Justice Committee on Feb. 6th, 2013

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

I appreciate hearing that, because you've certainly hit on the point that many of these issues are grave because they are borderless and there's no respect for boundaries.

In your opening statement you mentioned some efforts in other jurisdictions such as the United States. Have other countries ratified these treaties, Minister?

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

There are a number of them that have. Russia and Germany are two. I'm not sure I mentioned those. I mentioned that the United Kingdom and Australia have done it.

There are a number of countries that still have a way to go. I mentioned the United States specifically, but New Zealand, France, Italy, and Japan have yet to do so. I don't know if it's minority parliaments or interparty jousting, as you said, that is slowing down the procedures in some of those countries—I don't purport to be able to do that—but I believe that ultimately it will be signed by a great number of countries that all have a stake in it. As I say, we're among the countries in a position to get legislation passed to conform with the requirements of the two, and it's my hope that this bill will be ratified as soon as possible.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Thank you very much. Our next questioner is Mr. Mai, from the New Democratic Party.

[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?

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Bill C-10 has actually been entered into force. It may be a different incarnation. The Bill C-10 that was before Parliament contained a number of different areas, as I indicated, dealing with drug dealers and changes to the Youth Criminal Justice Act, so perhaps you are referring to the different incarnation in previous Parliaments. I mean, again—

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

Just as a clarification, I was referring to Bill S-7, which was to put in place

the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on their Destruction.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

First of all, although I did it in general terms, let me welcome you to the committee.

You indicated that you are optimistic that this bill has support and continues to have support, and certainly I am hoping that this positive treatment and reception of this bill will continue with all the other pieces of legislation, as your colleagues will tell you. This committee is kept very busy because, as you know, this area is a priority.

The translation said Bill C-10. I'm not in a position to detail, and I appreciate it's a different bill, but I will personally have a look into that if you'd like. The Department of Foreign Affairs has a lead on that, but I will be glad to check into it. On the bills that come within our jurisdiction and the purview of this committee, we tend to move as quickly as possible.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Go ahead on a point of order, Ms. Findlay.

[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.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Thank you, Ms. Findlay.

Mr. Mai, I think there's been a commitment by the ministry to get back to you on—

[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]

Then the question was about timing. I'm sorry; I was confused.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

I think there was a commitment by the ministry to get back to the questioner.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

I think this particular piece of legislation is in the purview of the Minister of Foreign Affairs. Certainly I'll pass on the comments and tell him how anxious the NDP is to see it implemented.

With respect to this one, I am very pleased that I'm getting some support, and I will pass that on to all of my colleagues. Thank you.

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

Thank you, Mr. Minister.

With respect to the bill per se, I understand there was an addition made at the Senate. Can you explain why this was not part of the bill initially? Is it something that we have to worry about? I understand that you've explained to us the fact that some of the additions were made to reflect what the convention was saying, but why was that part missing in the first edition?

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Strictly speaking, it wasn't necessary, if you have a look at what the two treaties were asking Canada to do. On the idea that the word “make” wasn't captured, it was captured, in my opinion. If you possess something or if you are distributing something, you are also in the business of making it. However, in having a look at it, it seemed to me that anything that helped clarify these things wouldn't be a problem, so the wording was slightly reconfigured in the Senate. We agreed with that.

The only other change was just a technical change to ensure that the English and French versions are identical. There was a minor change made there as well, but again I'm satisfied that we captured all the possible illegal activity. Over the years, when we get helpful suggestions or suggestions that might make something a little bit clearer, we're always glad to have a look at them.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

You have 30 seconds.

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

Do you think there is anything else in the treaties that wasn't covered in this bill?

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

No. A lot of the activity is already covered, so it really isn't a question of trying to get everything mentioned in the treaty, because for a number of years we've been in the business of trying to counteract terrorist activity in Canada. There have been provisions made over the last decade in that area, and there are provisions that have always been in the Criminal Code.

What we did in the four sections you have before you for study is particularize them with direct reference to the two treaties. Again, as was pointed out by Monsieur Goguen, we've applied a number of other provisions in the Criminal Code that have already been changed. Reverse bail is one of the examples, as is consecutive sentencing. Even within the activity that's already criminalized under the Criminal Code, we have, as you can see, increased the penalties because of the seriousness of this activity.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Thank you, Minister.

Thank you, Mr. Mai.

Our next questioner is Mr. Seeback, from the Conservatives.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Brampton West, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Minister, I will say welcome to you, as everybody else has. I'm sure you're encouraged, as I am, by hearing the NDP say they want to move these things through quickly, so hopefully we'll get this moved and passed in the House as quickly as possible.

Sometimes we ask complicated questions, but sometimes we want to ask the obvious questions, and sometimes those are just as important. I think the answer to this is somewhat obvious, but I'm going to ask it anyway. It's with respect to the offences.

Do the offences apply to the otherwise lawful use of nuclear radiation material devices? If not, why not?

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

No. As a matter of fact, you'll notice that there are exemptions with respect to the Canadian military. I would recommend that you have a look at those. We've been aware of the lawful use of nuclear material and accustomed to it, and we approve of it when this material is dealt with in a proper, lawful manner.

What this bill does is particularize the kind of activity that could threaten the safety and security of Canada and indeed that of our partners throughout the world. That was why the treaties came together. It wasn't because much of this activity wasn't frowned upon. They wanted to come together to see that a clear and consistent message is being sent throughout the world that we are cooperating with each other, harmonizing our laws, and making sure that there are appropriate penalties for the kind of activity we're talking about, and that this approach is consistent throughout like-minded countries such as our own.

While a number of countries have not yet changed their laws or ratified this treaty, I am optimistic that more countries in the future will do so. That's the message that I have gotten back, but we are not waiting around for all the other countries in the world or the countries that have signed on to this to ratify it. We're moving ahead at this particular time.

I think this is very appropriate, and I too am encouraged. If this is a step towards that kind of cooperation for these sensible and important pieces of legislation that we're bringing forward to the justice committee, I couldn't be happier if we get these bills through. I hope this is just the first of many that will come before this committee.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Brampton West, ON]

That's great.

Actually, Minister, you raised a point that I'd like to segue to next. My understanding in reviewing the legislation is that the military is going to be exempt from these proposed amendments. You certainly alluded to that in your statement. Could you perhaps explain why that is the case?

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Yes. As I indicated to you, there is a military exclusionary clause. In essence, the activities of the armed forces as those terms are understood under international law and as governed by that law will not be reformed by the government by the proposed changes to the Criminal Code. The amendments don't directly apply to the activities of the Canadian armed forces and those acting in support of them who are under the formal command and control of Canadian armed forces while in the performance of their duties.

The military exclusion language used in both the treaties, as you will see when you examine them, is similar to that used in the International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings, which is implemented in Canada under the Criminal Code. That's another area that you might want to have a look at, but I wanted to make sure it was part of the record so that you are aware of it.

Thank you for raising it specifically, but again, it's consistent with the language in those treaties and in others.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Brampton West, ON]

I know you were doing this to be part of the 2005 agreement. Do you see the legislation actually providing more security here for Canadians? Is that an important part of it as well?