Justice Committee on Feb. 6th, 2013

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Yes, many of these things—theft, threats—are generally covered, but what we have done in this particular bill, in compliance with the two treaties we signed on to, is particularize the type of activity that we want to prohibit. We have changed the penalty structure.

I gave the example of theft. It's not just a question of stealing something; it's a question about what the penalty should be.

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, St. Paul's, ON]

Are we saying that at the moment...?

Do you have any situations in which—

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

I'm sorry; I have one other part.

There are provisions with respect to extraterritorial jurisdiction that are not contained in the present law of Canada, so I think these are steps in the right direction.

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, St. Paul's, ON]

Is there a case you could give me in which somebody was prosecuted and acquitted under the existing Criminal Code, but for which you would get a conviction under this new law?

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Give us a very short answer, please.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

I'll look into any possible case, but I'd get back to you on that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Thank you. That's your time.

Our next questioner is Monsieur Goguen.

[Robert Goguen, Conservative, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Minister, for appearing, and thank you, of course, to the deputy minister and counsel Koster for appearing.

It's pleasing to know that there appears to be some consensus on the passage of the bill, and so we're cautiously optimistic that no one will have a meltdown.

There is some confusion. Four new offences are being created under this act, and there seems to be some illusion that perhaps these offences were otherwise covered in the Criminal Code. I'm sensing that perhaps we've been very specific in creating these new offences so as to respect the concept of proportionality in sentences, given the harm that could potentially be created.

Could you comment on that, Minister?

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Yes. As I say, much of the activity is already criminalized within the Criminal Code, but here we have particularized exactly what kind of activity we've had.

For instance, regarding some of the wording—compelling a government to do something—you'd have a hard time saying exactly what section of the Criminal Code it falls under without additional facts or information, but we've made it very clear that if somebody is trying to compel the government to do something like that, in violation of the two treaties here, it will be criminal activity. We've made it very clear with respect to the extraterritorial jurisdiction.

Again, we're expanding on activity that we find reprehensible and for the most part find criminal, but that said, this legislation particularizes exactly what we want to do. I hope it continues to have the support of the members of the House.

[Robert Goguen, Conservative, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

I gather also that certain provisions of the Criminal Code that have been made applicable with regard to bail hearings and reverse onuses were already there and are not being added to clutter things, but we basically tacked them on to keep the code as simple as possible.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Actually, that's a very good point. You've touched on a number of things, such as consecutive sentences and reverse onus on bail. These are provisions that we have brought in and in many cases introduced under other pieces of legislation; we've made it clear that those provisions will apply to these offences as well.

In addition, as you can see when you examine the individual offences, we have increased the penalties for this kind of activity, which might otherwise be captured under some other section of the Criminal Code. That is only reasonable when you look at the kind of activity and the potential threat to the safety and security of this country and of like-minded people around the world. This approach is perfectly consistent with that, and very reasonable.

[Robert Goguen, Conservative, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Thank you very much.

Our next questioner is Madame Boivin, from the New Democrats.

[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, Niagara Falls, ON]

I would expect this would be done quickly, Mr. Chair. I'm hoping this bill will get passed quickly. Let's get this into the law of this country. That's the first important step. We have to get this passed and get royal assent.

I see nothing in the way of moving forward on this bill. It's up to you. When you have a look at it, I think you'll agree with me that not only is it constitutional but it also makes a lot of sense, so I urge you to get this through the process as expeditiously as possible. I see no impediment for the ratification of the treaties.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Thank you, Minister.

Some people are saying that sections 82.3, 82.4 and 82.6 have a broader scope than the agreements call for. What do you have to say to them?

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

The treaties themselves provide recommendations. In a sense, this is what they said you should be doing. It doesn't have to contain all the activity with respect to either terrorism or activity of this type. That's why I suggest that when you look at each of those sections, you'll see that they're reasonable. If they're more complete, if they have greater detail, then it's actually spelled out in the two treaties. I think you'll see that the wording is consistent with the intent of the treaties, and certainly consistent with our intent, which is to limit, prohibit, and prosecute this kind of activity when it takes place.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

I understand, Minister, but do you find that the scope is indeed a bit broader? If so, why is that?

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

When we drafted each of these particular sections, we wanted to make sure that they're not only consistent with the treaty but that they're consistent with existing criminal law in Canada.

We tried to make it as complete as possible, and I think your examination of these sections will confirm that while the treaties themselves provide a floor, they don't put any sort of ceiling on it. As I say, when you see the legislation, I think it will confirm my comments.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Do I still have time?

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

You have 30 seconds.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

By the time I voice my question, it will be over.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Okay. Then we'll go next to Mr. Albas, from the Conservative Party.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to thank the minister and the other witnesses for coming today to discuss this very important piece of legislation.

Before I begin my comments, Mr. Chair, I want to say that I found the briefing note brought by our analyst to be very informative, so thank you.

On Ms. Bennett's suggestion of the time that it takes for these kinds of bills, important bills, that maybe did not get through during the minority years, I've had the experience, Minister, of talking to a number of people. I'm a new member, so I wasn't there doing it, but I've heard from members from all sides that a lot of bills like Bill S-4, the Safer Railways Act, and Bill C-48, the Technical Tax Amendments Act, were important but just wouldn't have been able to get through because of the jousting of the minority years, so I'm very happy to see important issues like this move forward.

It's my understanding that the principal reason for the introduction of this bill is to amend Canada's Criminal Code to ensure that it reflects the obligations imposed by the International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism and the amendment to the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material, both of which Canada has yet to ratify.

Minister, could you give some of your rationale on why it's important for Canada to become a state party for these important international counterterrorism instruments?

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

It certainly demonstrates Canada's continued commitment to nuclear security and it continues to show Canada's leadership in this regard. We have been most cooperative over the years in working with our allies and partners on this concern, and indeed all areas of mutual concern and mutual interest. It very clearly demonstrates our commitment to working with our international allies.

It becomes very apparent when you look into these areas that in many ways the world becomes borderless, in the sense that this kind of activity.... I mentioned al-Qaeda. They don't respect anything, I suppose, but they don't respect international boundaries; we can all become targeted via this kind of nefarious activity, as I said in my opening comments, so I think it's important for Canada to move forward on these concerns, and, I wish, on all these areas.

For instance, I think I introduced four times the bill that cracked down on people who bring drugs into this country, to up the penalties on those things. It wasn't a question of a lack of commitment on my part or the government's part or my colleagues' part, but you know the situation we went through. If it wasn't filibustered by the opposition parties in the House of Commons, the Liberal-dominated Senate would hold it up forever.

We've tried on several occasions, and I'm much more optimistic today. I'm very pleased with the progress we are making, but it was difficult that it took us about four years to send the message out to people who want to organize crime and bring drugs into Canada that they're going to jail. I never wavered on that. Time after time we introduced that measure, and I'm glad it's now the law in this country and that there's better protection for children in this country. As with all of these things, I hope they have the support of everyone, but you can check the record of the last seven years.