The rule of interpretation that the most narrow interpretation should be used in terms of an accused seems the correct one; therefore, this really is a “suicide bombing” bill to amend the Criminal Code.
However, I live and breathe this bilingual mentality and ethos in Moncton, New Brunswick. That's the centre of bilingualism, right? And I just can't imagine....
Usually that statutory interpretation rule is used where unwittingly Parliament has two versions that are different. They didn't do it on purpose. We're almost saying that we're going to do this on purpose: we're going to have suicide bombings on one end and suicide attacks on the other, knowing, therefore, that the courts will interpret it as suicide bombings.
It's almost like deliberately bad drafting, so part of me says that we can't do that. On the other hand, what we heard from you, and what I believe, is that the glue needed to fix any ambiguity in the existing section is to specify suicide bombings. We have a Conservative government that is also supporting an amendment that is very narrow and precise and surgical--congratulations.
So I'm somewhat torn on the amendment. But we have to draft legislation in both languages that, as far as we know, accord with each other.
For that reason, I believe I'm going to support Mr. Ménard's amendment. It shouldn't be against the idea that we're doing something good for attacking the idea of suicide bombings or attacks; it's indeed broader. Mr. Ménard raises the question of whether that is covered by the section as it exists; I don't suppose we're doing any harm, and at least his amendment makes us adopt two versions that are in accord, as far as I can tell.
That's where I am on the amendment.