legislation as well as other types of legislation. Following this could be things like human trafficking and the like.

In the meantime Bill S-9 is an act to amend the criminal code, or the nuclear terrorism act. Certainly in this situation, it is time for us to have a look at this and to debate it in full, which we are doing on this side of the House. We are looking at the new types of offences. If we look at how this is worded, in a big way we are now coming to terms with the situation that exists internationally. If we look at things like cybercrime in relation to this, the one common factor among all of this is we can no longer contain it to a particular boundary. We now find ourselves fighting crime not just within our country but throughout many countries, whether it is nuclear terrorism, cybercrime, human trafficking or impediments toward environmental disasters. These things are obviously a trend that we are now falling into and the genesis is from our international treaty, and rightly so.

This does not happen right away, as we now know. There were signatories from 2004, ratified in 2007 and here we are in 2012. We went through the same motions when we talked about copyright, but members will get the idea.

The purpose of the bill is stated as:

An Act to amend the Criminal Code...is a 10-clause bill that introduces four new indictable offences into Part II of the Criminal Code,1 which deals with offences against public order. Adding these new offences, with respect to certain activities in relation to nuclear or radioactive material...nuclear facilities, makes it illegal to....

There are four points, which are outlined from the Library of Parliament, for which I would like to thank Jennifer Bird who works at legal and legislative affairs for doing this wonderful summary.

By amending part II, it would make it illegal to “...possess, use or dispose of nuclear or radioactive material or a nuclear or radioactive device, or commit an act against a nuclear facility or its operations, with the intent to cause death, serious bodily harm or substantial damage to property or the environment...”. The key word there is “the environment”, the first part of that.

The second offence would be to “...use or alter nuclear or radioactive material or a nuclear or radioactive device, or commit an act against a nuclear facility or its operation, with the intent to compel a person, government or international organization to do or refrain from doing anything...”.

There is the exploitation matter. In this particular situation there would be certain cells or groups that would take advantage of nuclear facilities and use them against the state, in our case against Canada, or any other international jurisdiction. I will get to the international part of it in a moment because that is different as well. It goes beyond our boundaries when it speaks of indictable offences.

The third is to commit an indictable offence under federal law for the purpose of obtaining nuclear or radioactive material, or a nuclear or radioactive device.

Finally, the last offence is to threaten to commit any of the other three offences. The intent is what is measured there, the threat to do this that exists within society. As we know with this type of material, whether high-grade uranium or plutonium, if someone comes in contact with it or near it, it can be used as a major threat. Therefore, society has to assemble itself in response to that threat, which is incredibly costly and needless to say dangerous. Of course that part is obvious considering the fact that we are dealing with nuclear material.

Bill S-9 also amends the definition of “terrorist activity”. This is found in section 83.01 of the Criminal Code. The revised definition ensures that the commission of the new offences introduced by the bill, as well as attempts to commit them and any conspiracies, counselling or acting as accessories after the fact in relation to them, constitute “terrorist activity”. A lot of people might think that is a mundane thing to do, but terrorist activity could encapsulate many things across many boundaries, not just in nuclear technology but also when it comes to things like cybercrime and the environment.

My colleagues earlier were talking about how it took a while for this to get to the House and whether we fault a particular group or party in the House for wasting too much time on the issue, which we do a lot around here. It is time to look at this issue right now and debate it in full because it brings us to a new level when it comes to the Criminal Code.

To put it into context, certainly for the past 10 to 12 years we have had numerous conferences on how to deal with nuclear terrorism. In many cases we passed resolutions instrumental to developing new treaties. Some key resolutions and conventions are outlined throughout the United Nations and other international fora. Recently we discussed the last two major meetings of countries that talked about this: Washington, D.C., in 2010 and Seoul, South Korea in 2012.

As a result of all this and the work we have done dating from 2001, the United Nations developed, debated and voted on the United Nations Security Council resolution 1373. By doing that the members of the United Nations were to adopt certain anti-terrorism legislation and policies within 90 days in order to, among many other things, prevent and repress the financing of terrorist acts, criminalize the wilful collection of provision of funds to be used to carry out terrorist acts, prohibit the making available of funds, and suppress the recruitment of terrorist groups and the supply of weapons for these purposes.

The one theme going through all this is the international aspect, which is to say that the funding, the supplying of weapons and the people involved in terrorism are no longer contained within one country. We pretty much find ourselves around the world in order to address what must be done to assess the level of terrorism that is happening and the planning that must take place to stop the act before it actually gets off the ground.

That is the financing aspect. That is resolution 1373. It was very important in its day. On December 12, 2001, the Government of Canada reported to the United Nations Security Council's counter-terrorism committee on the steps it had taken to implement resolution 1373. Among the measures at that time were the Anti-terrorism Act and the amendments to the Criminal Code. All that leads to the offences that were newly classified as terrorist activity, which is a term that many nations have been grappling with for quite some time.

There are several definitions in place. As I mentioned, we came up with two major treaties in this particular situation. The first one was around 2004 and the other was an amendment to an existing one, with the offences as part of the Criminal Code and the enactment of the Anti-terrorism Act. It was added to the code following Canada's ratification in 1986, and this goes back to the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material. It was not until the Anti-terrorism Act came into force that they constituted terrorist activity. These are the amendments we are looking at when it comes to the CPPNM, which is what it is normally called. I do not want to get too much into acronyms because goodness knows where that will lead.

Following resolution 1373, three years after the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, the United Nations Security Council passed resolution 1540. This is what led up to what we have today.

Resolution 1540 specifically deals with the non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. The resolution focuses on nuclear terrorism requiring member states to take steps to prohibit non-state actors from acquiring nuclear weapons and puts additional measures in place to control nuclear materials and prevent proliferation.

Resolution 1540 calls for member states to take and enforce effective measures to establish domestic controls to prevent the proliferation of nuclear, chemical or biological weapons. In other words, look after their own backyard, as was agreed upon by all the nations and member states.

Secondly, adopt legislation prohibiting the acquisition, use or threat of use of nuclear weapons by both State and non-State actors.

Also extend such criminal legislation to apply to citizens extra-territorially and to embrace universal jurisdiction over any such acts regardless of nationality or location of the act.

That is very important, because now we are going beyond our own jurisdiction to find criminal intent, even after the fact, to find people in this particular situation because, as we know, these terrorist cells, potential or not, exist all over the world. They operate from many bases, not just from one particular country or from one particular region. Now with the advent of technology, with the Internet and the way technology is flowing around the world instantaneously, we have to behave in this manner in order to find these criminals, to find any act that is about to be committed, so that we can stop it before something serious actually happens.

Resolution 1540 from 2004 also established a committee of the United Nations Security Council tasked with overseeing the implementation of that particular resolution. This resolution came down to this agreement known as the International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism.

Bill S-9, the bill we are dealing with today, comes from these particular treaties. As I mentioned earlier, in order for these treaties to have any effect, despite any good intentions, if the home country chooses not to fix its own home legislation in order to make the purpose of these treaties come to fruition, then obviously it has to make the right laws. In this particular situation we are talking about fixing the Criminal Code, certainly Part II, and amending it as such.

The ICSANT, or as I will call it, the treaty, talked about certain things within this treaty that were very important for each member state to adopt: unlawful and intentional possession of radioactive material; unlawful and intentional use of radioactive material or a nuclear or radioactive device that makes a credible threat to unlawfully and intentionally do the acts described in Article 2(1)(b); unlawful and intentional demanding of radioactive material, a nuclear or radioactive device with intent to commit the possession and use offences outlined in the article; and finally, participating as an accomplice in, organizing or directing others to commit or contributing as a member of an organized group. It is not merely saying one is guilty by association, but that the intent is there in this particular situation.

I will call it the ICSANT for now in this particular situation. I do not have a nickname for it.

I talked earlier about the extraterritorial aspect of the ICSANT that is in article 9. To me, that is a very important part. Article 9 permits states to establish jurisdiction over offences occurring outside their territories when the offence is committed against a national, a person of that state; the offence is committed against a state or a government facility of that state; the offence is committed by a stateless person who habitually resides in that state; the offence is committed to compel a state to do or abstain from doing something, from article 9(2); or the offence is committed aboard an aircraft operated by the government of that particular state.

What is happening here is that we are fixing our own legislation in order for it to comply with the intentions set out by the United Nations. In this particular situation, the two treaties that we discussed, which we ratified in 2007 and struck in 2004, bring us into what the reality is around this globe. To me, article 9 of that particular treaty illustrates that by saying we need to go beyond our own territory to take the action necessary to stop potential terrorist activity.

As I mentioned earlier, two major conventions in the past few years, 2010 in Washington, D.C., and 2012 in Seoul, South Korea, also put the pressure on us to make this so. I find it odd that this came from the Senate.

Subclause 2(2) of Bill S-9, in this particular situation, adds four new defined terms to section 2 of the code to encompass the intention of doing a lot of harm to a lot of people and to use this as a particular threat for whatever means or intentions they have. They are “environment”, “nuclear facility”, “nuclear material” and “radioactive material”.

Obviously this is the type of language we have to use in this particular situation. We are dealing with dangerous material. We are dealing with terrorist groups that are not just confined to one particular area. They are global in perspective and therefore our legislation has to be changed to reflect this harsh reality.

In addition, subclause 2(1) of Bill S-9 amends the definition of “Attorney General” found in section 2 of the code. That is also a reflection of what we are trying to do here.

There are many aspects of this that could be improved upon. In this particular situation I think that perhaps the bill in and of itself is a little bit introspective, meaning that the legislation could also encompass something that is a little more international in scope. The intention is there. The intention is good, as was argued and debated in the Senate. Now we bring it here.

However, some of this needs to be looked at thoroughly. Are we living up to the international obligations that we have signed on to when it comes to nuclear proliferation? That has to be assessed in committee. Certainly I would want to see it sent, as it already is in the Senate, to the standing committee of the House of Commons in order to have a look at that. I think that is very important for all of us to consider. If we have waited this long, we might as well do it right. My grandfather used to say that.

The committee must look at this in a particular light. I look forward to advancing this and seeing whether or not the changes we are making to the Criminal Code fulfill the spirit of the agreements we have signed on to, agreements dating back to 2004, including the ICSANT that I mentioned earlier.

The intent is to root out the evil in these terrorism cells around the world and to have the right tools to do that, including extraterritoriality in order for us to go beyond our own boundaries and find out who is involved and how we can best protect our society.

[Sylvain Chicoine, NDP, Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC]

Mr. Speaker, since September 11, 2001, in particular, the United Nations Security Council and the UN General Assembly have been concerned about international terrorism activities, including nuclear terrorism. Members of the UN Security Council and the UN National Assembly passed resolutions that led to the development of treaties on nuclear terrorism so that member states would adopt legislation and policies in sync with the ever-changing threat of terrorism.

Canada has been co-operating with other countries to address this issue at the international level for a long time now. Canada ratified the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material and Nuclear Facilities, which encourages the development of measures related to the prevention, detection and punishment of offences relating to nuclear material.

In 2005, this convention was amended to improve the physical protection of nuclear material and facilities. The amendments made in 2005 increased the convention's scope in order to cover peaceful nuclear facilities and the use, storage and transportation of nuclear materials within the countries.

Also in 2005, Canada signed the International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism, but we have yet to ratify it. The convention calls upon state parties to create new criminal offences for acts of nuclear terrorism.

It is important to remember that a treaty cannot be ratified unless changes are made to national laws. That is the purpose of Bill S-9, which amends Canadian laws to make them consistent with the two conventions I just mentioned. After this bill is passed, Canada will be in a position to keep its commitment to ratify these international conventions. We will thus be able to fulfill our obligations.

The NDP supports multilateral approaches that promote co-operation among the state parties. Such co-operation is important in areas that go beyond our borders. Terrorism is this type of threat, and it is only through co-operation between the state parties that we can protect ourselves against such threats. We support working with the countries that ratified these conventions, and that is why we are going to support this bill. We also want to be able to examine it more thoroughly in committee.

This bill was introduced in the Senate in March 2012. It includes 10 clauses that create four new offences in the Criminal Code. Adding these new offences makes it illegal to possess, use or dispose of nuclear or radioactive material or a nuclear or radioactive device, or commit an act against a nuclear facility or its operations, with the intent to cause death, serious bodily harm or substantial damage to property or the environment.

It also makes it illegal to use or alter nuclear or radioactive material or a nuclear or radioactive device, or commit an act against a nuclear facility or its operation, with the intent to compel a person, government or international organization to do or refrain from doing anything.

I would like to call attention to this restriction. It is very important, because the very purpose of terrorism is to force a government or an organization to do, or to refrain from doing, a specific thing. How many attacks or kidnapings have been committed by terrorist organizations in order to discourage western countries from taking part in wars in Afghanistan or Iraq? Terrorist groups use threats and retribution to force governments to give in to their demands.

The bill also makes it illegal to commit an indictable offence under federal law for the purpose of obtaining nuclear or radioactive material, a nuclear or radioactive device, or access or control of a nuclear facility, as well as to threaten to commit any of the other three offences.

This bill makes other important amendments to the Criminal Code, for instance, to introduce definitions for the terms used for these new offences. The bill also adds a new section in the Criminal Code to ensure that individuals who commit or attempt to commit any of these offences overseas can be prosecuted in Canada. This provision must meet certain criteria. The offence must be committed on a vessel flying the flag of or an aircraft registered to Canada by a Canadian citizen or by someone who is present in Canada following the commission of the act.

This bill will amend the Criminal Code provisions on electronic surveillance and the taking of bodily substances. The Anti-Terrorism Act amended the code provisions on electronic surveillance. Therefore, the four new offences were added to section 183 of the code to justify the use of electronic surveillance for these offences.

This provision, which deals with the primary designated offence, was included to allow peace officers to apply for a warrant for the seizure of bodily substances when they are investigating individuals for these offences. Therefore, it also makes it mandatory to collect bodily substances from those convicted of these offences.

These tools are important for our front-line public safety officers, but these provisions will have to be used in accordance with the Canadian legislation and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. When new powers are granted, limits must be set to prevent any abuse on the part of our public safety officers who, I would like to stress, have my full confidence.

Finally, the bill amends the Canadian rule regarding double jeopardy. That rule does not apply if a trial abroad does not meet certain basic Canadian legal standards. In this case, a Canadian court may retrial the person for the same crime for which he was convicted abroad.

This Senate bill enables the government to meet its international obligations by creating new offences, but that is just one side of the coin. The other side, which is just as important, has to do with prevention and security. Mr. Jamieson, from the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, made a presentation before the Senate committee on June 4. He gave a brief outline of the prevention provisions adopted by the commission over the years.

He explained that the requirements relating to physical protection are gradual and reflect the level of risk and its consequences. He presented a non-exhaustive list of security measures in nuclear facilities. The requirements range from controlling access to sites to providing an on-site response force. Employees and supervisors must meet awareness and training requirements relating to security protocols, and they must undergo background checks.

Licensees must develop and maintain contingency plans as well as practice regular emergency drills. The transport of nuclear materials requires a licence. In order to obtain it, the licensee must submit a detailed security plan including a threat assessment, the proposed security measures, the route and other arrangements along the route. Security plans are required for all shipments including those in transit through Canada.

Canada is a model for the world when it comes to nuclear safety, but the government must continue to invest the necessary amount for maximizing the safety of Canadians, while minimizing the likelihood of a crime or a terrorist attack being committed in Canada or elsewhere in the world.

The International Atomic Energy Agency documented nearly 2,000 incidents related to the unauthorized use, transport or possession of nuclear and radioactive materials between 1993 and 2011. Government agencies with anti-terrorism responsibilities must work in an integrated manner in order for these organizations to be able to properly protect Canadians.

It is not just a matter of creating indictable terrorist offences. It is also a question of investing the necessary funds to allow these organizations and their front-line officers to accomplish their mission and carry out the mandate assigned to them, namely to ensure the safety of Canadians.

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we have had some discussions, up to this point, about the fact that the bill is much delayed in the sense of when it was introduced to the Senate initially and then to the House and that it will now be going to committee with our support.

Because the government put up absolutely no speakers except the parliamentary secretary, I worry that it now seems to be in such a hurry that it is going to ask us not to hear the same witnesses who were heard in the Senate, if we want to hear them.

If the government makes this argument and says we should only hear some witnesses and for the rest we can read the transcript from the Senate, how would my honourable colleague suggest we respond to the government, if it takes that position?

[Sylvain Chicoine, NDP, Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his work on the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, which will examine this bill.

He has pointed out to the members of the House several unusual elements. This is a bill that should have been introduced much sooner.

In 2005, when this convention was ratified, we committed to make changes. However, the government did not consider this issue and, instead, left it up to our colleagues in the Senate to do the work.

It is strange that we have to examine this bill after the Senate. This bill should have been introduced six years ago. It is important to take all the time needed to consider it carefully. We have full confidence in the hon. member for Toronto—Danforth. The committee must ask the right questions and take the time to examine the bill, even if that requires a few extra weeks.

This is a good reason not to rush the process and to take all the time needed to carefully examine the bill. I am convinced that my colleagues that sit on the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights will be diligent in their work.

[Paulina Ayala, NDP, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for my colleague. Can he talk about the concerns raised by the Senate when studying this bill?

[Sylvain Chicoine, NDP, Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her excellent question.

This bill was introduced in the Senate last March. There were some oversights. Liberal senators made some amendments, which were adopted unanimously. It is important that we continue to closely study this bill to ensure that there are no other oversights.

I do not remember the exact oversights, but there were some. A Liberal senator proposed some amendments. We will continue studying the bill in order to ensure that there are no other oversights.

[Francine Raynault, NDP, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

When the Senate studied the bill, it may have pointed out areas that were overly broad in scope in order to prevent criminalization. I will read a short excerpt.

The intent of the Department of Justice was to adhere as closely as possible to the provisions of the convention. However, some of the new offences in the Criminal Code are broader in scope than the offences found in the international agreements.

Must we ensure that the overly broad scope of this new part will not result in excessive criminalization and will not violate the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms?

[Sylvain Chicoine, NDP, Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Joliette for her excellent question, which makes some very important clarifications.

The scope of this bill is possibly too broad, since the justice department's intention was to stick as close as possible to the provisions of the convention. However, some of these new offences in the Criminal Code have a much broader scope than the offences found in the international agreements.

We must ensure that the broad scope of this new part will not cause excessive criminalization and will not violate the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights will have to make some clarifications.

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague from Châteauguay—Saint-Constant made a very good point about the delay of this legislation arriving in Parliament. We know that the operative treaties that underlie this legislation were both adopted in 2005 and it is now 2012, seven years later. Even giving the government a year or a year and a half to prepare the implementing legislation, this seems excessive.

Does my colleague feel that the government's approach to these two treaties has harmful effects on our reputation internationally, especially among the community of states that take very seriously measures to protect against nuclear terrorism?

[Sylvain Chicoine, NDP, Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Toronto—Danforth for his excellent question.

The answer can be found in the question itself, in that the seven-year wait was excessive. Many countries take these questions very seriously. We are talking about the safety of Canadian citizens.

Many countries took these issues much more seriously—if I may say so—and addressed nuclear safety issues much more quickly.

The fact that Canada waited so long to address the nuclear safety issue has only tarnished Canada's international reputation, which had been excellent up until now. Canada's reputation has been tarnished by our delay in addressing this issue. My colleague was correct in pointing that out.

[Djaouida Sellah, NDP, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as my colleague pointed out and I just realized, unfortunately, since this morning only NDP members have been defending Bills S-7 and S-9, which have already been studied in the Senate. That does not surprise me. Each time, the Conservative government has washed its hands of these matters, and it has done the same with health concerns.

However, I am not surprised by how they have handled these two bills. They have let representatives appointed to the Senate do the work of members elected by Canadians to represent them in the House of Commons.

That being said, I listened carefully to my colleagues' speeches. Concerns were raised in the Senate, especially about the sentences. They say that there are no mandatory minimum sentences in Bill S-9. Can my colleague talk about that?

[Sylvain Chicoine, NDP, Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would quickly say that it is a good thing that there are no minimum sentences in this bill because they are constantly challenged in the courts anyway. What is more, in the near future, they would probably be declared unconstitutional. So, it is a good thing that there are no minimum sentences. There are however maximum sentences that can be as long as life in prison for most of the offences. That is appropriate. This will give judges the flexibility to rule according to case law, case by case, and to come up with the right sentence.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

It being 6:30 p.m., this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 6:30 p.m.)

The House resumed from October 15 consideration of the motion that Bill S-9, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Matthew Kellway, NDP, Beaches—East York, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to stand in support of the bill and to start today's discussion of Bill S-9.

I will be splitting my time with the fantastic member of Parliament from Nanaimo—Cowichan. Notwithstanding the fact that I was instructed to use those precise terms, I happily stand by them.

We are back to amending the Criminal Code but this time for a good cause. Bill S-9, the nuclear terrorism act, would amend the Criminal Code in order to implement the criminal law requirements of two international counterterrorism treaties, the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material, as amended in 2005, and the 2005 International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism.

The nuclear terrorism act introduces four new indictable offences into part 2 of the Criminal Code, making it illegal to possess, use or dispose of nuclear or radioactive material or a nuclear or radioactive device, or commit an act against a nuclear facility or its operations, with the intent to cause death, serious bodily harm or substantial damage to property or the environment; to use or alter nuclear or radioactive material or a nuclear or radioactive device, or commit an act against a nuclear facility or its operation, with the intent to compel a person, government or international organization to do or refrain from doing anything; to commit an indictable offence under federal law for the purpose of obtaining nuclear or radioactive material, a nuclear or radioactive device, or access or control of a nuclear facility; and to threaten or commit to do any of the above.

In addition, the bill introduces into the code other amendments that are incidental to these four offences but are nonetheless important. It introduces a new section into the code to ensure individuals who, when outside of Canada, commit or attempt to commit these offences may be prosecuted in Canada. It amends the wiretap provisions found in the code to ensure that they apply to the new offences. It also amends the code to make four new offences primary designated offences for the purposes of DNA warrants and collection orders.

Finally, it amends the double jeopardy rule in Canada such that, notwithstanding the fact that a person may have been previously tried and convicted for these new offences outside Canada, the rule against double jeopardy would not apply when the foreign trial did not meet certain basic Canadian legal standards. In that case, a Canadian court may try the person again for the same offence of which he or she was convicted by a foreign court.

For a long time now, but particularly in the post-cold war era, it has been well understood that with the proliferation of nuclear weaponry and nuclear power generation around the world, a new and heightened regime of nuclear safety and security must be developed. A scenario in which nuclear weapons or materials fall into the hands of terrorists has prompted many to focus on the development of such a regime or framework. It is clearly understood that such a regime must be international in scope and must be grounded in the deep and good faith co-operation of states around the world. That regime needs to be put in place with considerable urgency.

This understanding forms the basis of the two aforementioned conventions that await Canada's ratification. The first of these, the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material, dates back to 1980. Its importance is signified by the fact that it stands, still, as the only internationally legally binding undertaking in the protection of nuclear material.

In July of 2005, a diplomatic conference was convened to strengthen the provisions of the convention by doing a number of things, including expanding international co-operation between and among states with respect to rapid measures to locate and recover stolen or smuggled nuclear material, mitigate any radiological consequences, such as sabotage, and prevent and combat related offences.

With respect to the other convention, in 1996 an ad hoc committee of the General Assembly of the United Nations was mandated by the General Assembly to develop an international convention for the suppression of terrorist bombings, and subsequent to that, the International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism. This later convention was adopted by the General Assembly in April 2005. This convention on nuclear terrorism imposes an obligation on state parties to render the offences set out in the convention as criminal offences under national laws and to establish jurisdiction, both territorial and extraterritorial, over the offences set out in the convention.

Both of these conventions await ratification by Canada, which is first dependent on the codification of the offence provisions of these conventions into Canadian criminal law.

We on this side of the House recognize the need and urgency to put in place a regime to counter nuclear terrorism. Moreover, New Democrats are committed to multilateral diplomacy and international co-operation, especially in areas of great common concern such as nuclear terrorism. Thus, we need to work with other leading countries that are moving forward toward ratifying these conventions.

We also believe that since Canada has agreed to be legally bound by these conventions, it is important to fulfill our international obligations. For these reasons we will vote in favour of the bill at second reading in order to further study it at committee. However, a few concerns need to be set out first.

The first has to do with the origin of the bill. I would urge those who embrace the anachronistic and undemocratic institution of the Senate on the grounds of tradition to employ the Senate in the traditional way, that being as the chamber of sober second thought and not as the place of origin of legislation. It is for those of us in the chamber who, for better or worse, were sent here by Canadians to do that work.

Second, as with so much legislation that the government puts forward through whichever chamber, we must be careful that we do not overreach in the name of anti-terrorism. On this point, our experiences with the Liberals' Anti-terrorism Act and the government's recent Bill S-7 are instructive. The provisions of that act and that bill run contrary to the fundamental principles, rights and liberties enshrined in Canadian law.

Moreover, perhaps more importantly, we have found that without such extreme provisions, without changing the legal landscape of Canada, without breaching the rights and civil liberties of Canadian citizens, we have successfully protected the safety and security of Canada and Canadians from terrorist attack and that the offending provisions have proven over the course of time to constitute an unnecessary, ineffective infringement.

I would note that this issue arose in the course of the bill's study in the Senate. No doubt the intention of the drafters at the Department of Justice was to adhere as closely as possible to the terms of the convention. However, it has been suggested that some of the new Criminal Code offences are broader in scope than the offences found in the individual international agreements. We must be sure that the overreach of these new sections will not result in undue criminalization or go against the Canadian Charter of Rights.

I anticipate that the justice committee will play a very valuable role in ensuring that the lessons of previous anti-terrorism legislation are applied to Bill S-9.

Last, I come to what I believe is a very important point in this discussion, that being the matter of delay. The implementation of the bill or some amended version thereof is a prerequisite for the ratification of both international conventions. Both of these conventions set out in their respective preambles the urgency with which the international community must act to implement a regime to control nuclear weapons and materials and to ensure they are not accessible for terrorist purposes.

For example, the preamble to the convention on nuclear terrorism talks about the deep concern of the parties to this convention of the worldwide escalation of acts of terrorism in all its forms and manifestations, and that acts of nuclear terrorism may result in the gravest consequences and may pose a threat to international peace and security. It also notes that existing multilateral legal provisions do not adequately address those attacks and that the “urgent need to enhance international cooperation between States” for these purposes needs to be moved forward.

Therefore, the question sitting out there is this. Why has it taken the legislation so long to get to the House for debate when both conventions have been open for ratification since 2005?

While there are other laggards in the international community, it is our expectation that Canada show leadership on issues such as these.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to my hon. colleague and was especially interested in terms of the larger picture. Certainly we need to deal with the offences when someone is trying to deal in nuclear materials and the whole issue of nuclear terrorism. However, we see such a proliferation of arms already around the world that we need to have a proactive instead of a reactive response on the issue of nuclear proliferation. Reactive is just not good enough, no matter how many bills and legislation we bring forward. We are dealing with many countries, some of whom are unstable, that have used nuclear weapons or have access to nuclear waste or nuclear materials.

I ask my hon. colleague this. What does he think in terms of the big picture with respect to Canada playing a proactive role internationally to reduce access to nuclear weapons in every single country?

[Matthew Kellway, NDP, Beaches—East York, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House have noted that Canada is falling behind both in its international reputation and participation in multilateral efforts to curb the proliferation of weapons. It is happening at a time of tremendous importance for countries like Canada to do the opposite and show international leadership on these matters. There are states around the world that are failing. Many of these states have a great deal of weaponry and those weapons are falling into the hands of people who should not have weapons. That is great cause for concern for the safety and security of folks around the world, including Canadians.

[Tarik Brahmi, NDP, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Beaches—East York mentioned a number of important points. In one part of his speech, he focused on something puzzling. In fact, the term “urgent” is used several times in these conventions. Yet, we have been waiting since 2005 for a bill to be introduced that really deals with this problem and that amends the Criminal Code, so that Canada can ratify these conventions.

One of the arguments trotted out by the Parliamentary Secretary when the bill was first introduced was that, at the time, there was a minority government in power.

To my knowledge, all members of the House agree with the general principle of this bill. Therefore, I will ask my colleague to speculate about why the government, which has been in power since February 2006, did not move more quickly on this bill.

[Matthew Kellway, NDP, Beaches—East York, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my response is a bit of a continuation of the response I gave to the last question in that what is happening is that Canada is failing to take its full place in the international community and show leadership on such issues. It seems to me that it was the urging of the international community at both the Washington nuclear security summit in 2010 and the Seoul nuclear security summit in 2012 that seems to have prompted the government to finally take action and put together a bill that would see the criminal codification of offences under those respective conventions put into place in Canada. It is interesting to read the Seoul communiqué that came out of the summit in 2012 and the very stark terms it spoke about of the urgency for countries around the world to ratify these agreements.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the very hard-working member for Beaches—East York for sharing his time with me. He has done a tremendous amount of work in the House around the F-35 file and his speech today reflects his commitment to looking at some of these matters.

I also want to acknowledge the member for Gatineau and the member for Toronto—Danforth who spoke previously and very ably outlined some of the technical aspects of the bill. I will read from the legislative summary so that people who are watching are clear about the bill we are speaking about. It reads:

Bill S-9, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (short title: Nuclear Terrorism Act), is a 10-clause bill that introduces four new indictable offences into Part II of the Criminal Code, which deals with offences against public order. Adding these new offences, with respect to certain activities in relation to nuclear or radioactive material, nuclear or radioactive devices or nuclear facilities makes it illegal to

possess, use or dispose of nuclear or radioactive material or a nuclear or radioactive device, or commit an act against a nuclear facility or its operations, with the intent to cause death, serious bodily harm or substantial damage to property or the environment;

use or alter nuclear or radioactive material or a nuclear or radioactive device, or commit an act against a nuclear facility or its operation, with the intent to compel a person, government or international organization to do or refrain from doing anything;

commit an indictable offence under federal law for the purpose of obtaining nuclear or radioactive material, a nuclear or radioactive device, or access or control of a nuclear facility; and

threaten to commit any of the other three offences.

The bill would fulfill Canada's treaty obligations under the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material, also known as CPPNM, and the International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism, ICSANT. This includes extending international measures beyond protecting against proliferation of nuclear materials to now include protection of nuclear facilities and it reinforces Canada's obligation under UN Security Council Resolution 1540 from 2004 to take and enforce effective measures to prevent the proliferation of nuclear materials as well as chemical and biological weapons.

In a case where the implementation of a treaty requires amendment to Canadian legislation, the treaty is ratified only when such amendments or new legislation has been passed. As the member for Beaches—East York very ably pointed out, Canada has not ratified even though it has signed on and it has been five years. The question is why the government did not take steps before. I know the parliamentary secretary mentioned in his speech that it was because of a minority Parliament, but there is broad agreement in the House about the need to ratify this treaty and for Canada to fulfill both its domestic and international obligations.

To date, Canada has not ratified either the ICSANT or the CPPNM amendment. This is because Canada does not yet have legislation in place to criminalize the offences outlined in the ICSANT or some of the offences outlined in the CPPNM amendment. The amendments Bill S-9 introduces into the Criminal Code represents Canada's efforts to align its domestic legislation with what is required by both conventions. If these amendments become law, Canada will presumably be in a position to ratify both the ICSANT and the CPPNM amendment. One would hope that Canada would move expeditiously to do that once this law has passed through both Houses.

I will quote from a handbook for parliamentarians supporting nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament because the bill has a larger context. It is important to note the larger context and why it is important for Canada to move ahead and ratify these treaties. This handbook was just released at the interparliamentary union last week in Quebec City. There was an address from the United Nations Secretary-General, a message dated July 2012, that was at the outset of this book. It reads:

The rule of law is coming to nuclear disarmament, and parliamentarians have important contributions to make in advancing this historic process.

Inspired or assisted by the efforts of the Inter-Parliamentary Union, parliaments are showing an increased interest in promoting nuclear disarmament. This should come as no surprise. Parliaments represent the people, and across the world today we are seeing a groundswell of opinion among diverse sectors of civil society--doctors, lawyers, religious leaders, mayors, human rights activists, women’s groups, environmentalists, economists and educators in countless fields--demanding concrete steps to control and eliminate these deadly, costly, wasteful weapons.

The core role of parliaments in ratifying treaties and adopting implementing legislation gives them tremendous potential to extend the rule of law even more deeply into the domain of disarmament.

This is part of what Canada can do in terms of fulfilling some of those international obligations. There is an important context, though, for this, and again in the Supporting Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Disarmament handbook, they quote from the 7th World Summit of Nobel Peace Laureates who concluded that:

The failure to address the nuclear threat and to strengthen existing treaty obligations to work for nuclear weapons abolition shreds the fabric of cooperative security. A world with nuclear haves and have-nots is fragmented and unstable, a fact underscored by the current threats of proliferation. In such an environment cooperation fails. Thus, nations are unable to address effectively the real threats of poverty, environmental degradation and nuclear catastrophe.

They go on to talk about the economic dimensions. I think this is also an important note about why it is so important for Canada to move forward. It goes on to state:

In December 2010, Global Zero released an analysis indicating that approximately US $100 billion per year was being spent globally on nuclear weapons, with almost 50 per cent of that being spent in the United States alone. In comparison, the biennial United Nations budget for 2012/2013 is US $5.1 billion, or 5 per cent of the yearly global nuclear weapons budget. The costs of meeting the Millennium Development Goals--of basic education, primary health care, minimum food, clean water, and environmental protection (including climate change prevention and alleviation)--are estimated at US $120 billion per year, just slightly more than the nuclear weapons budget.

We can imagine what a different world we could live in if all the money that was being spent on nuclear weapons was actually being spent on health care, education, poverty reduction measures and climate change.

The handbook goes on to say:

Allocating such massive budgets to weapons systems designed in the hope they will never be used not only steals economic resources from other vital programmes, it also drains the social capital required to stimulate economies. Dollar for dollar, investing in nuclear weapons creates far fewer jobs than virtually any other industry; nuclear weapon systems are high-tech and have virtually no economic flow-on to other industries or other economic activities. In addition, the intellectual activity devoted to modernizing and developing nuclear weapon systems steals such intellect from areas of social and economic need. The nuclear-weapon corporations might get richer, but everyone else gets poorer.

In the same handbook, it reads:

UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, in a letter addressed to all parliaments in February 2010, noted that:

“At a time when the international community is facing unprecedented global challenges, parliamentarians can take on leading roles in ensuring sustainable global security, while reducing the diversion of precious resources from human needs. As parliaments set the fiscal priorities for their respective countries, they can determine how much to invest in the pursuit of peace and cooperative security.”

I have a quote that reads:

Dwight D. Eisenhower, from a speech before the American Society of Newspaper Editors,16 April 1953:

It is “The opportunity-cost of militarism....”

I think it is timely for us to remind ourselves of that in the context of this debate today. Mr. Eisenhower went on to say:

Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. This is not a way of life at all in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron.

The New Democrats are supporting getting this bill to committee for study because it is a very technical bill. There was one clause that needed to be amended at the Senate. We want to ensure that the bill reflects Canada's obligation under these international conventions.

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague for Nanaimo—Cowichan for her speech. The Anti-Personnel Mines Convention is from another era, an era when Canada was a leader on the issue. We are now living with the shame of being a follower and having to make up for lost time. Fortunately, we are now taking action.

After listening to my colleague's speech, I have the following question. Does she believe that simple amendments to the Criminal Code and the government's measures are enough to ensure compliance with the terms of the convention? Changes to the Criminal Code can be useful, but they must be accompanied by precautionary measures and we must take concrete measures internationally that go beyond mere amendments to the text.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, that is why it is very important for this bill to go before the committee for us to study it in detail and look at whether we would be in compliance with the two conventions I mentioned, or whether we would go beyond the conventions and there is more in this bill than absolutely necessary.

The bill also presents an opportunity for the government to educate Canadians about the whole issue around nuclear weapons and the need to move toward nonproliferation. There was a study commissioned by the United Nations and presented to the first committee of the General Assembly at its 57th session in 2002 that actually recommended that states undertake a whole series of measures around education, including looking at their own policies and legislation in the context of nuclear nonproliferation and disarmament.

Perhaps Bill S-9, once passed, would be an opportunity for the government to set aside some funds to look at educating Canadians about the broader issues around nuclear weapons use.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it has been very interesting to see that Canada has not moved with the urgency needed on this bill. However, we also see internationally that many of our allies seem to have a bit of an ambivalent attitude toward the issue of access to nuclear materials. For example, depleted uranium has been used in armour-busting shells. It has been very convenient for the armies of the U.S. and NATO, in particular, to use depleted uranium. We saw over 300 tonnes of it dumped in the first Gulf War. As a result, there have been massive increases in child cancers and deformities there. Yet, under the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, a general licence was established for people to be able to use uranium from depleted uranium shells as long as they committed not to leaving it anywhere. There seems to be a very cavalier attitude to something that is very dangerous, particularly as we have seen the health effects of depleted uranium.

It is not just about getting rid of large nuclear weapons, but also about ensuring that we pull these very dangerous toxic materials out of any kind of use, whether military or civilian.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will refer back to the 2012 Seoul Nuclear Security Summit and some key facts. There is an urgency around the matter, as the member for Timmins—James Bay pointed out.

There were 11 areas of priority importance in nuclear security and a call for action on a number of key critical areas, including strengthening the physical protection of nuclear facilities and enhancing emergency response capabilities in the case of radiological accidents while comprehensively addressing nuclear security and nuclear safety concerns, strengthening the management of spent nuclear fuels and radioactive wastes, and strengthening the protection of nuclear materials and radioactive sources in transport. Moreover, there was a call for encouraging the establishment of a system to effectively manage and track such materials on a national level, including preventing the illicit trafficking of nuclear materials, and building nuclear forensics capacity to identify the source of illicitly trafficked nuclear materials. Finally, there was a call for strengthening the nuclear security culture, including encouraging the participation of industry, academia, the media, NGOs and other civil actors in the discussions on nuclear security.

There are other points of action, but from this nuclear summit where some 53 countries were involved, it is clear that some urgent action is needed in the world. One would hope that Canada would become a leader rather than a laggard.

[Tarik Brahmi, NDP, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Beauport—Limoilou, who usually shares his thoughts and comments with me. This time, I will be the one sharing my time with him.

I am pleased to speak to Bill S-9, the Nuclear Terrorism Act, which would amend the Criminal Code in order to make it consistent with the requirements stipulated in two international conventions that we signed in 2005: the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material and the International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism.

I will begin by making a remark that some of my colleagues have already made. This bill was introduced by the Senate. According to Canada's parliamentary process, it should be introduced by elected parliamentarians and not by senators. The NDP would prefer that most bills follow the parliamentary process and be introduced by elected members, in other words by the House of Commons and not by the Senate.

I do not want to repeat what most of my colleagues have already said. I will simply say that everything to do with nuclear weapons and the spread of fissile materials on the planet is cause for great concern not just for Canadians, but for everyone else living on this planet. I may be stating the obvious, but it bears repeating from time to time.

As far as this bill in particular is concerned, it begs a legitimate question. The hon. member for Beaches—East York spoke about this a few minutes ago. These conventions emphasize that urgent action is needed when it comes to the protection of fissile materials and nuclear weapons; it is a constant in these conventions. Nonetheless, the global perception of Canada's position is that Canada wants to wait seven years, not five, to take action. Indeed, we signed these conventions in 2005 and it is now 2012. We will not be able to ratify these conventions before 2013. When the word “urgent” is used so many times in these conventions, why wait so long to introduce bills that should be given priority?

One of the consequences is that Canada is losing international credibility and giving the impression that it does not take these issues seriously, which is not the case. Every time we meet our constituents in our ridings or elsewhere, we can see that people are very concerned about global security in general and nuclear security in particular. The public is concerned about the fact that terrorists can get access to nuclear materials to create bombs.

The parliamentary secretary's main argument when she introduced Bill S-9 was that the government has a majority. It has been in power since February 2006, but it had a minority. As far as I know, and based on what we have been hearing since the bill has been before the House of Commons, there is a general consensus: we have no choice but to ratify these conventions.

If we do not, it would go against Canada's long-held policy and philosophy.

This argument has not convinced me. We have to wonder why the government waited so long to introduce a bill that is so important at the international level.

If we look at the list of countries that have already ratified, we can see that internationally, globally, we come across as a bad student in terms of promoting nuclear security, when that is not the case and that is not the perception among members of the public.

There is another thing. If Canada had been a good student, if it had been proactive and had ratified these two conventions within a reasonable time frame, and if it had amended the Criminal Code to be able to ratify these conventions, the other countries would have believed that Canada is an international leader and that these concerns are important to it.

Each time Canada has the opportunity to show the world that it wants to be proactive and that it takes these things seriously, I think it is important to speed up the process.

This delay in implementing the legislative changes reminds me that, in October 2010, Canada withdrew its bid for a seat on the UN Security Council. While there may not be a direct link, one cannot help but regret that decision. Once again, this gives the impression that Canada is backing away from its international commitments. In reality, the ratification of these two conventions is not merely a possibility; it is our moral obligation towards our international partners.

I would like to come back to a very interesting speech on this matter given by the hon. member for Toronto—Danforth. This is not meant to denigrate other speeches, but given that the member for Toronto—Danforth knows international treaties so well, his perspective was a little different from that of others.

He talked about a number of issues, particularly the fact that, under the current process, there is a real risk of going further than just taking the measures needed for ratification, for two reasons: this could lead to amending the Criminal Code in a way that is too restrictive; and the government could anticipate future amendments to these conventions to prevent us from ending up in the situation we are in at present, which is having to wait five, six or seven years before ratifying treaties.

Under these circumstances, there is a risk in wanting to do more than the bare minimum. It is important to avoid speculating about what these conventions could become and to avoid adding any provisions that are not strictly necessary to the ratification of these two international conventions. That will be the committee's job.

[Christine Moore, NDP, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Saint-Jean said that the government could have introduced this bill much sooner and that the parliamentary secretary's explanation for this was that the Conservatives did not have a majority government at the time. Those are excuses. There were times when the NDP held the balance of power under the minority governments.

If a similar bill to ratify these conventions had been introduced earlier by the government, would the NDP have supported it, thereby allowing this bill to be passed a long time ago?

[Tarik Brahmi, NDP, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue is absolutely right.

The NDP's position is clear: we are in favour of having a better discussion and better integration with the international community, and we are in favour of combating every threat to international peace.

As stated in United Nations Security Council resolution 1570, the conventions are one aspect. The NDP would never have gotten in the way of passing this bill.

As my colleague said, it makes absolutely no sense that it took this long for this bill to be introduced.

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Saint-Jean for his speech.

He addressed some important issues. Again this boils down to the government's inaction with regard to introducing this bill, which in the end was introduced in the Senate. That is not necessarily all bad considering some very specific technical aspects.

However, let us not forget that a convention was agreed to and negotiated before this government came to power. This convention was negotiated multilaterally. I was a member of the Standing Committee on International Trade, where the government's modus operandi is to sign bilateral treaties.

Considering the success that was achieved before the government came to power and how much time this government has taken since then to legislate and ratify this convention, does my colleague believe that Canada could conclude other similar multilateral negotiations on other subjects?

[Tarik Brahmi, NDP, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Beauport—Limoilou raises a very interesting point, namely that we cannot tell what the future holds because of the rather unpredictable nature of the Conservative government.

Having said that, it is an excellent idea for us to always participate in the negotiation of all international conventions and in all discussions. But it is unfortunate that we are not more proactive. That is what is rather sad and disappointing about Bill S-9. It is an example of Canada's failure to be proactive. This follows on the heels of our failure to win a seat on the Security Council. Not being proactive has consequences for our international commitments and our reputation abroad.

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Saint-Jean for sharing his time with me so that I am able to speak to this bill, which I will have the honour to study with my colleagues on the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, failing unforeseen circumstances. I truly appreciate this privilege because this bill is actually very important for a number of reasons.

I will begin by examining a practical aspect that directly affects us almost daily. We must not forget that we live in a world where nuclear and radioactive materials are very present.

Bill S-9 talks a lot about nuclear materials and civilian or military applications. These very specific applications are not under the direct control of mere individuals. The bill also covers radioactive substances that have civilian applications in our day-to-day life, such as medical applications or other civilian applications, where radioactive materials are used in measuring devices. Members will recall that some models of smoke detectors once used substances that emitted radiation, which was banned for obvious safety reasons.

This type of substance is much more common than people think. As a result, it is very important to go beyond the existing provisions of the Criminal Code that already impose sanctions for the improper or criminal use of this type of substance and extend them to cover terrorist activities. These activities go well beyond the simple desire to harm an individual or group of people. They are used to pressure and terrorize in order to force a country or group of people to basically change their behaviour and be subject to a regime that is completely unacceptable for a democratic state.

In addition to this first clarification, another concept that the NDP supports and wants to implement if and when we take office is respect for and the implementation of key international agreements governing various activities. I even asked a question in this regard. Long gone are the days when Canada demonstrated leadership, when Canada successfully adopted and implemented a treaty to prohibit landmines.

The example of the landmines treaty is important in that, even if a convention of this type is adopted, it can still be limited in terms of what it can accomplish by the non-compliance of some states in the world that prefer to avoid restricting their potential for action.

And so, beyond the perfectly valid amendments to the Criminal Code, we must ask the government this question and hope that it goes much further and truly demonstrates an ability to act to convince—if not compel—the community of nations to ratify the nuclear terrorism treaty so that it has the force of law not only within each of the different countries, but so that the countries co-operate to prevent things from getting out of control and to prevent the occurrence of any terrorist activity that we are seeking to prohibit through amendments to the Criminal Code.

I repeat that I am very honoured to be able to debate this bill today and to discuss the amendments proposed in the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. We must ask ourselves a number of questions on the proposed amendments and their scope. When the bill was introduced in the Senate, a serious flaw was pointed out related to the creation of a device using nuclear and radioactive materials, which can be harmful to people. This omission is very serious. Nuclear terrorism experts are concerned that a traditional nuclear bomb could be built, even if it is quite beyond the scope of terrorist organizations. They especially worry that an explosive device or radiological dispersion device could be built, as it is much simpler to build and would be harmful to a number of people.

I am very pleased that this is now included in Bill S-9. It is good to widen the scope, but my colleague from Toronto—Danforth wondered about the multiplier effect of the crimes targeted by this bill. We will have to look into the individual effect and the scope of these actions, and whether the amendments made to the Criminal Code are in line with the constraints imposed by our society to preclude the arbitrary power of the state.

In the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, I had to examine some bills that were not charter-proof, in whole or in part. That is very disappointing; aside from the waste of time they represent, it is a serious problem for all Canadians. They could be unwitting victims of harsher laws, which do not fully achieve the desired objective and could potentially invalidate certain sections. There could be some very unfortunate consequences.

During our review in committee, my colleagues and I will ensure that the proposed changes are not invalidated by the Criminal Code because they are too broad in scope, or because they do not provide enough safeguards regarding the charter, which would result in Canada no longer being able to fully implement the requirements of the international treaties to which it is a signatory.

One issue raised in the Senate is the case of a protest taking place at the electrical generating facilities of a nuclear plant. It could be a protest organized by environmentalists to prevent employees from entering the facilities to keep the plant operating at full capacity. Under the proposed sections, could these people be charged with carrying out a terrorist activity? We are talking about a peaceful protest whose objective may be highly questionable, but still legitimate from a freedom of expression and a freedom of mobility point of view.

So, I am going to review the bill with 11 of my colleagues to ensure that we do not find ourselves in the totally unacceptable situation of the law being invalidated because it goes too far.

There is a major concern. The changes to the Criminal Code are perfectly legitimate and they are an important first step. However, once we review them, we will have to ensure that all the preventive and concrete measures taken by Canada in the future, because of its place on the international stage, will restrict the proliferation of nuclear weapons, which is another issue dealt with in these treaties.

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, one thing I noticed about the bill is it is in reference to some acts of the United Nations, which, as a signatory, Canada is required to change its laws to finally be in compliance with these United Nations resolutions. There is a bunch of initials for the two of them, which I will not try to repeat.

Why does the hon. member think it has taken the government seven years, after signing these things, to actually come forward to change the laws of Canada to outlaw nuclear terrorism? It is not a big bill. It is only nine pages. Why does the member suppose the Conservative government, which has been place almost all of those seven years, has taken so long to do this?

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his very relevant question.

Indeed, that is somewhat disturbing. I hope this is not related to some form of excessive control. I am inclined to think that the government had little interest in following up on the treaty that was signed. The negotiation and the conclusion of that treaty took place before this government took office.

I do not want to impute motives to government members, but given the Conservative government's general attitude, we know that when an idea is not its own, it can often drag its heels and even actively oppose such an initiative.

I salute the government for taking action and finally introducing this bill. Better late than never. However, in this case, it is really late.

[Christine Moore, NDP, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I come from a medical background. I am a nurse by training. We recently had a shortage of radioactive isotopes used in medicine. Therefore, I can understand why people working in nuclear medicine are worried and want to know whether the process will make the transportation of these materials and their accessibility more complex.

My colleague sits on the committee that will review this bill after the next vote. Will he pay particular attention to the transportation and accessibility of nuclear materials used in medicine, to ensure that the bill does not make access to these materials more complicated and that patients receive the medical care they need?

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question. This is a very legitimate concern. In his testimony, the Minister of Justice said that his department made sure that, regarding all the uses for civilian purposes, the handling, use and transportation of radioactive substances will not have harmful effects. Still, we will verify this aspect.

Since the Criminal Code is going to be amended, will there be changes to the regulations and standards that will make operations much more difficult? For the time being, we do not really have an answer. As the Minister of Justice pointed out, in addition to the Criminal Code amendments, the government has taken some regulatory measures to ensure greater safety.

Unfortunately, there are other activities in the country about which the government has been negligent and which have created deplorable and even dangerous situations for people. I certainly do not want to see that happen here. I thank the hon. member for raising this issue.

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill S-9, the nuclear terrorism act, which would amend the Criminal Code to implement obligations imposed on state parties to two international conventions: the International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism, which I will refer to as the “suppression convention”; and the amendment to the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material, which I will refer to simply as “the amendment”.

My remarks this morning will be divided into three parts: first, a discussion of the convention and the amendment; second, a discussion of Bill S-9 and how it relates to these international obligations; and third, a discussion of the contemporary context in which this debate occurs, namely, the climate of increasing nuclear proliferation in which we find ourselves.

To begin with, the suppression convention and the amendment contribute to the development and harmonization of national laws aimed at securing nuclear materials and combatting the threat of nuclear terror. In particular, Bill S-9 would add four new offences to the Criminal Code thereby prohibiting acts in relation to the possession, use and transfer of radioactive or nuclear devices or related materials as well as the protection of nuclear facilities.

Bill S-9 would also classify the commission of these new offences as “terrorist activity” and empower Canadian courts to exercise jurisdiction in cases concerning the commission of these offences extraterritorially such that the particular offence would not need to have occurred inside Canada for Canada to invoke Canadian prosecutorial initiatives.

In particular, the passage of Bill S-9 would enable Canada to ratify these conventions, a goal to which the government recently committed at the 2012 Nuclear Security Summit in Seoul.

Members of the House may remember the political environment in which the summit occurred, back in March, with the launch by North Korea of a satellite that threatened South Korean airspace. It is in this context that the Minister of Foreign Affairs correctly observed that:

What's going on in North Korea, and frankly what could be going on in Iran, causes us all concern but I think that's an inspiration and a motive for us to see that nuclear materials that already exist are secured or even destroyed....

What the minister observed then is no less true now.

Bill S-9 is of critical importance. Indeed, the need for the legislation has long been known. In fact, the 2005 government of Prime Minister Paul Martin, under which I served, signed the suppression convention at the time. While the subsequent election precluded our legislative efforts to fully ratify and implement its obligations, I am pleased that the current government has taken up this task.

However, it is regrettable that seven years have passed in the interim. Certainly, the minister's current support for the promotion of an international framework to govern the prevention of nuclear terrorism is to be applauded. Yet, it remains as inexplicable as it is somewhat irresponsible for the government to have delayed this long, particularly on such a compelling international commitment of the first order.

Before us today is not the convention but rather Bill S-9, legislation introduced in the other place to implement principles embodied in these two international conventions agreed to, as I mentioned, by the Liberal government in 2005. Just as the Liberal government supported the promotion of a global framework for the protection of nuclear material and the prevention of nuclear terrorism then, we continue our support of this effort now. I would urge all colleagues to send the bill to committee for appropriate study and review.

I will support Bill S-9 at second reading as it implements Canada's international policy commitments in this regard. To echo the words of Senator Roméo Dallaire, nuclear weapons constitute, as he put it, “the most extreme massive violation of human rights imaginable” and serve as a violation of our human right to peace and security in the world.

The consequences of fissionable material falling into the hands of a rogue state or non-state terrorist organization are as dangerous as they are prospectively unimaginable. Bill S-9 reflects this imperative to ensure the security of nuclear materials and facilities in this regard. By amending the Criminal Code, and particularly by implementing extraterritorial jurisdiction, the bill would provide the Attorney General with the necessary enforcement tools. These tools find expression in four new criminal offences created by Bill S-9.

First, Bill S-9 would make it an indictable offence to make a device or possess, use, transfer, export, import, alter or dispose of nuclear or radioactive material or a device with the intent to cause death, serious bodily harm or substantial damage to property or the environment. It would also criminalize the commission of an act against a nuclear facility or an act that causes serious interference or disruption of a nuclear facility's operation.

A second offence makes it an indictable offence to do any of these same acts with the specific intent to compel a person, government or international organization to do or refrain from doing something. In other words, where the first offence speaks of intent to cause death, this offence speaks to coercion and threats with a nuclear connection.

Third, Bill S-9 would make it a separate indictable offence to commit any indictable offence with the intent to obtain nuclear or radioactive material, or to obtain access to a nuclear facility.

Fourth, the legislation makes it an indictable offence to threaten to commit any of the aforementioned new offences.

Moreover, Bill S-9 would include these four new offences within the definition of “terrorist activity” in section 83.01 of the Criminal Code. As such, the commission of these offences would trigger other provisions of the code in respect of related offences, such as electronic surveillance and DNA collection.

Bill S-9 has benefited from an extensive debate in the Senate and I trust that members of the House will agree to send it for further study by the committee in our House, where more of the technical details would be scrutinized.

I will now turn my attention to the context in which the debate occurs, namely the question of nuclear proliferation and disarmament and Canada's role in this regard.

Indeed, as important as it is, Bill S-9 simply standing alone would not be enough. Despite our best efforts, nuclear materials and facilities will always be vulnerable. Indeed the protection of these stockpiles is only necessary as long as they actually do exist. As long as nuclear weapons and highly enriched uranium are developed by states and pursued by terrorist organizations, they will pose a threat to human security. It is in this regard that the government's leadership has been lacking.

Indeed, as members of this place may recall, the Canadian delegation in Seoul was subject to heavy criticism by both the U.S. and the EU for having not lived up to earlier undertakings to begin the phasing out of the use of highly enriched uranium in the production of medical isotopes. Simply put, Canada should be at the forefront of the move toward arms control and international nuclear disarmament. Measures such as those in Bill S-9 must be viewed as preliminary measures, as part of a larger and developing framework of non-proliferation.

Indeed, I am concerned that perhaps the government's modus operandi when it comes to domestic criminal justice is slightly orienting its approach to foreign policy and that it may be presuming that the mere criminalization of a behaviour is enough to combat it. We know that complex and multifaceted problems such as proliferation require so much more than this.

Certainly, Bill S-9 would contribute to the prevention of nuclear terrorism by enabling law enforcement to prosecute terrorists before they achieve their intended death and destruction. Given that a single nuclear attack under any circumstance is simply not acceptable and that the risk of nuclear terrorism will never reach zero as long as weapons and devices exist and can be accessed by such terrorists and non-state actors, the bill would be inherently limited as an instrument of prevention and must be viewed as just the first step.

Let me be clear. I unequivocally support the creation of these new offences and recognize the important role of domestic criminal law enforcement in combatting the problem of nuclear weapons. Also, as I have stated elsewhere, I support sending the legislation to committee. My purpose here is only to emphasize the importance of international collaboration and international legal regimes in pursuit of non-proliferation and the ultimate goal of disarmament, which must be the end objective here.

As Senator Dallaire put it during debate in the other place, “we [should] discuss how this legislation fits into the broader stance Canada has taken and needs to take against nuclear weapons”. Simply put, we must be steadfast in our insistence that dangerous and genocidal regimes can never be trusted with nuclear weapons under any circumstances.

Diplomatic and legal institutions exist that must underpin Canadian policy in this regard. For instance, Canada should take a leading role in the push for a comprehensive nuclear weapons convention that would require countries with nuclear weapons to gradually destroy them and remove all fissile material to UN control. We should be supporting the United Nations Secretary-General's comprehensive set of proposals with respect to nuclear disarmament.

Moreover, we must pursue international legal remedies against regimes that engage in genocidal threats, particularly those that underpin those threats with nuclear weaponization.

We must view nuclear weapons for the use to which they could perhaps be dangerously put in support of these regimes' genocidal intent. We must insist that they be kept out of the hands of those states that flagrantly disregard international law, threaten the peace and security of the international community, and threaten the rights of their citizens. Indeed, as has been observed, states that violate, and massively violate, the rights of their own citizens are most likely to violate the rights of others.

The prime example of this threat in the modern context is that of Khameini's Iran. I use that term to distinguish it from the people and public of Iran who are otherwise the targets of mass domestic repression. In Khameini's Iran the steady progression toward nuclear capabilities demonstrates the importance both of domestic criminal law enforcement, as we have been discussing, as well as multilateralism and international legal regimes.

Bill S-9 deals with the domestic problem. With regard to the Iranian nuclear threat, however, we must continue to engage internationally as well.

I have described the Iranian threat in terms of a fourfold threat: the nuclear threat, the incitement threat, the terrorism threat, and massive domestic repression. Let there be no mistake about it that Iran is in standing violation of international legal prohibitions respecting its nuclear weaponization program. Iran has already committed, as an all-party committee of the foreign affairs committee in this House determined, the crime of incitement to genocide prohibited under the genocide convention itself.

Iran has been characterized as a leading state sponsor of international terrorism, and indeed its terrorism in 2012 alone, spanning five continents and some 22 terrorist acts with Iranian footprints, has served to further affirm that proposition. Finally, as I mentioned, Iran is engaged in such massive domestic repression that the latter effectively constitute crimes against humanity against its own people.

This brings me to the particular issue of the manner in which Canada must address the whole question of nuclear proliferation with regard to Iran. Here the international context and our role in that context becomes particularly important.

I would like to suggest that Canada support the prospective P5-plus-1 negotiations with Iran, with whatever diplomatic strategy may develop in the context of those negotiations, and put forward the following requirements with respect to combatting nuclear proliferation in general, but in particular with regard to Iran's nuclear weaponization program.

First, Iran must as a threshold requirement verifiably suspend its uranium enrichment program, allowing the international community to counter the Iranian strategy, the three Ds of delay, denial and deception, used by Iran to accelerate it nuclear weaponization program rather than, in fact, move toward disarmament.

Second, Iran must ship its supply of enriched uranium out of the country, where it can be reprocessed and then made available to Iran under appropriate inspection and monitoring for use in civil nuclear programs.

Third, Iran must verifiably close and dismantle its nuclear enrichment plant at Fordow, embedded in a mountain near Qom, which Iranians initially denied even existed but where a zone of impenetrability will soon develop unless that facility is in fact dismantled.

Fourth, Iran must suspend its heavy water production facilities at Arak. It is sometimes forgotten that an essential component for producing plutonium could also be water, which is a nuclear component that North Korea uses for its own nuclear weapons. Simply put, the path to nuclear weaponization need not be travelled by uranium enrichment alone. The suspension of uranium enrichment, however necessary, will not alone ensure that Iran is verifiably abandoning its nuclear weaponization program.

Fifth, Iran must allow the International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors immediate and unfettered access to any suspected nuclear site, as Iran is a signatory to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. Iran is thereby bound by its obligations not to pursue nuclear weapons but also to open its nuclear sites and installations.

Sixth, Iranian authorities need to grant the IAEA access to the parts and military complex near Tehran, where it has been reported that Iran has conducted high explosives testing, possibly in conjunction with the development of a nuclear weapon.

Finally, Iran needs to allow the International Atomic Energy Agency to install devices on centrifuges to monitor Iran's uranium enrichment levels.

These are the kinds of threshold approaches that Canada can assist in framing and thereby assist in combating proliferation. As I said, a foreign affairs committee of the House has determined that Iran engages in state sanctioned incitement to genocide. The convergence of the two makes the threat even more dangerous than it might otherwise be.

There are a number of remedies that Canada could engage in that it has not yet done, both to combat the nuclear proliferation dimension and genocidal incitement. In other words, there are juridical remedies that we have not sufficiently explored.

First, we could simply ask the United Nations Secretary General to refer this to the UN Security Council for deliberation and accountability as a matter that “threatens international peace and security”, which is under the jurisdiction of the UN Secretary General.

Second, any state party to the genocide convention, including Canada, could initiate tomorrow an interstate complaint against Iran, a state party to that genocide convention, before the International Court of Justice.

Third, Canada, or any other country, could ask the UN Security Council to refer the matter of Iran's state sanctioned incitement to genocide, underpinned by its nuclear weaponization program, to the UN Security Council for purposes of inquiring into individual criminal liability. There are other remedies, but I will limit it in this regard.

Finally, before I conclude my remarks, I would like to return to one specific technicality relating to Bill S-9 and to link it to the problem of Iranian nuclear weaponization. As members of this place may know, despite making reference to the matter, the government has failed to take any action to list the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps as a terrorist organization under the Criminal Code. Simply put, the IRGC has emerged as the epicentre of the Iranian four-fold threat to which I referred, and has played a central role in Iran's domestic repression, international terrorism, incitement to genocide and nuclear proliferation.

The United States has already labelled it a terrorist group, while the UN and the European Union have imposed various sanctions against the IRGC and its leaders. It is regrettable that Canada has yet to take the step of listing it as a terrorist entity here in the Criminal Code, a step that would combat the nuclear proliferation, genocidal incitement, as well as the international terrorism. Indeed, the IRGC, acting through Hezbollah and the terrorist proxies of Iran, was implicated in the attempted assassination of the Saudi ambassador in Washington, and in July's terrorist attack targeting Israeli tourists in Bulgaria that resulted in seven deaths, as well as a series of international terrorist attacks during 2012.

Of course, the international juridical remedies I outlined must be pursued against the IRGC and its individual members and leaders. Indeed, I have long called for the listing of the IRGC as a terrorist organization, and I mention it now in relation to Bill S-9 to highlight one particular aspect of the bill that needs to be more closely studied at committee with related amendments as may be moved in this regard.

Another important feature of the bill is its military exclusionary clause, which would ensure that none of the newly created offences would apply to “activities undertaken by military forces of a state in the exercise of their official duties, to the extent that those activities are governed by other rules of international law”.

My concern is that activities by or in relation to the IRGC could be argued to fall into this category insofar as the IRGC could be characterized as a military force of a state and not as a terrorist organization. Clearly, the actions of the IRGC can be demonstrated to be in violation of international law, thus precluding protection under this clause. Still, so long as they are not expressly designated as a terrorist organization under the Criminal Code, this legal loophole will still loom over our discussions.

Again, we must situate Bill S-9 within the larger context of nuclear proliferation and the Iranian nuclear threat in particular, and thereby scrutinize the bill to ensure that it could have the intended effect of preventing nuclear terror. Accordingly, I reaffirm my request for the government to list the IRGC as a terrorist organization. I further suggest that the effect of the military exclusionary clause be more closely considered in committee to ensure that Bill S-9 would not be precluded from achieving effective prevention.

Canada has a tradition and reputation for taking the lead in multilateral efforts of this kind. Our nation is rich in effective soft power resources, and under previous governments we have demonstrated that multilateral leadership can achieve solutions to the seemingly most intractable problems of international co-operation and the pursuit of human security. I remind the House of our nation's leading role in the negotiation of the 1997 Ottawa treaty banning the use of anti-personnel landmines, where Canada mobilized governments and non-governmental organizations to achieve the signing of that landmark global treaty. We should also recall that Canadian leadership was effective then in changing the behaviour of governments and militaries, ultimately proving that disarmament is an achievable goal. Canada should be pursuing that goal today with respect to the overall context of proliferation, particularly as it relates to Iran.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to my hon. colleague. Certainly the issue of the proliferation of nuclear weapons in the Middle East is of grave concern to all of us in the House.

The concern we have is that Canada has historically played a major role in multilateral negotiations to ensure that we maintain some manner of security with regard to nuclear weapons.

In regard to the current situation in Iran, we have a government that has decided to shut down our embassy, leaving us very much on the outside because we are not one of the large players but a smaller player. Therefore, our ability to have influence has been somewhat compromised.

What does my hon. colleague think of the decision by the present Conservative government to shut down the embassy at a time when we really need to ensure that we have as many people on the ground as we can to influence decisions because this issue is so serious?

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Speaker, there are several responses to that question.

On the matter of the closing of the embassy, as I said and wrote at the time, I supported the four considerations that led the government to consider closing the embassy, namely the question of the nuclear weaponization program, the incitement to genocide, the terrorist character, and the massive domestic repression.

As to the specific issue of the closing of the embassy, it is quite interesting and timely that yesterday evening I attended the annual meeting of the International Center for Human Rights in Iran, a Canadian-based NGO composed largely of Canadian Iranians. The predominant view last night was that while it may cause a certain inconvenience to Canadian Iranians in regard to certain consular activities, on the whole they supported the decision because of their great concern that the Iranians were using their Iranian embassy here in Canada for illegal activities to intimidate Iranian Canadians here as well as their families back in Iran. As well, the Italian government, which has been given the representative capacity of pursuing Canadian concerns, can do that, which the Canadian embassy in Iran was effectively being precluded from doing with any kind of effective diplomatic engagement.

Having said that, none of that affects our need and responsibility to engage in the whole framework of multilateral negotiations. Therefore, whatever position one takes on the closing of the embassy, that should not deflect us away from or preclude our appreciation of the fact that Canada can play a role with respect to the multilateral negotiations to combat the nuclear weaponization program in Iran, which underpins as well its state-sanctioned incitement to genocide and leverages its massive domestic repression and terrorism. It can do so through the framework I outlined earlier with regard to the eight points that Canada can play a role in.

[Christine Moore, NDP, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, since the hon. member was here at the time, I would like him to tell us about the government's vision when these treaties were ratified or presented for the first time, in 2005.

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Speaker, at the time, we did support these treaties and, at the same time, we supported their ratification.

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague to my left who identified some potential failings with this bill that need to be addressed in committee. In particular, I would like his comments on the apparent failing of this bill to identify as terrorists state organizations acting as the military, which may in fact be performing roles that we in Canada would define as terrorism and, in the case of Iran, may be terrorizing an entire region of the planet. This bill would appear to exempt those kinds of state-sponsored terrorism from any actions that Canadians could take in our own Criminal Code and actions to deal with those state-sponsored terrorists in other nations.

I would ask the member to comment.

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that would underpin my entire approach to saying that the Canadian government must list the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps as a terrorist entity. As all studies have shown in this regard, as I mentioned in my remarks, the IRGC has emerged as the epicentre of the fourfold Iranian threat that I described and is particularly engaged both in the matter of nuclear proliferation and international terrorism. Should it be characterized as a military organization rather than as the terrorist entity it is, then it could somehow find a loophole to be protected against the application of this legislation.

In that regard, we must therefore move with all deliberate speed, which I have been suggesting for years, to list the IRGC as a terrorist entity under Canadian law. In fact, when the Canadian government closed the embassy in Iran, I listed four initiatives that could have been taken, apart from closing the embassy, which would have had compelling impact: number one, listing the IRGC as a terrorist entity; number two, holding Iran accountable for its state-sanctioned incitement to genocide; number three, holding to sanction those engaged in massive human rights violations; and number four, engaging, as I said, in a much more active way in combatting the nuclear proliferation program in Iran.

Those are the activities we still must undertake, and they are more important than the issues of simply closing the embassy in Iran because they would have substantive effect in terms of our combatting overall the fourfold threat that Iran represents, in particular its nuclear proliferation threat that is underpinned by its genocidal incitement threat, as well as its international terrorist conduct, in which not only the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps but its terrorist proxy Hezbollah also has been engaged. While we have put Hezbollah on the terrorist list, we might encourage our European counterparts to do the same.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like my colleague to comment on the need for legislation at this time, from his perspective, and where we should go from here to deal with this very important issue.

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this legislation represents a first step on the domestic level with regard to the implementation of our obligations under international treaties, which now finally, belatedly, will be both ratified and implemented.

However, it represents only a first step and it deals only with the domestic criminal law enforcement step. It does not deal with the overall, multilateral involvement that is required of us in terms of combatting the overall nuclear proliferation danger, as well as all the others I have mentioned.

We need to go beyond this legislation, which is effectively, importantly, a domestic law enforcement tool that does not deal with the important, compelling, international, multilateral arms control and disarmament initiatives we need to be taking.

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Timmins—James Bay.

The bill fulfills Canada's treaty obligations to the UN under the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material and the International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism, including extending international measures and beyond protecting against proliferation to now include the protection of nuclear facilities. Also, it reinforces Canada's obligation under the UN Security Council Resolution 1540 taken in 2004, to take and enforce effective measures to prevent the proliferation of nuclear materials as well as chemical and biological weapons.

At the outset, let me say that we generally support the bill. We think it is about time that the government actually lived up to its obligations under the UN, but we have some reservations about the scope of the bill.

I also want to point out that the government with its law and order agenda has an overarching propensity to deal with law and order as its prime focus. This is just one of 14 bills, I believe, that have reached the House dealing with crime or crime and punishment, or defining crime. There are many of them. There were bills about megatrials, human smugglers, mandatory minimums, military justice, the gun registry, citizens' arrest, criminal and electronic communications, human smugglers, elder abuse, accountability of offenders, RCMP accountability, the faster removal of foreign criminals, terrorism and nuclear terrorism, which would lead one to belive that perhaps Canada is going through a spate of crime that is out of proportion to everything, because these bills are out of proportion to what we are doing here in the House of Commons.

However, that is not true. The facts suggest otherwise, that crime is on the decline in Canada and has been on the decline since before the government took office. Focusing on laws to scare Canadians into thinking that crime is on the rise and making the criminal justice system harsher and less flexible is not the way to go. On this side of the House, we believe that a flexible and more systematic approach to crime is a better of dealing with it.

The bill is necessary and we agree it is necessary to adopt these laws, to abide by our agreements with the United Nations, to deal with the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material, et cetera. However, let us talk about what things are still missing from the government's agenda while this bill is front and centre.

The government is making illegal certain acts of terrorism involving nuclear materials. Bravo. Canadians generally are glad that, if people try to use nuclear or radioactive material for terrorism, they will be doing something against the law and if they are caught and convicted they will face serious penalties. However, we note there are no mandatory minimums here.

What is the government doing about other things that are terrifying Canadians? In my riding of York South—Weston there was a recent spate of killings and maimings using handguns. Last week one person was killed and two others injured in handgun violence. Over the summer, there were six funerals of Somali youth who were gunned down in acts of violence all over the city of Toronto. Of course there were the horrific shootings at a block party on Danzig Street in Scarborough, which left two dead and 23 injured. What action has the government taken to stop the flow of illegal guns at our border?

It is all well and good to pass laws making terrorism and nuclear terrorism illegal, but if our citizenry is being terrorized by other things, what are we doing about that? What actions are being taken to get the guns that are already there off the street? There is no bill before us on that topic.

The government passed Bill C-19, which cancels and will destroy the long gun registry, so less will be known about what guns are out there, and people are fearful. People in my city are fearful about what that will mean for their personal safety. They are more fearful than they were before the Conservative government took power.

In my riding of York South—Weston the bill does nothing to prevent another thing that is the single biggest crime in my riding right now, the theft of cellphones and other electronic mobile devices. Kids are being mugged and people are being injured, and yet nothing is happening from the government. The solution is simple. Make it illegal to activate phones reported as stolen, and I brought forward such a motion in the House of Commons.

So far the government is silent on things that are terrifying people, that are making people feel they are less safe than they were yesterday. Yet, we are here discussing nuclear terrorism.

It also takes aim at the risk of the environment being threatened by nuclear terrorists. Again, bravo. Canadians are worried about the environment. They are worried about the climate changes that have been felt most recently from Hurricane Sandy doing damage to both the U.S. and Canada.

What else is the government doing about the environment? The definition of the environment in Bill S-9, this bill, is almost identical to that found in the new environmental assessment act. Essentially,

“environment” means the components of the Earth, and includes (a) land, water and air, including all layers of the atmosphere; (b) all organic and inorganic matter and living organisms; and (c) the interacting natural systems that include components referred to in paragraphs (a) and (b).

Bravo, again.

If a nuclear terrorist threatens any of these elements of the environment, they can be charged with an offence, and if convicted, they can face serious time. However, if they do something, the environmental effects of these actions cannot hurt any living organism, including humans. That is not so for the way that the government treats its own projects.

The definition of environmental effect in the new environmental assessment act is only about those impacts on fish, migratory species and birds. If a federal project harms the environment in such a way that human health is threatened, apparently the government does not care. Human health is no longer protected by the Environmental Assessment Act.

Bill S-9 protects human health. It therefore protects the environment better against harm than the environmental assessment act. Nuclear terrorists are treated more harshly than government projects or other projects that are of large scale and large effect and that can in fact harm the environment. Most of those projects are not nuclear terrorism, so nothing is wrong with harming human health, says this Conservative government.

Bill S-9 is a necessary part of living up to our obligations to the UN. We like the UN. We wish we were part of the Security Council. We wish we lived up to all of our obligations. One of those obligations is the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, which the government signed on March 11, 2010. On that date the government promised, as a result of signing that convention, to report back to the UN within two years. It still has not done it.

There has been no report on what it has done so far to help persons with disabilities. So far, the government has done things to harm persons with disabilities. One of the things that treaty with the UN says very clearly we are supposed to be doing is making it possible for persons with disabilities to have equal access to information, equal access to the Internet. Yet, the government, in its last bill, removed community access funding. It therefore cut off thousands upon thousands of disabled individuals from having access to the Internet, which they had grown used to under that plan, and it is no longer available to them.

The government has apparently failed the disabled, and failed, again, one of the very important things we have signed with the UN. We agreed with the UN. We thought we would make life better for the disabled, with every measure we took and with everything we did. Yet, we have the government acting in opposition of that promise to the UN.

In addition, the bill does nothing to deal with one of the most pressing needs in my riding, and that is affordable housing. The bill is all about safety and security, but safety and security is one of the things that is most missing in my riding with regard to persons living in supported housing in the city of Toronto.

Fifteen years ago, the Liberal government got itself out of supported housing, and the federal government has done nothing to move back into that role. The City of Toronto is facing a $750 million deficit in terms of repairing these buildings, and thousands upon thousands of people are on waiting lists. Yet, we can do nothing about it. This is part of the safety and security of individuals in my riding in the city of Toronto, and in Canada as a whole.

However, the most important thing facing us is nuclear terrorism, according to the government. We have done absolutely nothing to assist those people in this country to feel more secure in where they live.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, these obligations go back to 2004, and no steps have been taken to ratify them until now.

The government seems to have a very mixed attitude toward the United Nations. It has tried to get on the Security Council, and they were turned down, many said, because of the government's attitude on key issues. We have heard backbenchers attack the United Nations. We have seen the Minister of Foreign Affairs ridicule it.

I would like to ask the hon. member if he is concerned about Canada's long-standing tradition of multilateralism being undermined by a government that seems to be very hostile towards our most important international body?

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as for Canada's role in the world, one way of putting it is that we have always punched above our weight. However, since the government took office, we are less able to have an influence in the major and underlying issues facing this planet. Nowhere was that more evident than when we were rejected for a spot on the Security Council.

I am a supporter of the United Nations. I prefer to think that the United Nations is a place we can go to have large-scale discussions about the ills that face the world. Canada should be a part of that process.

More and more, since the government has taken office, we seem to be pushing ourselves to the outside of the UN. We do not want to make speeches at the UN. We do not want to abide by our commitments. It has been seven years since the commitment to the UN was made. It has been almost three years since the commitment on the persons with disabilities was made, and there has been no report from the government on that commitment.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources and for the Canadian Wheat Board]

Mr. Speaker, I was concerned as I listened to the member touch on a whole host of issues that are not directly related to this bill. However, I guess he has the right to do that.

I want to speak specifically to the issue of the flow of illegal guns into this country. The member was basically accusing the government of having done nothing on that, in spite of the fact that we have put increased resources into that at the border. We have increased sentencing for gun crimes because we felt that was an important thing to do in this country. We have armed officers at the border in order to protect them better, as well, and we have been screening arrivals and making sure people are checked so that the flow of guns is stopped.

The member also mentioned that the gun registry was shut down and seemed to somehow try to link that to handguns. I do not know if the member is aware, but the handgun registry has been in place for decades and it continues. The long gun registry does not affect handguns. If the member is talking about handguns in his riding, he should be clear and should not be misleading his constituents into thinking that somehow the government has not done anything with the handgun registry.

I have a specific question. It is the member's opinion that people feel they are less safe today than they were years ago. I am just wondering, if that is the case, why have the NDP members opposed every initiative we have brought forward in order to protect people and make them feel more safe in their own homes and communities?

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the problem with the actions that the government has taken is they do not make people feel more safe. That has been the problem.

The government has taken action to remove a long gun registry, which in fact police were using every day. It has taken steps to make penalties for using guns harsher. I am not aware of too many criminals who read the law before they take a gun and shoot somebody. That is not what goes on in the minds of criminals.

What is necessary in order to make people feel safer is safer and more secure housing, and safer and more secure streets, which may mean we need some proactive way to get at the proliferation of handguns.

When I go into a high school and half of the children there admit to owning a handgun or knowing someone who does, there is something wrong with our society. When the proliferation of handguns is that pervasive that high school students think nothing of owning a handgun, there is something wrong.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as always, it is a great honour to rise in the House of Commons, the house of the common people of Canada, and to represent the people who elected me in the region of Timmins—James Bay, whom I have great respect for. I take my role in this debate very seriously. We are discussing something of great importance that cuts across all party lines. It is an international concern about dealing with the proliferation of nuclear materials that could be used in terrorist attacks and in illegal ways.

Bill S-9 is an attempt by Canada to ratify commitments that were made at the United Nations, eight years ago, on the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material. That was amended at the 2005 International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism. It is unfortunate that we did not move to ratify this earlier, but we are dealing with it now, so let us get down to business.

Ensuring that all countries are in compliance with the legal codes necessary to deal with those who would attempt to misuse or get access to nuclear materials is, of course, a major issue domestically. However, there is no such thing as being reactive when it comes to nuclear materials. It only takes one case, which could have catastrophic implications. There is the need to be proactive and multilateral, for Canada to take a place on the world stage, where we once were recognized for trying to get rid of weapons. It is the ease of access to materials that is like playing the dangerous game of Russian roulette.

I will talk a bit about the bill, but I want to talk about two issues that have recently come to light with regard to how nuclear materials are being used. One is on how they are clearly being used in an illegal manner, and the other is how they are being used perfectly legally. I will talk about the illegal manner.

There was the recent assassination of the Russian Alexander Litvinenko, who was poisoned with polonium-210. Mr. Litvinenko was a critic of Vladimir Putin, and a major investigation was undertaken. It was interesting that at the time British authorities were quoted in the media saying, “we are 100% certain who administered the poison, where and how”, yet nobody was ever extradited for this, and life went on. The British doctors who dealt with Mr. Litvinenko when he was dying said that his murder represents an ominous landmark, the beginning of the age of nuclear terrorism.

After the fall of the communist regime that had become very much a corrupt oligarch, there have been attempts and hope throughout the last 20 years for Russia to move forward. However, there are real concerns about what is happening there right now. Three young women were recently convicted of the crime of embarrassing the Russian ruler with a piece of theatre. Yekaterina Samutsevich, Nadezhda Tolokonnikova and Maria Alyokhina were all arrested, convicted and sent to penal colonies. Yekaterina Samutsevich was finally released, but the other two young mothers, in their early 20s, are now serving hard labour in penal colonies for the crime of having embarrassed the oligarch Putin. This happened in 2012.

What is also very sad and shameful is that, along with Mr. Putin attacking these young women artists, he was actually backed by the patriarchs of the Russian Orthodox Church who felt they had also been embarrassed. For a church that has been persecuted by the Soviet Union, we would have hoped the leadership of the church would have called on Mr. Putin not to use the power of the state to try to crush artists. It is the role of the artist to perhaps say what the media and other people are unwilling to say. Yet, two young dissident women are suffering right now in a penal colony in Russia, in 2012. Very little has been said internationally, and Mr. Putin carries on. The murder of Mr. Litvinenko, the lack of action to find out who did it and the fact that it involved nuclear material is very concerning.

For the young women of Pussy Riot, we do need parliaments and political leaders to stand up and say that the right of dissent, the right of art must be protected around the world, even in the world of Vladimir Putin.

I will now turn to another issue in terms of nuclear proliferation, something that is perfectly legal right now but certainly does not meet the tests of international law, and that is the use of depleted uranium by NATO and U.S. military forces.

Obviously, depleted uranium is being used as tank busters and were used to a great extent in the first Gulf war, in Afghanistan and in the invasion of Iraq. It makes it very easy to blow up a tank with a large depleted uranium shell but uranium is extremely toxic and poisonous to the atmosphere. It destroys the landscape because it poisons it forever. We are now seeing, in areas like Afghanistan and Iraq, the effects of this, particularly in Fallujah . There are real concerns about catastrophic levels of birth defects and abnormalities being reported by media following the U.S. attack on Fallujah in 2006. Dr. Samira Alani, the pediatric specialist in Fallujah, said that she personally has logged over 700 birth defects in children who were born with severe abnormalities and children who died as a result of exposure to some form of radiation. The only radiation we can think of is the use of these depleted uranium shells. That is unconscionable.

What is also unconscionable is that as we are talking about trying to limit access to these materials because they could be used in terrorism, we see that the U.S. nuclear regulatory commission has established a general licence for the use of depleted uranium. Everyone can get a general licence as long as they promise they will not lose any of the stuff.

Nationally and internationally, we need to get our heads around this and say that we must get uranium away from being used in nuclear forces because all over the world we are seeing countries, which have access to weapons-grade uranium and nuclear materials, that are unstable. Some former regimes have collapsed and some of the new people should not have access to this material. The potential is catastrophic. It has been one of the great fortunes of the world that over the last 50 years these weapons have not been used, even accidentally, and we should all be grateful. It has to go back to the fact that there still is a lack of action at the international level to insist that we move toward removing these weapons and materials so that they cannot be used incorrectly.

The New Democratic Party supports moving the bill to committee and feels that it is important to do so. Obviously, people who are attempting to trade in nuclear materials need to be punished to the full extent of the law. However, it is the role of multilateral engagement that Canada has traditionally played the role of honest broker in the world in order to bring the various parties to the tables to say that we need to start, not only lowering the level of intercontinental ballistic missiles but we need to deal with issues like depleted uranium shells. We need to start taking the materials out of circulation in order to protect the common good.

As we have been waiting eight years for this legislation to come forward, we accept it and will move forward with it, but we are calling upon the government to understand that reactive does not work when it comes to nuclear issues. The only real response of any credible nation in the world today in 2012 is to be proactive. We are calling upon the government to take the proactive lead to move toward multilateral disarmament on nuclear issues, including the depleted uranium shells that are still being used.

I look forward to carrying on this debate. This is the kind of discussion that belongs in our House and what we should be spending our time on as members of Parliament.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

The member for Timmins—James Bay will have five minutes of questions and comments when the debate resumes.

The House resumed from November 5, 2012, consideration of the motion that Bill S-9, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Scarborough—Rouge River.

Today, I am pleased to rise in the House to speak to Bill S-9, introduced by the hon. Marjory LeBreton.

I would like to being by recognizing the work done by the senator on this initiative, the purpose of which is to ensure that Canada honours the international commitments it made in 2005 in relation to the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material and the International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism.

Historically, Canada has been an important leader on the international scene, in spite of the pitfalls encountered in recent years. This country has distinguished itself by its proactive approach, by honouring its commitments and by its significant support for international law. It is therefore important to lay the legislative groundwork for ratifying these two conventions.

These conventions are the product of negotiated agreements and extensive work done with the objective of making our world safer and more secure. In 2005, Canada committed itself to enhancing security around activities relating to nuclear energy. At the nuclear security summits held in 2010 and 2012, Canada reiterated that commitment, with a view to the 2014 summit. In terms of both physical protection and potential acts of terrorism, Canada has committed itself to taking action to contain these problems.

By signing these two conventions, Canada committed itself to ratifying the agreements negotiated by the international community.

At present, 56 countries have already ratified the treaty, but Canada has still not done so. Bill S-9 is therefore a welcome initiative, since it will eventually bring us closer to formally implementing these conventions and ensuring a more uniform enforcement internationally.

Seven years have passed, and it is now time for action to honour those agreements. Usually, our parliamentary caucus is not open to bills coming from the Senate, because that institution is not elected. However, we agree that the technical aspect of this legislation, in the sense that it is a matter of honouring our international commitments, makes it more acceptable.

Bill S-9, the Nuclear Terrorism Act, is a step toward eventual ratification of the commitments relating to the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material and the International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism.

There are many aspects to this legislation. First of all, it makes it formally and explicitly illegal to possess, use or dispose of nuclear or radioactive material or a nuclear or radioactive device. It also makes it illegal to use or alter nuclear or radioactive material or a nuclear or radioactive device. At the same time, it formally prohibits the commission of any act against a nuclear facility or its operations. Finally, it makes it illegal to threaten to commit any of the other three offences.

Bill S-9 introduces and defines several key terms related to nuclear and radioactive concerns, including “nuclear facility”, “nuclear material”, “radioactive material” and “device”.

It also amends the definition of “terrorist activity” and broadens the legal scope of these measures, meaning that an individual can be prosecuted in Canadian courts even if the offences are committed outside our borders.

It is also important to note that wiretap provisions have been introduced so that warrants can be issued in the event of offences related to this legislation.

This legislation also amends the notion of double jeopardy. Therefore, if someone is prosecuted by a foreign court for a crime under Bill S-9, but that trial does not meet certain basic Canadian legal standards, that person can be tried again in Canada for the same crime.

In short, Bill S-9 covers several legal issues and therefore warrants careful consideration and a more thorough examination in committee, especially since it is a question of defining new legal terms and broadening the application of Canadian laws. Our parliamentary branch recognizes how important it is for Canada to meet its international obligations, which Bill S-9 largely does. However, certain deficiencies have been identified and warrant careful consideration.

On the one hand, in some respects, the proposed measure goes too far. Some components of the bill have an overly broad scope. We want to make sure, for instance, that the provisions related to wiretaps do not go too far, and more importantly, that they do not violate the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The crimes outlawed by this legislation are serious, but we must respect the surrounding legal framework.

On the other hand, Senator LeBreton's initiative does not go far enough. All the same, we commend the Liberal amendment that aims at prohibiting the production of nuclear or radioactive devices, without which the bill would not comply with the International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism.

We also have reservations about the penalties. We want to make sure that the penalties will be appropriate and that they will correspond to the convention's expectation that these offences will be dealt with severely. At the same time, we believe it is necessary to take steps to strengthen the security of nuclear facilities. We do not want government action to be based solely on the legal aspects. We must also be sure that measures are taken to guarantee the security of facilities themselves.

Our position on Bill S-9 is going to be pragmatic and conciliatory. As has been stated, the bill does contain some positive elements, but there are also some not insignificant shortcomings, which could be remedied through amendments. This is why we will be voting in favour of this measure, so that the process will run its course. I would like to remind my colleagues how important it is that the initiative by the hon. Marjory LeBreton be sent to committee for discussion.

Together, we will be able to work on improving it and strengthening its positive impact. When we have an opportunity to debate and discuss this issue, parliamentarians will also be able to understand the proposed policy more fully. The legal scope of this bill and its complexity demand that parliamentarians give it particular attention.

On the other hand, the government must also show good faith by accepting the opposition's amendments, intended as they are to improve Bill S-9. Such multi-party dialogue will lead to better legislation for Canadians, as well as for national and international security.

To conclude, I want the members of this House to give some thought to how they will vote on Bill S-9. They should give some thought to the importance of complying with international conventions, the importance of filling the gaps in the senator’s initiative and the importance of pinpointing the problems relating to nuclear and radioactive issues.

Let us send this bill to committee, so that we can implement a just and effective policy.

[Tarik Brahmi, NDP, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the speech by my colleague from Saint-Lambert concerning this important bill.

Every time we discuss the international convention on nuclear safety and that there are international concerns in that regard, we always talk about the urgent need for action. This convention was signed in 2005 and it is now 2012. Legislation to ratify this convention will probably not even pass before 2013.

The years are passing and the urgent need for action is always at the forefront of discussions. Therefore, can my colleague talk about the fact that the government has not been very proactive and has not set a good example internationally in terms of ratifying this convention and amending legislation in order to proceed with ratifying this convention in a more reasonable timeframe?

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. The nuclear issue is truly very important. The time it takes for this government to ratify international conventions is a major problem.

Many countries have already taken a position on this nuclear issue, and some of them are real leaders in this area. It is truly regrettable that Canada has not taken a position on this issue sooner.

However, today we are debating a bill that will really allow us to make up for lost time and to take the most appropriate course of action.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Mr. Speaker, of course, it is important for us to conform to the treaties to which we are a party. However, it seems that some modifications may be made, and we are supporting the bill to go to committee.

I note that the bill has been amended already in the Senate, to add a provision to make the manufacturing of a radioactive device a criminal offence. I wonder if that means a little more study is required. There are many types of radioactive devices, some of which are medical in nature and used for purposes of X-rays and different types of medical procedures. Is this one of the reasons we need to have further study on the bill, because it is highly technical in nature?

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. The issue of safety and criminal offences is an important one. In my speech, I emphasized that this bill must be referred to committee in order for us to truly have the opportunity to study it and to make constructive and positive suggestions about this bill and different nuclear devices. It is very important that this bill be improved and that new provisions also be heard.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague's speech. It is indeed very important to move this bill forward to stop the proliferation of nuclear threats.

As the hon. member clearly explained, the convention dates back to 2005. Canada was involved in its drafting. Its ratification was pushed back to the end of 2012. This legislation is important. However, it comes from the Senate. It is rather odd that the Senate is the one teaching a lesson to the Conservatives.

I thank my colleague for her speech on this issue, and I want to ask her what she thinks of how long it is taking to finally ratify this convention.

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. Of course, it is very unfortunate that it took so long to truly address an issue of critical importance in today's world.

The delay is indeed inexcusable and very regrettable. It is time to really deal with this Senate bill in a positive and constructive fashion, to improve it in committee, and to finally ratify this convention on nuclear terrorism.

[Rathika Sitsabaiesan, NDP, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of Bill S-9, an act to amend the Criminal Code, the nuclear terrorism act, at second reading, in order to give the bill further study at committee.

It is an honour to speak on a topic that is so important to the safety of Canadians and also our global security. Safety and security are a priority for the constituents of my great riding of Scarborough--Rouge River, and Canadians deserve to feel safe and secure in their own home communities. Residents of Scarborough are still reeling, sadly, following the tragic incident this summer that involved the loss of two young lives and left 23 injured.

I was proud to co-host the leader of the official opposition in Scarborough to share in a discussion about what the community wants and needs to feel safe in the neighbourhood. The outcome of this discussion was that people want to see increased care of the environment, longer term investment in our youth and job creation in Canada, increased witness protection to ensure people who are witness to a crime can feel safe and, of course, a decrease in the number of guns on our streets.

The Conservative government does not properly invest in witness protection. It is slashing public safety staff, which is allowing more guns to flow on to our streets. We are not seeing legislation to prevent gun violence from occurring. People do not feel safe and they feel further terrorized by guns. It is disheartening that the Conservatives ignore the pleas for action from constituents and residents of the GTA.

Today is about Bill S-9. This Senate bill would amend the Criminal Code in order to implement the criminal law requirements of two international counterterrorism treaties, the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material, the CPPNM, as amended in 2005, and the 2005 International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism, the ICSANT. These two agreements deal with the protection of radioactive material, nuclear material and nuclear facilities, as well as the protection from nuclear or radioactive devices.

The bill would align our laws to these treaties by introducing four new indictable offences into part II of the Criminal Code. First, it will be illegal to possess, use or dispose of nuclear radioactive material or a nuclear or radioactive device, or commit an act against a nuclear facility or its operation with the intent to cause death, serious bodily harm or substantial damage to property or the environment. Second, it will be illegal to use or alter nuclear or radioactive material or a nuclear or radioactive device, or commit an act against a nuclear facility or its operation with the intent to compel a person, government or international organization to do or refrain from doing anything. Third, it will also be illegal to commit an indictable offence under federal law for the purpose of obtaining nuclear or radioactive material, a nuclear or radioactive device or access or control of a nuclear facility. Finally, it will be illegal to threaten to commit any of the other three offences.

The New Democratic Party believes we must seriously address the issue of nuclear security and comply with our international obligations in order to better co-operate with other countries on counterterrorism strategies. New Democrats are committed to multilateral diplomacy and international co-operation, especially in areas of great common concern such as nuclear terrorism. It is certainly important that we, along with our international partners, do what we can to protect Canadians from all forms of terrorism and protect global security.

It is curious as to why the government waited for so long to implement the necessary changes and ratify these two treaties. As I said, the bill would fulfill Canada's treaty obligations under the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material, the CPPNM, and the ICSANT. This includes extending international measures beyond protecting against the proliferation of nuclear materials to now include the protection of nuclear facilities.

Bill S-9 would reinforce Canada's obligation under the 2004 UN Security Council Resolution 1540 to take and enforce effective measures to prevent the proliferation of nuclear materials as well as chemical and biological weapons. To date Canada has not ratified either the ICSANT or the CPPNM amendment because Canada does not yet have legislation in place to criminalize the offences outlined in the ICSANT or some of the offences outlined in the CPPNM amendment.

The amendments in Bill S-9, introduced into the code, are Canada's effort to align its domestic legislation with what is required by both conventions so they can be ratified. If these amendments should become law, one could presume Canada could be in a position to ratify both the ICSANT and CPPNM amendment, something Canada, as well as other countries, committed to working toward at both the 2010 Nuclear Security Summit held in Washington, D.C., and the 2012 Nuclear Security Summit in Seoul, Korea. This is an important step for global security.

Miles Pomper, senior research associate at the James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies at Monterey Institute of International Studies, advised those at the Senate hearing on Bill S-9 as follows:

—I want to point out generally how important it is to global security that Canada ratify these treaties. As you know, Canada and other countries, at the 2010 and 2012 Nuclear Security Summits, committed to ratifying these conventions. At the 2012 Nuclear Security Summit, just held a few months ago in Seoul, states also made a particular commitment to have the 2005 CPPNM amendment enter into force by the time of the next nuclear summit in 2014. For this to happen, two thirds of the 145 parties to the original CPPNM, or 97 states, need to ratify the treaty. To this date only 56 have done so.

In ratifying this treaty, therefore, Canada will not only bring us one step closer to the magic number needed for entry into force. Canada is deeply respected in the international community for its leadership on nuclear issues and its commitment to multilateral diplomacy. Its ratification will encourage other countries to move forward with their own ratifications and improve global security.

We believe that Bill S-9 brings forward necessary measures as part of Canada's international co-operation against threats related to nuclear terrorism. Given the increasingly heightened sophistication of technology and radioactive devices, it seems to me to be imperative to ensure that Canada is co-operating with other parties and in compliance with international treaties. As I said, New Democrats are committed to multilateral diplomacy and international co-operation, especially in areas such as nuclear terrorism.

Canada needs to work with other leading countries that are moving toward ratifying these conventions. It is very important that we fulfill our international obligations, and Canada will only be able to officially ratify these conventions after their domestic implementation is complete. We believe there must be close technical scrutiny of the bill in committee to make sure Bill S-9 is drafted in the best way to fulfill our obligations under these two treaties. Once we ratify, Canada can go on and will not be in non-compliance.

This stage of study is extremely important. As we saw in the Senate hearings, a vital component of the bill was originally missing. Bill S-9, in its original form, did not include the making of a radioactive device as an offence. We appreciate that the Senate amended this major omission in the bill. It is a good thing that the bill arrived with this improvement already in it. Once again, it is a relief that this omission was caught and corrected in the Senate, but it demonstrates the need for greater scrutiny in committee, and assurances that nothing else will be overlooked.

There are a few technical issues that I hope those in committee will undertake during their consideration. It seems that this bill may be broader and more general than the treaties themselves. As my colleagues have noted, some of the new Criminal Code offences are broader in scope than the offences found in individual international agreements. As well, the language used in the bill is more general than the specific treaty articles. For instance, my colleague noted concerns with proposed sections 82.3 and 82.4 in the bill, in that the specific intent formulations of the ICSANT treaty with regard to damage to a nuclear facility are not replicated in Bill S-9. Rather, Bill S-9 assumes a general intent standard. Also, the reference to crimes of threat in Bill S-9 go further than required under the treaty. Ultimately, these concerns highlight the need for scrutiny at committee to ensure the legislation has been drafted to be in compliance and that the issues that have been raised in the Senate and the House chamber are dealt with.

In conclusion, Canadians and people around the globe deserve to feel safe and secure. Nuclear weapons are an affront to safety, security and peace in the world. New Democrats are very pleased to support this bill at second reading and to send it to committee for further study.

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague on her speech. She spoke to the urgency of ratifying these international conventions. She also mentioned the time lost, unfortunately, by our country with respect to these ratifications.

Could the hon. member tell us if, in her opinion, Bill S-9 goes far enough with regard to nuclear safety, considering that, unfortunately, a number of nuclear accidents have occurred in various countries? Does she think the bill goes far enough in terms of environmental and human security?

[Rathika Sitsabaiesan, NDP, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for her contribution to this debate in general.

The urgency of ratifying these treaties has been noted by people around the world. We are still waiting for many countries to get their domestic legislation in order so they can actually ratify the treaty. Canada is seen throughout the world as a leader in the global security realm. We need to ensure that we maintain that leadership position on the global scene. We need to ensure that our domestic affairs are in order so that this legislation can be studied with proper scrutiny to ensure that we meet all of the requirements of the treaty and ensure the safety of Canadians and the international community.

[Tarik Brahmi, NDP, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would submit to the member for Scarborough—Rouge River an answer that was given by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice. She stated:

The fact is that there were attempts to bring forward many of these measures during the time of minority Parliaments but they were not accepted. Now we are in a majority situation and we are bringing them forward.

I would like to know if the hon. member is convinced by that argument. Does she think that any MP from any party would have voted against this bill if it had been proposed during a minority government?

[Rathika Sitsabaiesan, NDP, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Saint-Jean for his wonderful fast-finger research and question.

Absolutely, I do not think any member of the House elected to represent Canadians would do anything to harm them in this regard. If it were brought forward in a manner ensuring that we meet the treaty requirements and the safety of Canadians and global security, we would all support it. Therefore, for the parliamentary secretary to make comments like that is unfair. It is unfair for Conservative members or the parliamentary secretary to make broad-brush claims that the government has tried before but no one was listening, and that now that it has a majority it will push this through.

The New Democrats have stood steadfastly for the safety and security of Canadians and the global environment.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for her wonderful speech. She gave a very good explanation of the nuclear dangers and the importance of addressing this issue, particularly since it meets a requirement for Canada, which signed the International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism back in 2005.

The Conservative government took a long time to meet this requirement, which is part of the convention. What does the hon. member think of this delay, which does not really make sense?

[Rathika Sitsabaiesan, NDP, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Drummond is correct. We signed the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material and the International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism, both in 2005. Yet today we stand at the end of 2012 and still do not have our domestic affairs in order. We cannot ratify the treaty requirements until we have domestic legislation that ensures safety and our meeting of the treaty requirements. For the government to be in power for seven years and not to have done anything until now is sad. It is time that we finally do it.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I rise today to speak to an important issue. It is not new but has actually been talked about for a number of years.

As was pointed out in the most recent question and answer, governments will go abroad and work with other levels of government and sign agreements. Quite often we find that a signed agreement is nothing but a piece of paper with a signature, with the intent of it ultimately passing the House of Commons. In fact, that is the case with this particular treaty.

There have been four treaties relating to the whole issue of security and nuclear terrorism. The first was United Nations Security Council resolution 1373 done in 2001 and then United Nations Security Council resolution 1540 done in 2004. There was also the International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism of 2005, and in that same year the amendments to the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material. I will provide a bit of a comment on each of those a little later.

The point I would like to make is that what we have before us today is not really new. This whole topic has been debated at different levels of government. Different governments around the world have come together, recognizing that as a world community we need to come up with progressive legislation among the member nations of the United Nations supporting a common goal. That common goal is to deal with the horrors of nuclear energy, the power of nuclear energy and the damage it could ultimately cause if it were used inappropriately.

Hollywood has made hundreds of millions of dollars producing movies based on the fear factor of the potential harm of nuclear fusion, including the ability to kill millions of people with just one dirty bomb or nuclear bomb. Previous generations have witnessed that in a world war, seeing just how horrific a nuclear bomb can be.

This is something that has been in the minds of many politicians and diplomats over the years as they have tried to come up with the best way to manage this very complicated and difficult issue. When we see organizations like the United Nations come to a conclusion and propose and support resolutions, we would expect the government to want to take action in a more timely fashion.

The bill that we have before us could have been introduced years ago. For whatever reasons, the government has not really acted on the issue. In fact, in principle, we in the Liberal Party support the bill going to committee stage so that we can hear some more technical presentations and make sure that we are moving in the right direction.

Suffice it to say, former Prime Ministers Jean Chrétien and Paul Martin were leaders at the time in ensuring that Canada would be at the table and that our viewpoints would in fact be heard. I believe that through both Mr. Chrétien and Mr. Martin, at least in part, we were able to see these treaties come into play. I think that speaks volumes.

My NDP colleagues talk about how they believe in the importance of addressing the issue. Not only do Liberals believe in it, we have acted on it. Both Liberal prime ministers, predating the current Prime Minister, played a critical role in getting those treaties at least signed off by Canada and raised the concerns we would have in regard to the whole area of nuclear. There is the negative side, but there is somewhat of a positive side, and I will make some reference to that also.

This has been sitting on the back burner. It is encouraging that Senate has seen the value in bringing it forth and getting the ball rolling.

I appreciate that the Senate had the opportunity for some public meetings on the issue. I was quite pleased to see that some amendments were suggested. Former general Senator Dallaire provided some feed back on the importance of incorporating into an amendment something that would prohibit the making of radioactive devices. It is important that we recognize, as Senator Dallaire has, that even though we have Bill S-9, there is a need for us to be diligent as we go through the committee process, because there is the opportunity to make it better legislation.

Like the Senate, I would suggest the House vote in favour of the bill. I do not see it as controversial legislation. At the very least, let us see if we can pass it through second reading and ultimately get it to committee stage.

I am not the critic assigned to the bill, but I can assure the House that our critic for public safety has a great many thoughts and concerns that we would like to express at the committee stage, but most important, we would like to encourage the government to have an open mind in approaching the committee stage, with the idea that the bill can be improved upon.

It is important that we underscore the fact that Canada's efforts to combat nuclear terrorism fall into an overall framework of nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament. While it is still necessary, especially in implementing international agreements, Bill S-9 is insufficient if it is to constitute a significant part of Canada's efforts on this file.

The Liberal Party believes we could do more. In the past, Canada has demonstrated great leadership on the international scene, and this is one of those areas in which Canada has the potential to play a leadership role.

Many of the critical components to nuclear fusion comes from Canada. We have had a great many scientists who have trained and gained the knowledge that is necessary to become experts on the issue. In Manitoba the whole idea of nuclear power was greatly explored through Pinawa. A great deal of scientific work was done in regard to some of the positive ways we could use nuclear power, as an example. It generated not only economic activity, but it also provided a great deal of expertise.

Whether it is looking at the scientists we have in Canada, or political leadership and the experience gained, or Canada's role in the world in being able to have influence to speak out in forums like the United Nations, we can in fact make a difference. We have a lot more to contribute.

When we look at Bill S-9, it is important that it represent a domestic focus as well as our international obligations to contribute to the debate. The stronger we reflect on what we can do in Canada to improve our own situation I think will bode well when we sit down at those international tables. At the end of the day, we speak with a louder voice when we have done the work in our backyard.

I have made reference to the four resolutions, particularly the United Nations Security Council resolution 1373, which requires member states to adopt certain anti-terrorism legislation and policies. It calls upon member states to prevent and repress the financing of terrorist acts; freeze the financial resources available to terrorist organizations; suppress the supply of weapons to terrorist organizations; and deny safe haven to those who finance, plan, support or commit terrorist acts. It also calls upon member states to become party to and fully implement the relevant international conventions and protocols related to terrorism as soon as possible.

In Canada many of these acts were criminalized and reclassified as a terrorist activity as a result of the 2001 Anti-terrorism Act. Since then, amendments have been brought forward to that act.

We know through experience that we want to play a significant role in ensuring that terrorism, and the promotion of terrorism, is minimized and as much as possible. We want to prevent it from taking place. We want to prevent it from originating in Canada and prevent people who are residing in Canada to contribute in any fashion whatsoever to world terrorism.

I made reference earlier to the United Nations Security Council resolution 1540, which was adopted in 2004. It focused specifically on non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. It asked member states to take steps to prohibit non-state actors from acquiring nuclear weapons and to put in place additional controls on nuclear materials. It also asked member states to adopt and enforce effective domestic controls to prevent the proliferation of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons; adopt legislation to prevent the acquisition, use or threat of use of nuclear weapons by state and non-state actors; extend such criminal legislation to apply to citizens extraterritoriality; and include internal waters, territorial waters and air space in the territory for which nuclear weapons would be prohibited.

Each of these concepts are present in Bill S-9. Therefore, the principle of the bill is something I believe most, if not all members of the House, will see the merit in allowing it to go to committee.

However, just because the bill incorporates those concepts, we do not necessarily have to settle for that. As Senator Dallaire pointed out, there are other ways in which we can improve Bill S-9.

The other reference I made was in regard to the International Convention on the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism, better known as the ICSANT, adopted in 2005. It was the first international convention related to terrorism open for a signature after 9/11. It builds on both the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material and International Conventions for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings.

ICSANT is comprehensive and contains detailed language on what particular aspects of nuclear terrorism should be criminalized. ICSANT is the inspiration for the bulk of Bill S-9, as several articles are codified in Bill S-9, such as article 2, which outlines new offences created in section 82. Articles 4, 5 and 9 also all contribute to it.

It is important that we take note in terms of when that resolution was before the United Nations in 2005 and, in essence, asked that it take effect in June 2007. However, it does beg the question as to why we have waited so long in having this issue come before the House of Commons. One would have expected that the government would have had the support to pass such legislation.

It was interesting in one of the questions posed to the New Democratic Party in regard to why it was not passed at an earlier point, the speaker made reference to the fact that the NDP did not oppose the legislation. I suspect that had the government, two, three or four years ago, raised the issue with the opposition parties, there would have been the type of support necessary even to get it through a minority situation. I suspect that whether the House or Canadians are canvassed, we would find there is a need to not only support, but go beyond supporting and taking a proactive approach in dealing with issues of terrorism. If potential nuclear weapons, or chemical weapons, or weapons of mass destruction being used, I am sure there is an enormous amount of goodwill to protect the world community.

I think had the government genuinely wanted to see that pass, having a capable government House leader along with co-operative opposition House leaders, it would not have been a problem. It is a bit disappointing that it has taken as long as it has to come before us.

The last point I referenced about the United Nations was the amendment to the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material, which was done in 2005 at a diplomatic conference convened in July 2005, three months after the ICSANT opened for signature. The Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material was signed in Vienna, Austria in March 1980. It is the only legally binding undertaking in the area of physical protection of nuclear material and establishes measures related to the prevention, detection and the punishment of offences relating to nuclear material.

Given the age of the CPPNM, the 2005 meeting was meant to update and strengthen the CPPNM provisions. Therefore, the CPPNM amendment will require that states protect their nuclear facilities as well as nuclear material used, stored and transported domestically rather than protect only nuclear materials during international transport, as the CPPNM currently requires.

[Tarik Brahmi, NDP, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the speech by the Liberal member. He talked about a number of UN resolutions, including resolution 1373. As I recall, that resolution was passed in the wake of the attacks on the World Trade Center, in 2001. Paragraph 3(e) of that resolution, for example, calls upon all states to increase co-operation and fully implement the relevant international conventions.

That resolution, on which all signatory states agreed, dates back to 2001. It is now 2012 and it will soon be 2013, which is the year when we will be able to ratify the two international conventions we are talking about today in connection with Bill S-9.

I wonder if the Liberal member could tell us about his party's view on the delays that occurred during the Parliaments that followed 2001 and have led us to an international stance that is not very rigorous and also does not project a good image of Canada.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I recognize that back in 2001 it was obviously a very serious issue, not only at that time but even prior to the whole 9/11 incident. There was already a great deal of discussion about terrorism. At the time, Chrétien was the prime minister of Canada and played a role in trying to heighten the importance of getting some form of treaty signed through the United Nations. The Liberal Party has always been very supportive of the United Nations.

The resolution that the member is specifically referring to was back in 2001. It required member states to adopt certain anti-terrorism legislation and policies, including those to prevent and suppress the financing of terrorist acts, freeze the financial resources available to terrorist organizations, suppress the supply of weapons to organizations, as well as deny safe haven to those who finance, plan, support or commit terrorist acts. It also called on the member states to become party to and fully implement the relevant international conventions and protocols relating to terrorism, as soon as possible.

Some of those items are fairly recent in terms of enactment in Canada's own Criminal Code. I believe even Bill S-7 might have attempted to deal with some of this. There is no doubt that the government has been negligent in not addressing some of those dated resolutions that were passed years ago.

Therefore, we could be doing more. Maybe we should be having a thorough review on those resolutions dealing with terrorism that have been passed, or those agreements that have been signed off, to see what more Canada could do, through the House of Commons, to ensure that we are not only signing agreements but actually implementing—

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Order, please.

There will be about six minutes left for questions and comments when the House returns to this matter after question period. We will now move on to statements by members.

The hon. member for Elgin—Middlesex—London.