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

[Denis Blanchette, NDP, Louis-Hébert, QC]

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

The hon. member's question speaks to the entire issue of governmental irresponsibility. They have had ample time to act. I have the impression that they are now hurrying to pass this bill because there are international treaties to be respected and it would make them look good. Of course, we are looking at the criminal aspect of it and conforming to an international convention Canada has signed—which is the right thing to do—but I would have liked to go further and look at the problem in full.

[François Lapointe, NDP, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, are we debating the colour of margarine today? No, we are not.

Today we are debating an important public safety issue, a major issue. Once again, our colleagues opposite, who unfortunately form a majority government, are not getting up on their hind legs—to put it mildly—to contribute to the debate.

This is a Parliament. Gentlemen, you are parliamentarians. We are very well paid to take part in debates in this House. Like millions of Canadians, I am tired of watching you sit there and do nothing while we are discussing such important matters. Moreover, we are talking about their very own bill—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Order, please.

I would like to remind the hon. members that it is inappropriate to refer to the absence or presence of other members. In addition, all hon. members should direct their comments through the Chair rather than directly to other members. For example, it is best not to say “you” or use other terms that refer directly to other members. It is preferable to use the third person.

The hon. member for Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup.

[François Lapointe, NDP, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, history will describe this government's behaviour during the 41st Parliament as a blot on the history of Canada's parliamentary system. In 5 or 10 years, that is what we will remember of the shoddy work being done by the members opposite and their lack of attention.

We are talking about Bill S-9, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, which was introduced by the current government. We will be supporting this bill, but just because we are supporting it, that does not mean that we are not doing our jobs as parliamentarians or that we will not take the time to make comments and analyze it.

This bill amends the Criminal Code in order to implement criminal law requirements set out in two international treaties designed to fight terrorism: the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material, which was amended in 2005, and the International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism.

Major events over the past decades—events that were turning points in the history of humanity—brought about the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material and Bill S-9.

In 1942, physicist Enrico Fermi and his team succeeded in developing the first nuclear reactor. The team was not attempting to recover the energy during that experiment, but the nuclear stations that we have been using since the 1970s are based on the same principle.

For fear of seeing Nazi Germany producing an atomic weapon, this experiment was not immediately put to use in the civilian realm, but it did make it possible to begin producing plutonium, a byproduct of uranium or enriched uranium that has undergone a nuclear reaction. Plutonium was used to create the first atomic bombs.

It is disturbing to see that, since day one, there has been no clear line between the civilian industry and the military-industrial complex when it comes to nuclear technology. This shows just how dangerous this industry is. We learned that lesson the hard way. In 1988, the Chernobyl disaster released 400 times more radioactive material into the atmosphere than the Hiroshima bomb and may have killed up to 4,000 people, according to the World Health Organization. Other organizations estimate that 200,000 people contracted cancer and died as a result of this incident.

More recently, on March 11, 2011, there was the Fukushima disaster in Japan. The structure of the reactors was allegedly damaged immediately following the earthquake, before the tsunami even hit. This major nuclear accident was rated as a level 7 incident, the highest rating on the International Nuclear Event Scale, placing it on par with the Chernobyl disaster.

As we were figuring out just how dangerous the nuclear industry was, major events that have now been in the news for decades were emerging, for example, terrorism centred on serious and even mass destruction. An extreme right-wing political movement with paramilitary tendencies blew up a federal building, killing 168 people and injuring 680 others in the Oklahoma City bombing on April 19, 1995.

The infamous September 11, 2001, attacks committed by religious fundamentalists killed 2,977 people. Very recently, in 2011, a lone, depraved right-wing extremist, Anders Behring Breivik, perpetrated an attack in Norway. He killed eight people in a bombing, and then used an automatic weapon to kill 69 young people who had committed no crime other than belonging to a political party.

This is what brings us to what I call the fear equation, which is completely justified, in the general population in the west, in Quebec and in Canada. Could a religious extremist group use a plane or any other kind of suicide attack on a nuclear plant? Yes, it is plausible, unfortunately. If someone like a future Anders Breivik had a small nuclear bomb in his possession, because unfortunately it is now technically possible to make small nuclear bombs, would he be so disgraceful or be so lacking in humanity that he would detonate a similar device in the middle of a federal government building? Everyone can see that the answer is yes, unfortunately, something like that could happen.

I would like to digress briefly and talk about something that is extremely important to me. The way of the future could defuse this scenario.

In the 1970s, some technologies were set aside because there was probably a desire for enriched uranium to make nuclear bombs. For example, there is the molten salt nuclear reactor that the Chinese are currently focusing on. It is not developed in Canada. China will surpass us in this area. In this type of reactor, nuclear fuel is in the form of salt with a low melting point. The reactor does not need to be stopped to extract the fusion products. Using the thorium cycle produces only 0.1% of the half-life radioactive waste that a reactor like the ones we are using produces. I repeat, it is 0.1% without enriched uranium.

This is a tangent, but it is very important for the future. If we do not make safe technological choices now, our children—my grandson who may one day be in this House—in 30, 40 or 50 years, will still be debating the potential threats. So let us make choices today that, technologically speaking, will not put our children in terribly dangerous situations in 30 or 40 years.

We will therefore be supporting this bill, which covers four important points. It creates new criminal offences punishable by life imprisonment for the possession of or trafficking in nuclear material, or for committing or forcing others to commit an attack against a nuclear facility. It creates a new offence punishable by life imprisonment for anyone who commits a criminal offence under this legislation. Furthermore, it creates a new offence punishable by up to 14 years’ imprisonment for threatening to commit any of the three new offences.

These clauses reflect the kind of fear—what I called the fear equation earlier—people have regarding these kinds of terrorist acts and such a dangerous technology, which exists in our society. We will therefore be supporting this bill.

However, the cost has not yet been determined. These new criminal offences and the added pressures on Canada's extradition regime could increase public safety costs. Furthermore, measures to improve the physical protection of nuclear material and nuclear facilities will definitely mean additional costs. This bill came from the Senate. The financial cost has not yet been assessed or reported.

It is very important that the Senate work on that aspect during the second phase of work on this bill. I hope that senators will be at work for more than just 50 or 60 days this year and that we will not end up with a botched bill at the end of all this. If that is the case, we will not be able to support the bill, not because it does not address a basic need, but rather because it would have been botched by senators who show up to work for only 50 days of the year.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on the speech by the hon. member, as the member of Parliament for Burlington I was not sent here just to make repetitive speeches in the House and say the same thing over and over again. I was sent here to vote and move legislation forward.

If the previous speaker and the hon. member's party are serious about moving this forward, and everyone in the House is supportive, why are we not voting on it? Is it not hypocritical that we could be voting on it and moving on to other legislation? Instead, the opposition put up speaker after speaker. Is that not hypocritical?

[François Lapointe, NDP, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, what can I say?

The contempt for the very essence of the parliamentary system is so great on the other side of the House that the Conservatives are now redefining what a parliament should be. If they were honest in their approach to the parliamentary system, they would adopt a motion in the House to change the name of the House of Commons to something like “Let's botch this quick and pass everything without debating too much!” I do not know how we could sum it up in one word.

If there were any consistency in their way of thinking, they would even refuse to be called parliamentarians and they would move a completely ridiculous motion, one that would be dismissive of 175 years of traditions that have allowed people to speak out about bills. They would at least be somewhat consistent, but they definitely would not have my support for their scornful attitude towards the Canadian parliamentary system and parliamentary government in general.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I have a different type of question for the member.

When we talk about nuclear terrorism, there is always the question of what is happening around the world, which is very real. Ultimately, though, many Canadians are also concerned about nuclear plants and other industries located physically here in Canada.

I am interested in knowing to what degree the member believes we need to see the government put more effort into working with the provinces to establish a communication network to ensure that safety is first and foremost here in Canada, that our facilities are being protected in the best way they can be, that there are very real emergency scenarios and that the government could minimize any threat of nuclear terrorism right here in Canada.

[François Lapointe, NDP, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the questions posed by my colleague from Winnipeg North are often very general. I will try to do my best based on a general understanding of the situation.

I wonder if members remember the isotope crisis. A certain commission president suggested that a nuclear facility be closed. The government intervened, inappropriately in my opinion, and went against her recommendations.

More specifically, I believe that my colleague is right to be concerned by this government's lack of judgment when it comes to nuclear safety. We should ensure that the recommendations and operating mechanisms are strictly observed in future so that we do not end up with a situation that is as disturbing as the one where a member of the nuclear safety commission is overruled by someone who is by no means an expert, but just an elected member.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House to speak to this important bill. Obviously my colleagues have shared some of the key points surrounding the bill and the important steps it takes when it comes to something as vital as violent nuclear acts that harm people to the point of actually taking people's lives. We truly support the expansive approach and the changes that were made to strengthen Canada's legislation when it comes to these kinds of acts.

Since I have limited time, I would like to focus on the fact that the government took so long. I heard members previously ask why we are debating this. The irony is that we are now in 2013, the government was first elected in 2006, and it took seven long years for the government to bring this kind of bill forward to this stage in spite of being in a majority position for the last two years.

Our point is it should not have taken this long if it was so important. However, at the moment that it does come to the House, our role as members of Parliament is to debate the issues ahead of us, make sure that due diligence is done when it comes to the legislation in front of us and raise the voices of Canadians, whether they agree or disagree with the legislation being put forward.

Unfortunately, the government has not paid much respect to that approach. We have seen the government apply closure, I believe 28 times, in the House on various pieces of legislation. It has essentially silenced MPs from bringing forward key concerns—and more importantly, the voices of Canadians—when legislation is in front of us.

That is not acceptable. It goes against our basic reason for being here as members of Parliament. It raises the question of why Canadians would be interested in the work of Parliament if we are not here to speak out on their behalf and if they cannot tune in to Parliament to hear the positions of their communities and organizations being put forward on these bills.

Debate is clearly important, and we would like to highlight some of the important pieces of the bill. Bill S-9 reinforces Canada's obligation under 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. If the implementation of a treaty requires amendments to Canadian legislation, the treaty is ratified only when such amendments or new legislation has been passed.

Unfortunately, Canada has not ratified either the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material nor the International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism. This is because Canada does not yet have legislation in place to criminalize the offences outlined in both of these documents.

Today is an important step. The debate here is an important step in giving a bill like this its due diligence. I know hard work was done by our members and the NDP at the committee level. We certainly encourage the government to take seriously our need to be leaders at the international level, whether it is dealing with nuclear weapons or whatever it may be, and to truly show leadership.

Canada is well-known for the leadership it has taken in the past on the international stage. We hope that the Conservative government will change course, support healthy debate, and take the steps, without waiting for years to go by, to make sure that Canada is once again showing leadership on the issues that matter for us and for people around the world.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

It being 5:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.

When Bill S-9 returns to this House, the hon. member for Churchill will have 15 minutes remaining for debate.

The House resumed from March 7 consideration of the motion that Bill S-9, an act to amend the Criminal Code, be read the third time and passed.

[Fin Donnelly, NDP, New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill S-9, an act to amend the Criminal Code, otherwise called the nuclear terrorism act. I also want to note that I will be sharing my time with the member for Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert.

It is interesting that the legislation comes forward on the 10th anniversary of the Iraq war, and I will be speaking about that later. However, first, let me provide some background information about the proposed legislation.

Introduced in the Senate on March 27, 2012, Bill S-9 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, CPPNM, as amended in 2005; and the 2005 International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism, or ICSANT.

The nuclear terrorism act is a 10-clause bill that would introduce four indictable offences into part II of the Criminal Code. The bill 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. It would also make 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. It would also make 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. Finally, it would make it illegal to 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 and the International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism. This would include extending international measures beyond protecting against the proliferation of nuclear materials to now include protection of nuclear facilities. It would also reinforce Canada's obligation under the UN Security Council Resolution 1540, in 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 would require amendments to Canadian legislation, the treaty would be ratified only when such amendments or new legislation have been passed. To date, Canada has not ratified either the ICSANT or the CPPNM amendment. This is because Canada does not yet have the 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 that would be introduced into the code represent Canada's efforts to align its domestic legislation with what is required by both conventions. If these amendments become law, Canada would presumably be in a position to ratify both the ICSANT and the CPPNM amendment, something Canada, as well as other countries, committed to work toward at both the 2010 Nuclear Security Summit held in Washington, D.C., and the 2012 Nuclear Security Summit held in Seoul, Korea.

A number of experts have spoken out on this important topic. I would like to introduce some of their comments for the record.

Sabine Nolke, the director general of non-proliferation and security threat reduction at DFAIT, said:

Furthering nuclear security, enhancing the physical protection of facilities, installing radiation detection equipment, especially at border crossings, reducing the use of weapons-usable materials, is one of the key tools to prevent these materials from falling into the wrong hands.

Miles Pomper, a senior research associate with the James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies at the Monterey Institute of International Studies, had this to say. Mr. Pomper said:

—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.

Finally I would like to add what Matthew Bunn, associate professor of public policy at the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard University, had to say. He said:

At the moment, unfortunately, the mechanisms for global governance of nuclear security remain very weak. No global rules specify how secure a nuclear weapon or the material needed to make one should be. No mechanisms are in place to verify that countries are securing these stockpiles responsibly. Fukushima made clear that action is needed to strengthen both the global safety and security regimes because terrorists could do on purpose what a tsunami did by accident. A central goal leading up to the 2014 Nuclear Security Summit must be to find ways to work together to strengthen the global framework for nuclear security and continue high-level attention on this topic after nuclear security summits stop taking place. Ratifying the conventions that are under consideration now is important, but it is only the beginning.

I would like to comment about Fukushima. It is timely. Coming from the west coast and also being the west coast deputy Fisheries and Oceans critic, I find that this event is very relevant and relates to this topic. Last week, for example, the Japanese government announced a $1 million grant to support the cleanup of tsunami debris washing up on Canada's west coast. B.C.'s coastline is approximately 26,000 kilometres long. It is estimated that 1.5 million tonnes of debris will wash up on B.C.'s shores following the 2011 Japanese tsunami. That is half the amount of garbage generated by metro-Vancouver in the year 2010. That is a lot of debris floating toward west coast shores.

The funds provided by the Japanese government will go toward cleanup of this debris, planning for the cleanup of future debris and addressing the increased threat of invasive species turning up on our shore. Two years ago, in March 2011, the world witnessed one of the most catastrophic events in recent times. The 9.0 magnitude earthquake and consequent tsunami and nuclear disaster killed approximately 16,000 people, with over 2,500 individuals still considered missing. It caused an estimated $235 billion in damage.

The Fukushima nuclear disaster was the worst nuclear disaster since Chernobyl. The fear of what could have been created worldwide panic and generated a shift in societal attitudes toward nuclear power. In Canada, many considered the potential threats to our domestic nuclear facilities located in Ontario. The Fukushima disaster also reminded us of the importance of multilateral diplomacy and international co-operation in areas of great common concern.

I mentioned the Iraq war in my opening remarks and I want to make mention of it here. It was indeed 10 years ago that the Canadian government supported the Iraq war. I would add that this illegal invasion was supposedly based on Iraq possessing weapons of mass destruction or nuclear weapons.

It is critical that Canada and indeed the world participate in developing the appropriate protocols to deal with nuclear terrorism. Canada needs to live up to the international conventions and obligations that call for human safety, peace and security.

I would like to conclude my remarks by outlining what it is that Canada's New Democrats are looking for. We are committed to multilateral diplomacy and international co-operation, especially in areas of great common concern, such as nuclear terrorism. We need to work with other leading countries that are moving toward ratifying these conventions.

Canada has also agreed to be legally bound by these conventions. It is important to fulfill our international obligations. Canada cannot officially ratify these conventions until the domestic implementation is complete.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's comments, especially at the end, about what the opposition is looking for in order to support the bill. It would be prudent to remind him of what some of the key new offences are under the debate of the bill, including possessing or trafficking nuclear or radioactive material or a nuclear or radioactive device or committing an act against a nuclear facility or its operations with the intent to cause death, serious bodily harm or substantive damage to property or the environment, et cetera. There are about four key provisions that greatly increase the capacity of the Criminal Code of Canada to deal with these types of threats.

I was just hoping he could comment on his party's position on some of these key changes, which are really in the best interests of Canadian security. Regarding some of the other things he talked about in his speech, I would like to hear a clear commitment on the support of the bill, as well as some of the important issues that he talked about in his speech, which are actually met in the outline of the bill right now.

[Fin Donnelly, NDP, New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, in fact, Canada's New Democrats are supporting the bill. We are pleased to see it move forward. However, there are some concerns, which some of the experts pointed out. I just wanted to highlight a couple of those points.

Why was the making of a nuclear or radioactive device not included in Bill S-9 when introduced to the Senate, resulting in a Senate amendment? If this was in fact an oversight, does this not give rise to concerns about the lack of care in the process of determining how these two treaties would be implemented? Also, why has it taken the government so long to introduce the legislation? It has taken over five years for this to become a serious priority.

These are some of the concerns that we have, but as I say, we are supportive of this moving forward.