Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by saying that I will be sharing my time with my colleague.
Preparing this curious speech to defend the claims in a bill on nuclear terrorism was, in a sense a personal act of bravado. When I say bravado I mean that when I looked at the House calendar and saw that a question dealing with nuclear terrorism had been entered, I told myself it was a golden opportunity for me to reconnect with my old passions.
When I was a graduate student, I often took part in these types of exercises. Graduate studies at university often involve oral presentations and plenary sessions. That is why obscure topics are studied and discussed. Moreover, it is why I decided to embark on a discussion of an issue that may appear inaccessible and intangible at first.
Over the past few days, I invested some effort in reviewing case law and the definitions of “threat” and “terrorism” in the Criminal Code, as well as concepts such as criminal intent or mens rea. This helped refresh my memory of concepts that I learned during my legal training and allows me today to spend a little more time on them and investigate them more deeply.
In light of the scope of the issue, as well as its specificity, I would like to focus particularly on the concept of threat set out in this nuclear terrorism bill. A few offences are mentioned in the bill, including the threat of use of nuclear material and devices. I will focus on this specific concept.
The degree of specialization associated with the scope of the bill gradually helped direct my arguments toward highlighting the impact of the provision creating the threat offence. Here I will rely on the text of the bill. This is not something I am in the habit of doing, but considering the specialized nature of the bill, it is just as well to remain close to the text and refer to it. The bill refers to the threat to possess, use or dispose of nuclear or radioactive material or a nuclear or radioactive device, 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.
With regard to "substantial damage to property", it is important to understand that in the Criminal Code, more often than not threat is limited to two situations, either threats against persons or threats against property. I will come back to this later on, when I go into greater detail on the concept of threat, its impact and its use in this bill.
The bill before us also refers to the threat of using or altering nuclear or radioactive material or a nuclear or radioactive device, or committing 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 any act.
Here, I will focus on the concept of nuclear facility as provided in the bill before us. I will refer to it in my conclusion, when I briefly address nuclear facilities in Canada. It should already be possible to see where I am going with my speech.
Finally, the bill refers to the threat of committing an indictable offence under federal law for the purpose of obtaining nuclear or radioactive material, a nuclear or radioactive device, or obtaining access or control of a nuclear facility.
This particular bill incorporates notions that are already covered by the Criminal Code, such as the definition of threat as an offence, as well as the notion of terrorism. With regard to the definition of threat—I have already taken a few steps along this path—the Criminal Code sets out two very specific cases, that is, the threat to the integrity of an individual and the threat against property. These two cases are covered here, in the bill.
In the case of threat, there is very little in the way of a defence that can be made when an accused faces this type of charge. Ultimately, the accused must show that the threat as expressed should not have been taken seriously because it was only a joke or pure fantasy.
This is the notion of threat. In my view, that is the only defence available under the Criminal Code. However, it must also be understood that the notion of threat, as it is set out in the Criminal Code, does not necessarily involve an investigation of the individual’s ability to commit the act or the medium that was used to formulate and make the threat. The threat may be expressed orally or it may even be sent through an intermediary on the Internet. There are countless methods of transmitting a threat.
Ultimately, the Criminal Code does not consider the actual ability of the person making the threat. His or her actual ability to make good on a threat is not necessarily taken into account. This is what I would like to emphasize because nuclear materials and devices are quite specific.
At the very least, it might be worthwhile to introduce a degree of nuance regarding the possibility for an individual to formulate a threat relating to nuclear devices and to determine whether the individual is in fact able to get his hands on a nuclear device. Even though we support this bill at second reading, it must be understood that, once the bill has become law, the terrorism aspect will automatically apply when this variable, the nuclear aspect, enters the picture.
The offences created under this bill are far-reaching and are very likely to lead to a serious record for an individual. Therefore, we should be very careful in this regard.
While I will support this bill at second reading and despite the fact that the threat offences, as defined in the Criminal Code, disregard an offender’s ability to commit the intended offence, the high level of specialization inherent in the handling of nuclear materials should militate in favour of tightening the criteria relating to the threat offence involving nuclear devices or materials.
As I was saying, these concepts are imported. The Criminal Code already contains very specific terminology and provisions relating to threats and terrorism. If we incorporate these same notions in this bill, we must ensure that the distinction is made. This is a big challenge in light of the fact that, as soon as someone is found guilty of one of the offences set out in this bill, he will automatically be labelled a terrorist, and there is quite a stigma attached to that label. These are very important matters that must be carefully examined.
As some of my colleagues mentioned this morning, this notion of threat goes far beyond Canada's international obligation. This bill was initially drafted to fulfill our international obligations, but we must not get carried away.
In conclusion, I will say—a message from our sponsors—that the greatest nuclear threat is here, in Canada. Some members of my team have told me that some plants here in Canada are storing radioactive waste, including the plants in Gentilly, Quebec, and in Toronto, Ontario. Right now, a rather large and measurable quantity of nuclear waste is being stored in Canada, right under our noses, which is a problem. The nuclear threat is hiding right here in Canada.
I humbly submit this information and hope that I have made members more aware of and interested in this issue.
