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.

[Dick Harris, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I was taken by the comment the member just made about the Senate being an anti-democratic body. The last time I looked, there were a couple of parties represented by senators and some independents. They have sessions, much as we do, with a Speaker. They have free votes in the Senate, and every senator is able to express his or her ideas on any particular subject before voting.

I would like to ask the member, unless I am really missing something, how she sees that as undemocratic, when it operates basically the same way this House does. Apart from the fact that senators are appointed rather than elected, the operation is exactly the same. She was referring to the operation as being undemocratic. I would like her to explain that.

[Charmaine Borg, NDP, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, yes, the Senate does have some good ideas about certain things. However, I am sorry, but senators are not elected. Voting for our representatives is the very foundation of democracy.

I would remind my hon. colleague opposite that three senators—we all know who I am talking about—even said they no longer wanted to be senators and instead wanted to run for a seat in the House in the election. They were defeated. The public rejected them. And what did the Prime Minister do? He reappointed them to the Senate. That is a flagrant example of the partisanship and the lack of democracy that characterize that chamber.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, today I am honoured to speak to Bill S-9, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, or the Nuclear Terrorism Act.

This bill was introduced in the Senate on March 27, 2012. It amends the Criminal Code in order to implement the criminal law requirements contained in two international treaties to combat terrorism.

The Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material, commonly referred to as the CPPNM, was amended in 2005 and ratified by Canada. If my memory serves me well, Canada also signed the 2005 International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism, the ICSANT.

The Nuclear Terrorism Act includes 10 clauses that create four new offences under part II of the Criminal Code. This legislation will make it illegal to possess, use or dispose of nuclear or radioactive materials or devices or to 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.

Second, it will make it illegal to use or alter nuclear or radioactive materials or devices or to commit an act against a nuclear facility or its operations with the intent to compel a person, government or international organization to do or refrain from doing any act.

Third, it will make it illegal to commit an indictable offence under an act of Parliament with intent to obtain nuclear or radioactive material or a device or to obtain access to or control of a nuclear facility.

Finally, it will make it illegal to threaten to commit any of the three other offences.

These are serious offences that have dangerous consequences for the safety of Canadians. Bill S-9 was introduced to address these concerns and to comply with the requirements of the various conventions that were signed or ratified by Canada in 2005. This responds to these problems and the danger posed to the safety of Canadians by acts that could be carried out from close by or far away with nuclear materials or devices. That is why we support the bill. We hope it will be referred to committee so we can properly examine the bill and make the necessary changes, and in order for a report to be prepared.

As an aside, this is what the government should have done with Bill C-45. The government should have split the bill into a number of smaller bills so that they could be examined in committee in keeping with procedure and democracy. Unfortunately, the government did not do so.

Let us get back to Bill S-9, which is what we are talking about today. This bill finally meets Canada's international obligations under the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material and the International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism. This means that we must extend the application of international measures beyond protecting against the proliferation of nuclear materials to include protection of nuclear facilities.

This bill also reinforces Canada's obligation under UN Security Council resolution 1540 to enforce effective measures to prevent the proliferation of nuclear materials as well as chemical and biological weapons, but that is another matter.

Finally, I must point out that this law meets a requirement with which Canada has been supposed to comply since 2005. Yet, it is rather strange that it was the Senate, an unelected chamber, that finally fulfilled this obligation.

On the other side of the House, the Conservatives have been twiddling their thumbs since 2006 instead of fulfilling the obligation resulting from the international convention that Canada ratified in 2005, which seeks to implement laws and measures to prevent direct or indirect nuclear threats and ensure that Canadians are safe.

In this regard, it is important to mention that the NDP is determined to promote multilateral diplomacy and international co-operation, particularly in areas of common concern, for example, everything to do with keeping Canada and the world safe from nuclear threats. We must therefore work with the other main countries working on ratifying these conventions.

Canada has also agreed to be legally bound by these conventions. Therefore, it is important to fulfill our obligations before the implementation process at the national level is completed. If I am not mistaken, that is coming very soon, in 2014. So, it was time to act. Unfortunately, as I said, I do not understand why the Conservatives dragged their feet during all that time. They have been in office since 2006 and they have done absolutely nothing. Had they asked for the NDP's co-operation, we would have helped them pass this legislation, which respects international conventions.

In fact, we want to be co-operative. That is why we are going to support this bill at second reading and examine it more thoroughly in committee, pursuant to a democratic process, as I mentioned earlier. In Canada's democratic institutions, it is absolutely necessary, critical and relevant to follow a process whereby a study is properly conducted by a committee. We must have time to prepare, to call experts, to listen to them, to weigh the pros and cons, and to write a report that is submitted to the House of Commons. Again, that was not done in the case of Bill C-45. The approach used was undemocratic, and the Conservatives are the ones who resorted to it.

It is quite telling to see that it is the Senate, an unelected body, that proposed this legislation at last. What was the Conservative government doing during all that time? Nothing. The Conservatives stood idly by. That is what is deplorable, because the NDP was prepared to co-operate with them.

We fully support respecting international conventions. Since 2005, Canada has signed two of those very important conventions. That is the direction we must take. We must properly follow a legislative and democratic process. That is why we support this bill. We want it to pass.

Incidentally, the New Democratic Party also believes that we should take a serious look at the issue of nuclear safety and meet our international obligations to co-operate more efficiently with other countries. It is important to ensure international co-operation. We have long enjoyed a good international reputation. Unfortunately, under the Conservatives, that reputation has really been tarnished, whether we are talking about compliance with conventions or the environment.

We are presently in Doha and, once again, we are collecting fossil awards because we refuse to co-operate with other countries. We now have a bad reputation on the world stage. That is not what New Democrats want. On the contrary, they want co-operation, whether the issue is nuclear safety or the environment.

I would urge the Conservatives to change their ways to ensure better co-operation with other countries. We must all support this bill to ensure the safety of Canadians and of other countries.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, as the member knows, it was introduced via the Senate. We had Senator Dallaire, a former general, who suggested that we needed to amend it. One of the things he made reference to, and they had moved it, was to allow for prohibiting the making of radioactive devices.

The point is, as we go into committee there is a need for us to recognize that in principle this is legislation we can and should support. However, Canada does have a larger role to play in looking at what we are doing internally, and what we could do to further enhance the strength of this legislation so we are speaking from a position of strength at the local level.

Could the member comment on that?

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

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

As I mentioned in my speech, it is very important for Canada to take a leadership role in international negotiations. Canada could show a lot more leadership and initiative in terms of nuclear security.

My colleague mentioned the support of Lieutenant-General Dallaire, whom I respect a great deal for the excellent work he has done both here and abroad. He is a very committed man and I admire him a lot.

It would be very important for Canada to take a leadership role. An NDP government would work to improve our international co-operation.

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

Mr. Speaker, my question is regarding the timing. We know that both of the treaties were signed in 2005, and we are now sitting at the end of 2012. We know that the treaties cannot be ratified until domestic legislation is up to par with the needs to meet the treaty requirements. The bill is trying to do that, trying to ensure that our domestic requirements are met so we can actually ratify the treaty.

My question is twofold. One, why has it taken so long? We have had the same people in government since 2005, when the treaties were signed, and it is now 2012. Also, why was ensuring Canadian and global security against nuclear terrorism not a priority for the government?

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member. She also made an excellent speech on Bill S-9 earlier today.

She is absolutely right. It is completely unacceptable and it makes no sense. Why has the Conservative government been dragging its feet since 2006?

As I mentioned earlier, we would have offered our full co-operation to comply with the international conventions. We must do even more than simply complying with them; we must be a leader when it comes to negotiating treaties, whether they have to do with the environment or—as is the case here—protecting Canadians from nuclear risks.

The Conservatives dragged their feet and missed their opportunity to take responsibility for the conventions that they signed in 2005. That is why they are dealing with this fallout. The Senate finally woke up and introduced this bill, but it should have come from this House. The Conservatives have unfortunately not done their job here.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of Bill S-9, which would amend the Criminal Code to implement the criminal law requirements of two international counterterrorism treaties.

The NDP does support the bill at second reading, and it is important to get the bill to committee and to study it further. It is also important to have a fulsome debate in the House of Commons to explore different issues and problems, and to work together with other MPs, regardless of political affiliation, to try to glean a better understanding of this legislation and what changes Canada needs to make to the Criminal Code to deal with nuclear terrorism. This is a good opportunity for us to come together and have a debate in the House. We will support this legislation at second reading so we can get the bill to committee and then hear from experts, and whomever we need to hear from, to make sure we are putting forward the best bill that we can.

To start off, I thought we could look at our international treaty obligations. The bill was introduced in the Senate earlier this year to implement the criminal law requirements of two international counterterrorism treaties, specifically the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material and the International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism. To date, Canada has not ratified either of these treaties, and that is because Canada does not yet have the legislation in place to criminalize the offences that are outlined in these two documents. In a case where the implementation of a treaty requires amendments to Canadian legislation, a treaty is ratified only when such amendments or new legislation has been passed.

The amendments in Bill S-9 would introduce into the Criminal Code, Canada's efforts to align our domestic legislation with what is required by both conventions internationally. If the amendments become law, then presumably Canada will be in a situation where we could ratify these two treaties, something that Canada as well as other countries committed to working toward, both at the 2010 Nuclear Security Summit in Washington, D.C., and the 2012 Nuclear Security Summit in Seoul, Korea.

The NDP is committed to multilateral diplomacy and international co-operation, especially in areas of great common concern like nuclear terrorism. No one could possibly not agree that nuclear terrorism is a great common concern, no matter where one is living in the global community. We need to work with other leading countries toward ratifying these conventions.

Canada has agreed to be legally bound by these conventions. We have said out loud to the world that we would like to be bound by these conventions. It is important to fulfill those international obligations, and we cannot do that until the domestic implementation is complete. We welcome the bill and the government's attempt to implement our obligations and start down the path toward ratification.

However, we do need to talk about some important considerations concerning the bill, both in the House as well as at committee. It is interesting to note that these considerations arose during the bill's study in the Senate. It is important to look at what happened while this was being studied by the Senate because some very interesting things came out. As I pointed out, this issue is of great common concern, but it is also an issue that we need to get right. We need to fully understand how to address this issue and make sure we are putting the best piece of domestic legislation forward.

I am going to talk about three main areas that came up in the Senate study. The first is that of overbreadth.The intention of the Department of Justice drafters was probably to adhere as closely as possible to the defined terms in the convention, but some of the new Criminal Code offences are broader in scope than the offences found in these individual international agreements. We have to be certain that the overbreadth of these sections will not result in undue criminalization, and we have to make sure they will not go against our charter of rights. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms is unique to Canada. We need to spend extra time making sure we get this right.

The next subject that arose, and again it is not a huge concern, but it is of enough concern that we need to have a fulsome study and gain greater understanding of this issue, is penalties.

The maximum penalties that can be imposed for any of the four new offences are substantial. We will even see a life imprisonment maximum for three of the four offences. The penalties are substantial. They are strict. They reflect the requirement, under these two treaties, that parties make the offences punishable by penalties appropriate to the grave nature of the offences. There are no mandatory minimums in Bill S-9, and I think that is to be noted.

I am not saying that this is a piece of great alarm. I am not saying that it is something we need to throw out. I am just saying that there needs to be a very fulsome consideration of this issue at committee. I think we need to bring in as many experts as we possibly can to help us understand whether the penalties are actually appropriate to the nature of the offences, whether they go too far or whether they do not go far enough. That is something I am not prepared to make a decision on standing here. I would want to hear from experts to see whether the penalties are appropriate.

As I have indicated, the NDP supports this bill going to committee. We will vote for it at second reading. We expect to vigorously participate at committee. We expect that we will probably vote for it at third reading as well, because we are anxious to make sure we have the domestic legislation to fulfill our international treaty obligations. Overall we are completely behind this bill. It is a necessary measure of Canada's international co-operation against threats related to nuclear terrorism of various forms.

In a world of 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. Indeed, it is impossible to overstate Canada's role in that co-operation.

We wish to see the bill become law as rapidly as possible, while, at the same time, it achieves that balance. We emphasize that we need close technical scrutiny of the bill in committee. This is still called for to ensure that it has been drafted in the best way to fulfill our obligations under these two treaties. Then we can go on. Once we ratify, we will no longer be in non-compliance.

That brings me to another issue that came up in the Senate study that I think we need to address both here in the House and at committee. That is the fact that there seems to have been a major omission in the government's bill, the bill that went to the Senate before coming to us. What was that omission?

In the International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism, ICSANT, 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 type of activity that was also in the two treaties: possession, use, transport, export, import, alteration and disposal. The Senate caught this omission, which is great. The mistake has been rectified, and now we do not have a problem with the bill we have before us from the Senate. I think that underlines the point that we should take a pause and ask questions.

If something as significant as making a radioactive device was missing from the original treaty, perhaps something else could have been overlooked. What if there is some accident of inaccuracy? What if we are not including something we have not thought of in the drafting of this bill?

That is exactly why we have the legislative process we have. We can debate in the House. We can go to committee. We can hear from experts and Canadians from coast to coast to coast. They can be part of the legislative process. They can guide us and give us advice, whether it be technical or about their hopes and dreams or their vision for a safe country.

We need to have that exploration at committee. I do not think it is something that can be rushed. We will all look forward to that debate and discussion at committee.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, when I was addressing the issue, I made reference to the fact that these are agreements that were signed many years ago. In fact, if we look to their origins, we can date some of them back to former Prime Minister Chrétien and former Prime Minister Paul Martin, who recognized them as important issues and ultimately played a role in terms of the agreements being signed.

The issue we have to address, at least in part today, is the substance of the legislation. However, one could also call into question why it has taken the government so long to process it through the House of Commons. It seems that the support is there from all political parties in terms of the principles of trying to deal with the importance of nuclear terrorism.

Would the member provide comment as to whether she thinks the time has come to get this done?

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, there is a balance required between delay and having a fulsome discussion and study. This was introduced in the last Parliament. I do not have any advice as to why the bill was not brought forward. The technical procedural elements and those kinds of delays are different from spending time looking at the legislation and hearing from witnesses with respect to it.

I do appreciate that the member brought up the point that we have signed this international obligation and that it is important for us to have domestic legislation. I do wish those requirements would have been asked with respect to other pieces of international treaties, such as the international convention on social and economic rights, which we signed in 1970. It states that there is a right to housing in Canada; yet we do not have any domestic legislation with respect to that. Therefore, I wish that in some of those other treaties we had the requirement to bring forward domestic legislation in order to ratify those treaties.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have two points. The member pointed out that in its deliberations the Senate discovered a flaw in the bill at committee stage, that it did not proscribe the making of radioactive materials. That gives reason as to why it ought to receive significant scrutiny. Other potential errors have been pointed out, as well, for further study, so that we get it right.

Would the member comment on the fact that instead of the bill being introduced by the government in the House of Commons that it introduced it in the Senate? Is that the start of something, or is that a trend we might see more of? Is the government trying to legitimize the Senate in a way that it has not done before, and is that something that we ought to worry about?

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is right to point that out. The bill did originate in the Senate.

We in the House of Commons are the democratically elected representatives of our communities across Canada; yet we are seeing more and more coming from the Senate. We are seeing a number of bills being brought forward from the Senate, perhaps in an attempt to legitimize its role and existence over there, as the member pointed out.

I will also point out, which would be interesting for this member in particular, that today some senators banded together to call for a maritime union to turn the three Maritime provinces into one province. Of course, they neglected to remember Newfoundland and Labrador is part of Atlantic Canada.

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

We do not want it.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, according to the heckles, it appears they do not want that.

It is quite something for senators to think they can propose a new province. It speaks volumes as to how out of touch the Senate is with Canadians.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

Resuming debate. Is the House ready for the question?