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

[Hoang Mai, NDP, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence.

I am not sure whether the hon. member heard my speech, but I was saying that nuclear terrorism represents a constant threat to most countries. Yes, it is important.

However, it would also be important to look at what we can do to counter this. I think my colleague is somewhat conditioned by his profession. I admire the fact that he was an ambassador and that he worked in the foreign service. I commend him for that.

However, when we look at how this applies to Bill S-9, I have to ask my colleague to focus on how we can get the tools. If he recognizes that nuclear terrorism is a threat, then he knows we must ensure that Canada has the tools it needs to counter it.

That is why I mentioned that it took too long. If we are saying that this is a threat and we must take action—and we are clearly saying that it is a threat—then Canada needs legislative tools so that it can take action. That is why we are criticizing the government for taking so long to give Canadians and Canada the tools needed to counter nuclear terrorism.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will begin by responding to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence.

For the past hour and more, we have been hearing different views on Bill S-9. We have the impression that he wants to force us to target specific countries. I think that stigmatizing one country in relation to another goes well beyond the scope of this bill. Parliamentarians are not here to stigmatize a particular country.

I rise to speak on Bill S-9, which is at third reading. Its short title is the Nuclear Terrorism Act, which amends the Criminal Code to reflect the requirements of two international conventions that Canada signed in 2005.

Since then, we have been struggling miserably to ratify the two conventions. These are two international conventions: the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material and the International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism.

In this regard, we must continue to bear in mind that Canadians in particular have enormous concerns about nuclear weapons, and that they attach great importance to international security. This is true for Canadians, as it is for everyone around the world.

I would also like to point out that international security in general is a major concern for the NDP members.

This bill amends part II of the Criminal Code to create four new offences.

We mentioned it earlier and we will mention it again: why did the government wait seven years? Everyone may well ask.

Bill S-9 is before us today, but these two international conventions were signed in 2005. Canada signed these conventions, but did not ratify them. Because Canada has not yet ratified these two international conventions, we have lost credibility on the international scene, as my colleagues pointed out.

The Conservatives have been in power since February 2006. Nevertheless, they did not consider it necessary to make this bill a priority, something that was confirmed by the Minister of Justice when he appeared before the committee. I read it in the transcripts.

In fact, even though the previous governments were not majority governments, they did not take reasonable care to make this bill a priority and give Canada an opportunity to be a leader in international security.

I do not want to speculate on why they procrastinated, but the consequence is that other countries think we are weak in terms of leadership.

Ratifying these treaties will encourage other countries to take steps to ratify them as well. We will be taking a step toward enhancing security throughout the world.

We should have made these conventions a priority and ratified them as quickly as possible, so that the rest of the world would see us as leaders, not as followers.

Furthermore, given that we are at third reading, it is relevant to take a look at the work of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. Three meetings were held to consider this bill. The evidence that I read was all very interesting. However, I remember particularly the evidence provided by Matthew Bunn, associate professor or public policy at Harvard University’s Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs.

The testimony he gave via videoconference during a committee meeting on February 13, 2013, was very interesting. I would like to share one of his most intriguing statements:

...if the United States and Canada are to succeed in convincing other countries to take a responsible approach to reducing the risks of nuclear theft and terrorism at the Nuclear Security Summit in the Netherlands in 2014 and beyond, then our two countries have to take the lead in taking responsible action ourselves.

It is very intriguing because Mr. Bunn acknowledged that he is somewhat embarrassed by the U.S.'s position on this treaty. As members of the Canadian Parliament, we, too, should be somewhat embarrassed by the fact that previous governments did not exercise due diligence, even if we had no hand in the matter.

I would like to quote another fascinating part of Matthew Bunn's testimony.

The core of al Qaeda is, as President Obama mentioned the other night, a shadow of its former self, but regional affiliates are metastasizing and some of the key nuclear operatives of al Qaeda remain free today. With at least two terrorist groups having pursued nuclear weapons seriously in the last 20 years, we cannot expect that they will be the last.

That statement is particularly worrying when we see what is happening with certain al-Qaeda cells, such as the al-Qaeda cells in Islamic Maghreb, in areas such as Mali or Algeria.

Take, for example, the hostage situation at the Ain Amenas gas plant in southern Algeria, near Mali and Libya that lasted from January 16 to 19 of this year. It was a blood bath; more than 30 people were killed. Situations like that are an incentive to remain vigilant about the risks posed by certain al-Qaeda cells.

That particular attack was planned by an al-Qaeda terrorist group in Islamic Maghreb. According to the Algerian minister of the interior, the abductors were from Libya.

This reminds me of the October 27, 2011, meeting of the Standing Committee on National Defence. I was concerned about the proliferation of weapons trafficking at the border between Libya and Algeria. At the time, I asked an official from the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade a question about weapons from the Libyan arsenal being distributed in northern Africa. I asked what the risks were of these weapons being used elsewhere, in a similarly unstable region. It turned out that, less than two years later, we saw exactly that. Members of al-Qaeda in Islamic Maghreb were carrying out attacks in that region, which is fairly unstable and very difficult to monitor because it is so vast.

Imagine if these terrorists had nuclear weapons. That would have introduced a whole new risk, a whole new danger to the region. That is why, in these conditions, extreme vigilance is necessary.

To conclude, I will say that for all the reasons I have mentioned and that my colleagues mentioned earlier, I will not hesitate to support Bill S-9 at third reading. Once again, I think that Canada was too slow in ratifying these conventions and that it is urgent that the provisions of Bill S-9 be integrated into our Criminal Code to enable Canada to ratify the two international conventions that are essential to better global security.

[Chris Alexander, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, I thank our hon. colleague for his speech.

This bill is about measures to be taken here in Canada to fulfill our international obligations. We are talking about a treaty that is supposed to govern the behaviour of all countries, and we are talking about the kind of example we want to set for other countries.

Why does my hon. colleague consider any mention of Iran stigmatization? That nation definitely supports terrorism. According to the United Nations and the entire world, Iran wants to illegally acquire nuclear weapons. It is currently pursuing its nuclear ambitions, despite pressure and warnings from democratic countries around the world.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence.

To answer his question, not wanting to name specific countries, like Iran or North Korea, in the context of our examination of this particular bill does not mean we support them.

Not naming certain countries in the context of our examination of this bill does mean we are offering them our moral support. I am simply saying that, in our study of this bill, the scope of the subject is broader than the stigmatization of any given country.

We should be focusing on the impact that ratifying these international treaties will have on our Criminal Code, instead of giving certain individuals the opportunity to use this bill as a platform to stigmatize any specific countries.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, this is obviously a very important matter. What troubles me and is evident from what I am hearing in the House is that it was quite some years ago that Canada agreed. In fact, Canada joined on in 2005 to amend the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material. In Canada the problem is that in order to ratify these international treaties we must pass legislation. This was very important legislation whereupon we agreed to amend our Criminal Code to criminalize these activities for the domestic use, transport and so on of nuclear material for purposes of harm.

Could the member speak to the fact that it is appalling that it has taken this long to come to the national elected assembly of Canada and why it first went to the Senate? Is it not supposed to be the house of sober second thought? Surely a matter of this severe importance belongs in this House first.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am convinced that international and nuclear security is very important to the hon. member's constituents. I completely share her questions and have no answer why the government decided to first present this bill through the Senate and not the House of Commons. However, I agree with her that the Senate should be a second opinion on laws and bills and should not be the first element to review legislation.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to pick up on that last point. It would be wonderful if we saw the Prime Minister and his ministers see the benefits of bringing forward legislation through the House and introducing it for the first time in the House. That would be my first preference.

Having said that, in regard to Bill S-9, it went through the Senate first. Right away, I think of Senator Dallaire who has done a phenomenal job representing our country both in Canada and abroad. I think he has a great deal of background, a level of expertise that he brings to the table to at least get the bill going. That is something we have wanted to see for a number of years. At least the Senate has played some valuable role in ensuring that we have the bill before us today.

When the Prime Minister formed government in 2006, he was presented with a balanced budget, a trade surplus and all sorts of wonderful things of that nature, of which many Canadians would be very much aware. However, he was also provided with other things such as the Kelowna accord and a great child care program policy, and then there is Bill S-9. The bill actually stems from an agreement that would have been signed by the member for Mount Royal. While he was a minister, there was an agreement that was signed and there was expectation that shortly afterward the legislation would be introduced to ratify the agreement.

When the Government of Canada signs an agreement, there still is an obligation for federal legislation. In this situation I believe that Canada ultimately played a role in coming up with what we believe were some fairly important resolutions, with the great assistance of the former prime minister, Paul Martin, and the member for Mount Royal, who were able to work with other world leaders and others who truly cared about this issue with the United Nations. Even though the resolutions were signed, for all intents and purposes they cannot be ratified until the legislation is introduced and passed through the House.

It is unfortunate that it has taken the government this long to recognize the value of what was done back in 2005. We have indicated, whether at second reading or today at third reading, that we would like to see the legislation pass. We recognize that it would ratify agreements that were signed under the former government of Paul Martin.

Many, including me, would argue that Canada has a very important role to play when it comes to the potential of international nuclear terrorism. Canada should be playing a leadership role. We have the expertise. I think there is the political will, for the most part, and many countries around the world recognize what it is that Canada has to offer. Not ratifying or passing a law in a more timely fashion does tarnish that leadership role I am referring to, and that is a loss of an opportunity.

When we think of the impact of the nuclear industry, there is the good and there is the bad. That impact is quite significant here in Canada. We have what I would term as civil purposes or civil use of nuclear power, and then we would have military use. I ultimately argue a third point, that the terrorist today is quite different from many years ago. For all intents and purposes, it was 9/11 that seemed to really awaken the world in a significant way to the degree in which there was a great deal more discussion on the potential harm to large numbers of people in any community throughout the world through terrorist acts.

More and more, we hear about the potential of nuclear terrorism. So it only stands to reason that the United Nations has picked up on that file. From what I understand, between 2001 and 2005, there have been four significant treaties, and I would like to go through those treaties, or at least make reference to them. The United Nations recognized the changing times and the threat of terrorism.

Prior to 9/11 when people thought of war and nuclear bombs, they would think of things like Hiroshima. It was a horrific time in history in terms of how much damage one bomb could cause and the horror stories that came from that. At the end of the day, many would argue that it assisted in ending a war, and hopefully we learned something from the horrors of the two bombs that were dropped. Many of us would recall the Cuban missile crisis and the impact that was talked about back then, when President Kennedy was involved in a critical two weeks.

Today, the talk is quite different. We get ultimately some nations in the world that would love to be able to acquire the technology to have some form of nuclear bomb or use the attributes of nuclear technology to ultimately cause a great deal of harm to a lot of innocent people through terrorist actions. I believe it is very real today. That is one of the reasons it was comforting, I believe, a number of years ago when we saw resolutions being discussed.

There was the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons that took place decades ago, as responsible governments around the world recognized the potential of nuclear bombs and possibly the window of nuclear terrorism, even back then when the idea was to reduce the amount of potential threat in the world. That is the essence, from what I understand, of why that agency was created in the first place.

Again we go back to 9/11. Following 9/11 the UN had a series of meetings, and there were four that I want to point out.

United Nations Security Council resolution 1373, which was passed back in 2001, required member states to adopt certain anti-terrorism legislation and policies, including those to prevent and suppress the financing of terrorists acts: freezing the financial resources available to terrorist organizations; suppressing the supply of weapons to terrorist organizations; and denying safe haven to those who finance, plan, support or commit terrorist acts. It also called on member states to become parties to and to 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 terrorist activity as a result of the Canadian Anti-terrorism Act, back in 2001.

United Nations Security Council resolution 1540 was adopted in 2004 and focused specifically on nonproliferation of weapons of mass destruction. It asked member states to take steps to prohibit non-state actors from acquiring nuclear weapons and to put into 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; to adopt legislation to prevent the acquisition, use or threat of nuclear weapons by state and non-state actors; to extend such criminal legislation to apply to citizens extraterritorial; and to include internal waters, territorial waters and airspace in the territory from which nuclear weapons would be prohibited.

In fact, we can see each of these steps in Bill S-9. As I said, this is a resolution that was passed in 2004 by the United Nations Security Council.

The International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism, which was adopted in 2005, 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.

The International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism is comprehensive and contains detailed language on what particular aspects of nuclear terrorism should be criminalized. It is the inspiration for, many would argue, the bulk of what Bill S-9 is all about.

The other agreement, the Amendment to the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material, came out of a diplomatic conference convened in July 2005, three months after ICSANT, the International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism, actually met. 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 punishment of offences related to nuclear material.

Given the age of the CPPNM, the 2005 meeting was meant to update and strengthen its provisions. The CPPNM amendment would require states to protect their nuclear facilities as well as nuclear material used, stored and transported domestically, rather than protecting only nuclear material transported internationally, as the CPPNM currently requires.

Earlier I posed a question to the minister with regard to the government working with the different provinces. We have provinces that provide power to their citizens through nuclear energy. There are real threats there. I asked the minister the question to get an indication of the degree to which the government has some sort of formal communication with the different provincial jurisdictions this might actually apply to. I was somewhat surprised to hear that the minister was not aware of any. I assumed that it would have been the case. There is a responsibility for us to think not only about outside the country but about within it, where nuclear energy is being utilized.

Bill S-9 also attempts to criminalize certain offences related to acts directed against nuclear facilities.

Nuclear energy and the potential for the scientific research done with this energy is quite significant. It not only provides many jobs, but it saves lives. Medical isotopes, for example, are used throughout the world. Many of the materials come from Canada. It would be a shame for us not to support and encourage that industry, because in many ways, it is a wonderful thing for Canada. Canada can, indeed, play the leading role.

It is important, whether it is isotopes or nuclear power plants, that we carry out the due diligence and work with the provinces and the industry to ensure that we are minimizing any potential threats. It would be wrong for us to believe that we have nothing to worry about. It only takes one person with a corrupt mind to cause a great deal of damage. That is why I think there are things we can do, as a national government, to work with and assist the provinces in coming up with backup and emergency plans. I also believe that Canada can and must play a stronger leadership role on the whole nuclear file, because we have a great deal to offer. We have the science and the technology.

Many might be surprised to know that Canada has been dealing with nuclear energy and materials since the early 1940s. It was in the early 1960s that we actually started to use nuclear power. We have a relatively safe environment compared to many other countries in the world. There is a great opportunity for Canada to demonstrate to the world that the elements of nuclear energy can be a positive thing if used for the right reasons.

Unfortunately, there will always be those who want to cause harm. What we have to do is minimize that. The member for Mount Royal and the efforts he has made, along with many others throughout the world who came up with these United Nations resolutions, went a long way toward making our world a safer place.

To that extent, it would be nice to see the legislation pass so that the deal can finally be ratified.

[Anne-Marie Day, NDP, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to hear what the member for Winnipeg North has to say about this statement by Senator Dallaire:

...there is no feeling...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.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I have an immense amount of respect for Senator Dallaire.

One of the roles of the Senate is to study issues when senators have that level of expertise. I know it is an area of interest for him. I believe that when he makes statements like that, whether one is a member of Parliament or the average person living in Canada, one should listen and recognize the expertise he brings to the table.

We need to be aware. We should be taking that as a legitimate warning. There are many deficiencies. That is one of the reasons we need to be concerned about not making this issue a priority. Why did it take so long for us to see this bill come before us, when it could have been brought forward in 2006 or 2007? The government had very little interest in acting on it.

I believe that the New Democrats are also supporting this. Why would we not support it? We are the ones who signed the agreement that ultimately led to the requirement for the bill.

I believe that if we recognize this for the important issue it is, we could tap into the minds of Senator Dallaire and others across Canada and do a better job of dealing with this very important issue.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I particularly noted the member's comment towards the end, when he said that he would support this bill but that there is much more we can do.

I have the privilege of representing the same riding that former ambassador Douglas Roche represented. He, of course, has shown leadership for many decades on nuclear disarmament. My former colleague Bill Siksay, of course, continuously tried to create the department of peace.

I am wondering if the member thinks that instead of just finally moving to bring forward this legislation to implement an agreement we agreed to quite some time ago, the government could, in fact, take additional measures.

I have a second question for him. I know that the penalty is a maximum of life imprisonment. Interestingly, there is no mandatory minimum for something as serious as this. It is very puzzling to me what the government is thinking.

It is fine to table a serious piece of legislation like this. However, Alberta is crying for more judges and more support for federal prosecutors. Does the member think it would be useful for the government to come forward and also tell us what additional resources and strategies are going to be in place so that we can actually detect these serious crimes and take action?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a good question. That is the reason I posed a bit of a different question to the minister when he spoke to it. However, I think it deals with a good part of what the member is referring to, that being to what degree the government of Canada has worked with other jurisdictions to develop an overall Canada-wide strategy. We have different levels of governments in Canada that play a lead role in such things as the development of power or electricity. I am referring to the provinces. They have the nuclear power plants, and that requires provincial legislation.

Could the government have done more? I think it has only done the basics. It has had this resolution since 2005. It could have done a lot more. The bill is significant, in the sense that it at least allows us to ratify the agreement. That is the biggest plus. However, I do believe that it could have done more.

What I find surprising, and I made reference to this earlier, is that there does not appear to be any formal communications network that would allow Ottawa to work with the provinces that need support, or just dealing with the whole issue of emergency situations or crises that might arise, especially relating to nuclear terrorism, which could happen in Canada. There are all sorts of situations out there that are very real, and the government could have done a lot more.

At the end of the day, if it took the government six or seven years to bring forward a relatively simple bill, given the previous work that was done on it, I am not sure how much longer it would take it to have a more comprehensive approach at dealing with terrorism, nuclear terrorism or other types of chemicals out there. There are all sorts of disastrous situations.

The federal government could do more, and a part of that is not only outside of Canada. We could play a stronger leadership role outside of Canada, but we also need to be doing more within Canada to protect our own citizens.

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to the debate all day, with great interest. I want to follow up a bit on the events of last night and relate them to what is happening in the House today.

Yesterday, the NDP brought forward a very important motion in the House calling for the abolition of the Senate. We had a very interesting vote. Both the Conservatives and the Liberals voted to maintain the Senate, and only the New Democrats voted to abolish it.

Today we are faced in the House with a debate on a bill that is entitled Bill S-9, as opposed to C-9, indicating that the bill originated in the Senate. I would suggest that when it comes to nuclear safety and we are talking about keeping citizens of our country safe, that this might be something worthy of talking about first in the democratically elected body, which would be the House of Commons. Yet, clearly that did not happen here. Once again, the parliamentary process has been turned on its head. It used to be that we thought of the Senate as the chamber of sober second thought. I am pleased to see that clearly the Conservatives do not think it fills that role either because, in fact, they are now getting the Senate to introduce the bills, not to act as a check. We have been saying all along that the Senate should not, nor does it, fulfill the role of being a check on what happens in the House of Commons.

Since my hon. colleague from the Liberal Party actually voted in favour of supporting the Senate last night, I wonder whether he might explain why he thinks it is appropriate that a bill as important as one that is entitled an act to amend the Criminal Code with respect to nuclear terrorism should originate in the Senate as opposed to in the House of Commons.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question. I am going to let the government defend why it felt it was more appropriate to bring it in via the Senate.

However, with regard to her concerns with respect to the abolishment of the Senate, for a multitude of reasons the NDP is out of tune with what Canadians want to see debated.

At the end of the day, there are many regions in Canada, whether it is Prince Edward Island, Manitoba and others, that do see a great deal of value—

[An hon. member]

Yes, they love the Senate.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Well, P.E.I. is a province, too. The member might not like it, but it is a province.

Mr. Speaker, at the end of the day, there are many Canadians who want to see more value to the Senate and want to see it reformed.

The New Democratic Party, which is going to prejudge Canadians by saying we are going to abolish the Senate, knows full well that it cannot. The NDP says it is going to abolish it, but it knows it cannot do that. It is not going to happen. It is going to have to have a constitutional round; every province in the region is going to have to agree to it.

The NDP knows it is not true, but it still says it.

Hopefully we will see some form of Senate reform. In the short term, let us ensure they are good solid Senate appointments, individuals like Senator Dallaire, who has contributed immensely to the development of this particular bill. It would have been nice to have had the bill brought in at second reading or introduced here in the House. That would have been the ideal situation.

Unfortunately, it did not happen that way. We can be grateful we have individuals like Senator Dallaire who at least picked up the ball for the government, as ultimately we do have a bill that is somewhat reflective of the UN resolutions that were signed back in 2005.