Having worked as a criminal lawyer, I am obviously familiar with the legal rule. An accused must benefit from the most favourable interpretation of the law. As a lawmaker, it seems to me that if we're talking about suicides attacks, the definition must be far broader than would be the case for “suicide bombings”, considering that the worst suicide attack to have occurred on this planet did not involve the use of a bomb. Mr. Lee gave examples of other suicide attacks that could be carried out in the same fashion.
Perhaps I could just give you another random example: a terrorist gets on a bus filled with tourists that is travelling up a mountain, jumps on the driver, grabs the wheel and drives the bus off the mountain, killing all the passengers. It seems to me that is just as serious an act as placing a bomb under a bus on a public thoroughfare.
I could certainly have understood your thinking had you said that suicide attacks are already covered under the legislation. If they are, then that necessarily means that the legislation also covers suicide attacks carried out using a bomb. However, when I read the French or the English version, it seems clear to me that the intent of the person who drafted this bill was to ensure that suicide attacks would be covered. One may well think that there is no need to cover them, because someone carrying out a suicide attack receives the punishment he deserves, but the fact is that here we are considering everything related to that attack: the preparation, the person who gave advice, and so on. Given all of that, I would like to see this apply to all suicide attacks, and not just those carried out using a bomb.
I realized that this bill will be referred back to the Senate. And it's not a bad idea for people in the Senate to see that members of the House of Commons sometimes have better ideas than they do… Sometimes.