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.

[Greg Koster]

Well, I can speak to what we've attempted to do here.

It's true that a plain reading of both British and Australian laws shows that they use much of the same wording—not just the subject matter of the offences, but the way it's set out in the convention. I doubt it was a cut-and-paste, but it looks very similar.

Now, the way we did it here in Bill S-9 is that we wanted it to fit within the existing Canadian law so that it flowed nicely within the code and had a good relationship with the existing terrorism offences and the way the existing law defined certain activities. That's why our law looks a bit different from, for example, the Australian and British laws.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Thank you very much, Minister, for joining us today to talk about introducing Bill S-9 , and I thank the committee members for their excellent questions.

I will suspend for a minute while the minister leaves and we change over to the next hour.

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

I'll reply to that point of order, just to explain.

The question that my colleague Madame Boivin asked was with regard to when Bill S-9 will have a decree. The minister actually said we'll have it quickly. If we look at the past, if we look at what has been done, if we look at Bill S-7, there's still no decree on that front.

In order to make sure that this bill goes forward and that we actually ratify it, I want to understand why similar bills that were adopted and were agreed upon still have no decree at this time.

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

With all due respect, we're here to discuss Bill S-9, the Nuclear Terrorism Act. I'm a bit confused as to the relevance of the questioning of the bill that's in front of us and I'm not sure I even understand which piece of legislation you're referring to, Mr. Mai.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good afternoon, Minister.

I want to begin by saying that I am happy to be a member of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. This is my first meeting as part of this committee, as I was previously a member of the Standing Committee on Finance.

For the time being, we are working on a bill that seems very positive and has everyone in agreement. I hope that will continue, especially since the minister is here today.

Earlier, Ms. Boivin asked a question about Bill C-10. That bill had to do with the 2002 legislation on public safety and implemented the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on their Destruction. You said that, in the case of Bill S-9, you wanted to move ahead quickly and you wanted an order to be issued. Could you explain to us why this situation is different from that of Bill C-10, which has still not been implemented?

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Regarding the minister's answers to my questions about section 4.1 of the Department of Justice Act, I would say, like my Liberal colleague, that they involved some generalizations. My understanding is that we are being asked for a blank cheque without actually knowing what exactly is happening.

So I am using this opportunity, Mr. Chair, to submit a notice of motion, which will obviously not be debated today, as we will continue with our witnesses. Notices of motion have to be submitted 48 hours in advance.

The notice of motion reads as follows:

That the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights conduct a thorough study of the practice under section 4.1 of the Department of Justice Act since its enactment;

[...]

and report its findings and recommendations to the House.

I am submitting this motion now.

I will continue with my questions, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Minister, will Bill S-9 be put into force by order? Can we expect it to come into force quickly? In 2004, the government introduced Bill C-7, which concerned a 2002 piece of legislation on public safety. Part 23 of that bill was used to implement the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on their Destruction. That part has still not been brought into force, and that should have been done by order.

It seems that we all accept that nothing will change in terms of this. I think this bill is extremely important, considering certain types of threats. That being said, if we want to be part of agreements and be able to ratify them, this must be implemented.

Do you think it will take you much longer to bring the bill into force by order? Will it follow the same course as the 2004 bill? A number of years have passed since 2004.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Thank you very much.

I'm very pleased to be joined by Mr. Greg Koster and Mr. Don Piragoff from the Department of Justice.

I'd like to welcome you, Mr. Chairman, and all the new members to this committee. I certainly wish you all the best. I'm sure you'll find it a very interesting role to be a part of. I was on this committee for just under eight years, and it was a great experience. I wish all of you who are joining it the very best.

I'm pleased as well to appear before you on Bill S-9, the Nuclear Terrorism Act. The bill, if passed, will permit Canada to become a state party to both the 2005 amendment to the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material and the 2005 International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism.

The diplomatic history and Canada's role in negotiating these two international instruments are well known and are already part of the parliamentary record.

I will focus my remarks before this committee on the specific elements of the bill, and I will take a moment to address some of the questions that were raised at the second reading debate in the other chamber.

The first new offence would be found at proposed section 82.3 of the Criminal Code. It is directed at persons who make a device or possess, use, or traffic in nuclear or radioactive material or devices for the purpose of causing harm to persons, property, or the environment.

This offence would also criminalize activity against a nuclear facility or its operations for those same nefarious purposes. The proposed maximum penalty for this offence would be a term of life imprisonment.

You will note that the concept of making a device was added by amendment during the review of this bill in the Senate.

A second new offence would be found at proposed section 82.4 of the Criminal Code. This targets persons who use or alter nuclear or radioactive material or devices, or do anything against a nuclear facility or its operations, in order to compel a person, a government, or an international organization to behave in a certain way. Again, the maximum penalty would be a term of life imprisonment.

The third new offence would be at proposed section 82.5 of the Criminal Code. This offence is directed at illegal activity done in order to obtain nuclear or radioactive material or devices or to obtain access to a nuclear facility. This uses elements of existing criminal offences, such as theft, fraud, and robbery, and adds an element—for example, to obtain nuclear material.

Finally, given the severity of the potential harm, as well the massive government and public reaction if there ever was a risk that one of the proposed offences in Bill S-9 would be committed, a new section, proposed section 82.6, calls for the creation of an offence of threatening to commit a nuclear terrorism offence.

The proposed penalty for this offence threat will be a maximum term of 14 years of imprisonment.

These four offences that I have just described make up the backbone of Bill S-9. The offences are targeted and the proposed penalties are appropriate, given similar provisions in the Criminal Code and related jurisprudence.

The treaties that Bill S-9 seeks to implement require state parties to assume extraterritorial prosecutorial jurisdiction. In this regard, Bill S-9 would give our courts the jurisdiction to try these new offences in the listed factual situations that are set out in clause 3 of the bill.

In addition, even though the majority of Criminal Code offences are prosecuted by the provinces and territories, the Attorney General of Canada would have new concurrent prosecutorial authority over these new nuclear terrorism offences, as is the case with existing terrorism offences in the Criminal Code.

The bill also seeks to define a number of terms, including “nuclear facility” and “radioactive material”.

The final point I would like to make on the technical aspects of the bill is that with the inclusion of these new offences in the existing definition of “terrorist activity” in section 83.01 of the Criminal Code, a number of important terrorism provisions will apply, such as consecutive sentencing, a reverse onus at bail hearings, and the availability of a one-year wiretap authorization. Taken together with the various general provisions in the Criminal Code that address different forms of party liability such as attempts and conspiracies, as well as existing Canadian law outside of the Criminal Code, these proposed amendments would put Canada in a position to ratify both of these important nuclear security treaties.

Some have questioned the timing of the introduction of Bill S-9, but when we look at some of our closest allies, we see that they too have recently taken steps to ratify and, in some cases, introduce these bills for discussion within their parliaments. For instance, the United Kingdom became a party to both these treaties in 2009 and 2010. Australia modified its laws to achieve ratification of the two treaties in 2008 and just recently again in 2012. Finally, I would note that the United States had a bill before Congress aimed at domestic ratification of these treaties, and it recently died in the Senate's Committee on the Judiciary.

Another question raised during second reading debate concerned the addition of the words “makes a device” to the proposed section 82.3 offence. As I mentioned earlier, this was an amendment that was made, and we accepted that amendment. In discussion with the Department of Justice we believed it wasn't strictly necessary; that said, to make it absolutely clear, we did agree to go along with that proposal.

The two treaties together have approximately 38 criminalization requirements, and therefore the offences were grouped together under the common offence element. The prohibition on making included making devices but not making nuclear or radioactive material. The proposed offence at 82.3, as introduced, was intended to apply to persons who, again, make a device. In this regard, the offence applies to anyone who possesses a device. It might be the same person who makes it, but either way it's covered. If you make it, you possess it. That being said, the government did have a look at the amendment, and we think it better reflects the intentions of the bill.

Questions have been raised about the scope of proposed section 82.5, one of other sections I enumerated, which deals with the commission of an indictable offence in order to obtain a nuclear or radioactive material or device. While a number of specific offences are listed in the treaty, such as theft, robbery, etc., the treaty language also refers to “the use of force or any other form of intimidation” at paragraph 9(1)(f) of the CPPNM amendment and “use of force” in paragraph 2.2(b) of ICSANT, the other treaty. This is broad conduct and beyond the specific offences listed in the treaties, but the notion of the use of force could include any act of violence or force and therefore any number of existing, indictable offences could be contemplated as falling within that conduct. It's for this reason that the present formulation in section 82.5 was used.

The final technical question raised during the debate on second reading of the amendments to the CPPNM under paragraph 9(1)(d) was the criminalization without a specific intent requirement of import or export of nuclear material without lawful authority.

In international law, states such as Canada are permitted to rely on domestic law to implement international treaty requirements. Given that this particular requirement under paragraph 9(1)(d) does not have a specific intent requirement such as to compel a government or cause a death, the existing offences under the Export and Import Permits Act, the Customs Act, and the Nuclear Safety and Control Act fully satisfy this treaty requirement, so there was no need to create a new offence in this particular bill.

Mr. Chairman, my remarks have addressed some of the important features of Bill S-9 and I have attempted to answer some of the technical questions that were posed in the debate.

As was highlighted by world leaders at the last nuclear security summit in the Republic of Korea in March of last year, nuclear terrorism continues to be one of the most challenging threats to international security.

With this particular piece of legislation, we have taken concrete steps to strengthen the way Canadian criminal law deals with acts relating to nuclear terrorism. The amendments proposed and the subsequent ratification of these instruments will deliver a global message that Canada continues to take nuclear security very seriously and that international collaboration yields beneficial results for everyone.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

I call the meeting to order.

Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human rights, meeting 57.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Friday, November 30, 2012, our orders of the day are to consider Bill S-9, an Act to amend the Criminal Code.

Our first witness is the Honourable Rob Nicholson, the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada.

Thank you, Minister Nicholson. You have approximately 10 minutes.

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

I so move that we start consideration of Bill S-9 on Wednesday, with the Minister of Justice coming for the first hour and the officials for the second hour.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Thank you, Ms. Boivin.

We're going to do this relatively quickly.

I appreciate that you guys didn't meet last week while I was away. That was nice.

On Wednesday we have the potential for the minister to come before us for the first hour to start the discussion on Bill S-9. The second hour would be for the officials.

I need unanimous consent for that to happen. After that, we will adjourn this meeting and then begin the meeting of the subcommittee on agenda and procedure.

Could I have a motion for unanimous consent for that?

[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 penalities 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.

[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.

[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.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support Bill S-9 at second reading. I would like to say, however, that our position on the Senate, the other chamber, is well known. That chamber has become a place of partisanship and of rewards for friends of the Conservatives, and their family members too, sometimes.

Naturally, it still bothers us to receive bills from the Senate. We disapprove of the fact that it is a completely undemocratic and unelected chamber that wastes a lot of money. At a time when we are seeing cuts everywhere, cuts to services that directly affect my constituents, that chamber is wasting money. I am not reluctant to say it is a waste, because that is what I sincerely believe.

At any rate, we are debating Bill S-9, which is a good bill in principle, and we will study it thoroughly. This bill amends the Nuclear Terrorism Act and creates four new offences in part II of the Criminal Code.

First, this legislation would make it illegal to possess, use or dispose of nuclear or radioactive material or devices, or commit an act against a nuclear facility or its operations with intent to cause death, serious bodily harm or substantial damage to property or the environment; use or alter nuclear material, radioactive material or a device or commit an act against a nuclear facility or its operations with intent to compel a person, government or international organization to do or refrain from doing any act; commit an indictable offence under any act of Parliament, with intent to obtain nuclear material, radioactive material or a device or to obtain access to a nuclear facility; or threaten to commit any of these three offences.

Bill S-9 also amends the Criminal Code in relation to these four new offences, and that is important as well. It also defines certain terms used in the new offences, including “environment”, “nuclear facility”, “nuclear material”, “radioactive material”, and “device”. The bill also amends the definition of “terrorist activity”.

The bill adds a new section to the Criminal Code to ensure that industries that commit or attempt to commit one of these offences while outside Canada can be prosecuted in Canada. It also amends the Criminal Code provisions on electronic surveillance to ensure they apply to these new offences.

The bill amends the Criminal Code so that these four new offences are considered “primary designated offences” for the purpose of DNA warrants and collection.

Finally, the bill amends Canada's rule against double jeopardy so that if an individual has been tried and convicted for the four new offences outside Canada, the rule against double jeopardy will not apply when the foreign trial did not meet certain basic Canadian legal standards. In such circumstances, a Canadian court may try this person again for the same offence of which he or she was convicted by a foreign court.

My party and I think it is extremely important to ratify the international conventions and agreements we have signed. This bill is the result of the ratification of agreements signed in 2005, the ICSANT and CPPNM. We ratified these agreements in 2005 but have not taken the next steps, and it is now 2012.

Of course, it is important that we act in a spirit of international co-operation and concern for the world's safety. It is important that we take action and not just make promises. Therefore, we support Bill S-9 at second reading so that it can be sent to committee and studied more thoroughly.

To date, only 56 countries have ratified the agreement and incorporated the measures included in that agreement into their respective laws.

In my opinion, it is important that Canada take the initiative and ensure that its laws comply with the conventions and agreements that it has signed and ratified. In so doing, we may be able to put pressure on countries that have not yet changed their laws to meet the requirements included in the agreements.

I would like to quote Matthew Bunn, associate professor of public policy at Harvard's Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs. 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.

Matthew Bunn raises an excellent point. The Nuclear Security Summit will be held in 2014, and it is important to adjust Canadian laws in order to meet the commitments that we made in 2005 and be ready for 2014. We will thus be able to say that we did what the international community pledged to do. Now, what is the next step?

However, I would like to point out a few of our concerns about the bill. These concerns were also raised when this bill was examined by the Senate.

The first concern relates to overbreadth. The intent of the Department of Justice was to stay as close as possible to the provisions of the convention. However, some of the new offences in the Criminal Code are broader than the offences set out in the international agreements. We must therefore make sure that the overbreadth of those sections will not result in excessive criminalization and will not be contrary to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Canada does have such a charter. It is important that every act and every bill introduced in the House be obeyed.

The second concern raised during study of the bill in the Senate relates to sentencing. The maximum sentences that may be imposed for one of the four new offences are significant. Three of the four offences are liable to a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. However, that meets the requirements in the ICSANT and the CPPNM, under which member nations must make the offences punishable by appropriate penalties which take into account their grave nature.

It should be noted that the bill does not impose a mandatory minimum sentence and that this continues to be a matter of concern. It will be our job to examine that question at greater length when the bill is considered by a committee of the House of Commons.

One of the amendments was proposed by the Senate, and I welcome it because, in my opinion, it is very positive: making a nuclear or radioactive device, which is prohibited by the ICSANT but was not originally prohibited by the proposed amendments to the code. The Liberals therefore put forward an amendment to include this, and I congratulate them for that. I think it is a good amendment. I am glad the bill we are now considering includes that amendment.

I will conclude by saying this. Over time, we have seen various threats to security, and the international community has to respond accordingly.

We responded accordingly after the cold war, after everything that had happened during that era in which nuclear arms were still new. That was the first time we saw this on the international scene. It is important for nations to come together and discuss at greater length what they are going to do to combat present-day threats to security.

I concur with this bill, because it is a step in the right direction.

The House resumed 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.