Debates of Oct. 22nd, 2009

Retribution on Behalf of Victims of White Collar Crime Act

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

I would like to give the parliamentary secretary 30 seconds to respond to that.

[Alice Wong, Conservative, Richmond, BC]

Madam Speaker, I think that the best response right now is to pass the bill first and then look at the mechanism. It is wrong to put the cart before the horse. The horse has to come first. This is exactly what we are asking. Pass the bill and then let us work on it together.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure in the brief time remaining to speak in favour of Bill C-52, which is a much needed piece of legislation.

Over the course of the last few months, unfortunately, we have seen some very serious white collar crimes occurring in North America and elsewhere which have literally ruined the lives of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of North American residents.

We have all read the stories about Bernie Madoff and Earl Jones and how those two individuals set up Ponzi schemes that have literally bilked unsuspecting citizens of their entire life savings in some cases. This piece of legislation seeks to address those inequities. We seek, by this piece of legislation, to set in place a legislative process that would ultimately cause the Bernie Madoffs and the Earl Joneses of this world to think twice before they even begin to enter into the Ponzi schemes that we have seen.

As much as anything, this piece of legislation would send a very strong message to those people who are considering trying to set up a Ponzi scheme, a money for nothing, cheques for free type of thing, where they prey on innocent people.

Many times those innocent victims are senior citizens, people who have invested their life savings in a scheme because they trusted the individual who brought the so-called investment opportunity to them in the first place.

Think of the shock, think of the depression that some of these people would be feeling after they found out that their entire life savings, which they counted on to live on in their golden years, was completely gone. Many of these people have considered drastic steps, such as suicide. Some have attempted suicide. What have we done to try and correct it up to this point in time? We have done precious little.

Many times we have seen examples where fraudsters have gotten away with literally a slap on the wrist. They have served their sentences, whatever they may be in length, in conditional arrest, in the sanctity and the safety of their homes. This is no way to send a strong message to those would-be criminals out there that this has to stop.

We have to protect Canadians, and by protecting them I mean ensuring that if there are Ponzi schemes out there, if there are people out there who would even attempt this type of scheme to bilk money out of innocent victims again, they will be dealt with severely.

That is what this bill is about and that--

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

I must interrupt the member at this time. When the House returns to this matter, he will have 17 minutes remaining.

It being 5:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.

Criminal Code

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK]

moved that Bill S-205, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (suicide bombings), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak in support of Bill S-205, which was passed by the Senate on June 10, 2009. This bill is identical to former Bill S-210, which received third reading in the Senate in June 2008, but died on the order paper when Parliament was dissolved for the general election last September. Please allow me to explain the contents of this bill for the benefit of all hon. members.

The bill proposes to amend the Criminal Code to clarify that suicide bombings fall within the definition of “terrorist activity” contained in the code. The term “terrorist activity” is currently defined in paragraphs 83.01(1)(a) and (b) of the Criminal Code. Bill S-205 proposes to amend section 83.01 of the Criminal Code by adding the following after subsection (1.1):

(1.2) For greater certainty, a suicide bombing is an act that comes within paragraphs (a) or (b) of the definition “terrorist activity” in subsection (1) if it satisfies the criteria of that paragraph.

This amendment is a definitional clause intended to make clear that suicide bombing is included in the definition of “terrorist activity” only when committed in the context of a terrorist act. The bill is crafted to ensure the utmost precision about what forms of suicide bombing are included in the definition of “terrorist activity” and to prevent other types of suicide bombing with no connection to terrorist activity from being caught in the definition.

Please let me explain how a suicide bomb could potentially be used in non-terrorist activity. A quick search through the archives reveals a case from 1973, whereby a would-be bank robber used a suicide bomb. This happened in Kenora, Ontario. I quote:

A dramatic and daring bank robbery took place in Kenora on May 10, 1973. An unknown man entered the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce heavily armed and wearing a “dead man's switch”, a device utilizing a clothespin, wires, battery and dynamite, where the user holds the clothespin in the mouth, exerting force on the clothespin. Should the user release the clothespin, two wires attached to both sides of the pin complete an electrical circuit, sending current from the battery, detonating the explosives. After robbing the bank, the robber exited the CIBC, and was preparing to enter a city vehicle driven by undercover police officer Don Milliard. A sniper positioned across the street from the bank shot the Robber, initiating the sequence of events required to detonate the explosive. Recently, Kenora Police submitted DNA samples from the Robber's remains to identify him, but the suspect was never positively identified.

This most unfortunate event is an example whereby the robber was not a terrorist by definition, but was indeed using a suicide bomb as a device to rob a bank.

After discussion on this particular point, I understand that the Senate adopted the bill with the amendment to ensure greater clarity.

The amendment ensures that it is not overly broad or vague but still fulfills its intended purpose. The proposed amendment is designed to provide for maximum precision regarding what forms of suicide bombing are included in the definition of “terrorist activity” and makes certain that suicide bombings unrelated to terrorist activity are not caught by the definition.

No other country is known to refer specifically to suicide bombing in its definition of “terrorism” and “terrorist activity”, so Canada would be the first to signal its abhorrence of these cowardly acts by adopting such a reference in its legislative definition of “terrorist activity”.

Suicide attacks are intended to kill and maim innocent people and inflict extensive property damage. Attackers are often prepared to die in the process. We all know about the attacks of September 11, 2001 that killed nearly 3,000 people in the World Trade Center in New York City. We also remember the July 7, 2007 London bombings, and the 2008 attacks in Mumbai, India.

Anyone who reads a newspaper, listens to the radio or watches television knows that suicide bombings occur on an alarmingly regular basis.

Many prominent Canadians support Bill S-205, which is identical to former Bill S-210, which was supported by Canadians Against Suicide Bombing, or CANASB, a Toronto-based group.

Prominent Canadians who have supported this initiative and signed an open letter to the Senate include former prime ministers Kim Campbell and Joe Clark, as well others, such as Roy McMurtry, former chief justice and attorney general of Ontario, former NDP leader Ed Broadbent and Major General Louis MacKenzie.

Some states and international organizations argue that suicide bombing can be justified and that struggles, by whatever means, for approved causes are exempt.

Some further argue that suicide bombing is implicitly covered in the Criminal Code or that dead suicide bombers cannot be prosecuted. However, distinguished Canadian criminal lawyers, including the chair of the Canadian Council of Criminal Defence Lawyers, told the Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs that explicitly covering suicide bombing in the Code can help prosecute and punish the organizers, teachers and sponsors.

The House of Commons has a unique opportunity to be an example to the world. I ask that all MPs support covering suicide bombing explicitly by passing Bill S-205, a made-in-Canada initiative, to ensure that anyone who organizes, teaches or sponsors suicide bombing is criminally liable in Canada. Bill S-205 promotes a worthy aim and is deserving of the support of all hon. members of this House.

Accordingly, I wish to congratulate our hon. friend for bringing the bill before Parliament.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for bringing this bill, on behalf of a Senate colleague, to the House for our attention.

At the end of her speech, the member, who I know well and who is a good member of Parliament, referred to elements of what would constitute being a suicide bomber. It would seem to me that is very relevant. So, I want to ask her if she is aware of whether or not there is in fact a definition, presently, in the legislation of what constitutes being a suicide bomber. If there is not, the matters that she just raised about someone who organizes or participates in or is somehow involved would probably be problematic, I guess. I assume there is a clarification with regard to that definition. Maybe she could help the House.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I believe that the bill proposes to amend the Criminal Code to clarify that suicide bombings fall within the definition of “terrorist activity” contained in the Code. The term “terrorist activity” is currently defined in paragraphs 83.01(1)(a) and (b) of the Criminal Code.

The amendment would ensure that the definition not be overly broad or vague and that it would still fulfill its intended purpose. The proposed amendment is designed to provide for maximum precision regarding what forms of suicide bombing are included in the definition of “terrorist activity”.

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I sat and listened to the member's speech and I looked around. I know we are never to make mention of certain people in the gallery, but we have representation from the Senate here; we have representation from her constituency office. I think everyone I see when I look around here, even on the opposition sides, is supportive of the idea of this.

In her speech, she spoke about many different people who have come onside and said legislation like this is needed. She talked about former prime ministers, leaders of other political parties, and I do not know if perhaps even representation from the judiciary was mentioned. However, I wonder if the hon. member would mind telling us specifically why she believes that legislation like this is important, and also whether she believes that passing a bill such as this one it would provide leadership, and would show that Canada is in a position of leadership and is really a beacon for other countries to do the same.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK]

Mr. Speaker, suicide attacks are intended to kill and maim innocent people and inflict extensive property damage. Attackers are often prepared to die in the process, and when we consider the alarming rate at which suicide bombings are taking place in our world today, I believe it is important for us to support this bill.

No other country is known to refer specifically to suicide bombing in its definition of terrorism and terrorist activity, so Canada would be the first to signal its abhorrence of these cowardly acts. I do believe that we would be demonstrating tremendous leadership by passing this bill and amending the act to include suicide bombing as a criminal act.

[Andrew Kania, Liberal, Brampton West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, for the benefit of persons who might be listening at home, I would like to simply start with the bill.

The summary of the bill says the following:

This enactment amends the Criminal Code to clarify that suicide bombings fall within the definition “terrorist activity”.

This is a very short bill. It is essentially one paragraph.

It says:

Section 83.01 of the Criminal Code is amended by adding the following...:

(1.2) For greater certainty, a suicide bombing is an act that comes within paragraph (a) and (b) of the definition "terrorist activity"...

If people suspect that suicide bombings would already be illegal under the Criminal Code, they would be right. The question is really why this is occurring.

I want to be clear that I do support this. I am not challenging that this is happening. I think it should be happening, but I think we have to ask why it is happening.

I think it is happening because we want to bring attention to the fact that suicide bombings are so horrible. One particular statistic shocks me. Between the years 2000 and 2004, there were 472 known suicide bombings in 22 different countries resulting in more than 7,000 people killed and tens of thousands wounded.

To highlight this, and I think my friend is correct, I do believe we are the first country in the world to do this. I think doing this is a positive step. I support it fully, and it should go to committee.

I also want to ask why this is occurring. I do not think it is enough to simply say we should outlaw this or change the definition. We need to really address the root causes of this in the first place. There are many victims. I have read about this. I think there are larger questions as to why it is occurring and what to do about it.

Let us look into that. People are not born to be suicide bombers. They are not born to do this. They come to this point through education, poverty or whatever the reasons may be, but this is not a natural state. Why does this happen? Part of it is pure education. People are taught to hate by some people. We need to do something about that.

The fact that we are actually amending our legislation to change the definition is something that should be noted and should allow us to be a leader in trying to educate people around the world about what a tragedy this is for many people.

I have read stories about children who are essentially bought to be suicide bombers for money. They have poor families. They do this and their families get paid, and they then get respect.

We, of course, are not supporting that in any way, but that is a tragedy as well. We need to do something on a larger scale to solve these problems. Education is part of that, and I think Canada should take an initiative.

Something that we have forgotten, in my view, is Canada's traditional role as peacekeepers and those who assist with development. I would like to see Canada go back more to the Lester Pearson days of doing that sort of proactive work in various countries to prevent things like this. We will never stop it entirely, but we could improve the situation, to make the world a better place and, by definition, a safer place.

How do we do that? I have already mentioned education, but there is also the alleviation of poverty. In particular I would like to quote from my own experience. I have two law degrees, one from Toronto and a Master of Laws from Leicester University in England, the latter in European Union law.

The first thing they taught us was why the European Union was formed. It was not for economic purposes, although it started as the European Coal and Steel Community. It was to avoid further conflict. They became unified and they started the long process, because they had gone through two horrible world wars and lost millions of lives.

We, in my view, should be developing a department of peace or a subcommittee or a sub-ministry, whatever it may be. Canadians should take a lead to help with development. I decided not to be partisan in this speech but I will say one thing. One of the reasons I am so disappointed that the government cut the funding to Africa is that we should be doing more development, not less. That is one example of how things need to be changed.

We need to have our representatives going abroad throughout the world trying to help in difficult situations, creating peace and also developing the world's economy so that states beside each other can have something to lose. Right now, the European states could never think about going to war against each other, which was the purpose of the economic union.

We want that between neighbouring countries, which, for this particular terrorist activity, would, hopefully, alleviate some of the things that occur. Within poorer countries, where suicide bombers originate, we want to try to raise the level of their standards of living. We want them to have something to lose. I do not believe that the ordinary state of persons is to commit evil. It is to live productive lives, but we need to help them do that.

In short, I support this initiative because it is worthy. We need to do whatever we can to show how much we stand against this sort of activity. I compliment the people responsible for bringing this forward. In addition, Canada has an obligation to do more than we have done, and certainly more than we have done in the last four years. We need to help with development. We need to become re-engaged in the peace process and the development process to help make this a better world and to reduce the sort of criminal activity that does take place.

[Thierry St-Cyr, Bloc, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we have before us Bill S-205, whose purpose is to include suicide bombing in the definition of a terrorist act. We support this bill because we are very concerned about the safety and protection of all citizens and suicide attacks on civilians are considered barbaric acts that are contrary to the values of Quebec society and the general respect for life. A number of suicide bombings have been carried out just recently in various parts of the world, and we think legislation should be passed.

This is obviously a very serious matter of great concern. When people see bills like this one legislating on suicide bombings, they may be tempted to smile a little and wonder what can possibly be done. Is the government going to impose minimum sentences on suicide bombers, or even the death penalty? Of course not. We are not talking here about people who succeed in these attacks. We are talking instead about all the activities that surround them. As soon as something is considered a terrorist activity, a serious of legal tools become available that can be used, for example, to get at the funding of the activity, the act of conspiring to commit these attacks, or encouraging someone to commit these attacks or failing to discourage them. A whole array of things can be done all around the possible perpetrators of suicide bombings, even though nothing can be done about the bombers themselves once they have carried out their attack.

This is a bill that we will support. If I am not mistaken, there is unanimous support for it in the House. I do not think there will be any objections. It is a clear, simple bill. There is a main clause dealing with the definition. I want to take advantage of this opportunity to point out how easily we can achieve results in the House without prolonging the debate when legislation is introduced that is simple and has consensus support, with no poison pills. I do not think that there will be many parties today that will try to prolong the debate indefinitely.

The government should learn from the debate this evening and proceed, for example, with measures like the one the Bloc Québécois is proposing to abolish conditional release for white collar criminals after they have served one-sixth of their sentence.

All the parties say they agree. We have introduced a bill. It is ready. It has been drafted. We have asked for unanimous consent of all the parties to pass it at all stages. This bill could already be in the Senate. But no, the Conservative government does not want that. For partisan reasons, it wants to delay this sort of proposal by the Bloc Québécois. It wants to present other proposals like the ones we debated earlier today.

We are anxious to see what will happen with this proposal to abolish parole for white collar criminals who have served one-sixth of their sentence. The Conservatives will likely put it in a bill with a poison pill. They will likely combine it with another measure they know we do not support, in order to make political hay.

I believe that the government should stop doing this sort of thing. It should learn from the bill before us and introduce simple bills that everyone can agree on, so that we can proceed quickly, without a poison pill. Once we have done that, we can tackle the issues on which there is less consensus.

That is what I have to say about this bill. I hope the government will see that good bills on which the parties agree can be passed quickly in this House.

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to this bill. I think I speak for all of my colleagues in the New Democratic Party, although this is private members' hour, that I sense a consensus in this chamber and a great deal of support for the initiative that is before us.

It would only be appropriate to acknowledge the hard work of Senator Grafstein, who has been promoting and who initiated this bill many years ago. It has taken quite a number of years to get to this point due to various elections, prorogations, starts and stops, and here we are in 2009 with a bill that would make a difference in terms of sending a clear message to the world that this country stands firmly against terrorism and does so by way of suggesting that suicide bombing represents a terrorist act.

Some would argue that is redundant, that in fact there is legislation that already covers that. Some would suggest that we do not really need this bill because it is covered. As Senator Grafstein himself has said, this bill would send a clear message of abhorrence and condemnation to those who would praise, plan or incite suicide bombing against innocent citizens.

Sometimes that is as important as anything else we do in this place. Whether this is redundant or not is beside the point. It matters because it would send a very strong, clear message that we in this House, representing Canadians from all walks of life, stand together against any expression of terrorism, specifically with respect to suicide bombers.

We know, by all accounts, that we are dealing with a very serious threat on a regular basis. I will quote from Senator Grafstein's speech that he made in February of this year, in which he said:

Suicide bombing has become an all too frequent practice in many countries throughout the world. Thousands of civilians are killed and maimed to advance a cause based on falsely implanted expectations of glory and martyrdom. We say no cause can justify suicide bombing.

He went on to say:

Bill S-206 aims beyond those who strap explosives to their bodies and look where they can cause maximum pain, suffering, death and dismemberment. It will help focus on those who promote terrorism by teaching, organizing and financing the killers in the name of ill-conceived ideology, distorted belief or abhorrent political conviction. The amendment will assist law enforcement agencies to pursue the individuals promoting this heinous tactic.

That says it all. We do not need long debates on this matter. It is just so obvious that we all need to be behind this effort. What we need to do today is give a clear voice, as soon as this debate is over, that we agree with this bill and have it become law as soon as possible. We can then use the moment to actually talk about some of the other initiatives that need to happen in this regard.

On that basis, I would like to also acknowledge the work of other groups and individuals who have been trying to find ways to stem terrorism in our society today. I would mention the work of the Canadian Coalition Against Terror and the work of Danny Eisen, Sheryl Saperia and Maureen Basnicki who, as all of us know, have been active on this Hill advancing other ideas with respect to terrorism and trying very hard to develop ways to combat terror financing and, by extension, terrorism itself. There is another initiative on that front coming from the Senate that we also should look at very seriously and ensure its hasty passage.

With respect to the bill at hand, Senator Grafstein has worked for many years in collaboration with many individuals who have been part of this group called Canadians Against Suicide Bombing. As we know, there have been five previous prime ministers who have supported this initiative and we know that other major leaders of high public profile in this country also support this bill. I think particularly of my former leader, Ed Broadbent, who has been very much in favour of this approach and very much onside with this initiative.

Let us take this moment to congratulate Senator Grafstein for pursuing this over many years. Let us ensure that we do what is only right and what reflects Canadians' values. Let us ensure the bill's hasty passage.

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I also consider it to be a real pleasure to stand in this place and debate Bill S-205. It started in the Senate. It has already been mentioned, but I thank Senator Grafstein for drafting this bill.

I also specifically want to thank our member for Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar. Very seldom do we have the opportunity to work together. That member of Parliament sponsored this bill to come forward in this House. As we have seen today, she has been able to work with all members of the House to bring us together and have a consensus on this one bill. As a new member of Parliament, she has shown us that she works hard. Bringing forward a bill like this one is significant and I wanted to commend her for doing that.

I am pleased to support this bill. It proposes to specifically include suicide bombing in the definition of “terrorist activity” in the Criminal Code. This bill would add a for greater certainty clause, after section 83.01 of the Criminal Code, which would specify that suicide bombing comes within paragraphs (a) and (b) of the definition of “terrorist activity” when committed in the context of a terrorist activity.

As has already been talked about, this bill has had a long history in the Senate. It has been introduced four times from 2005 to 2008, but all previous versions of the bill died on the order paper. That is one of the things about a minority government. It seems that we are having so many elections. So much good legislation ends up dying on the order paper. One version, Bill S-210, was passed by the Senate on June 16, 2008.

I recognize that the current definition of “terrorist activity” contained in the Criminal Code already implicitly encompasses suicide bombing when committed in the context of terrorism. If we look at the definition of “terrorist activity” in the code, it incorporates criminal conduct as envisioned by the International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings, which is one of the United Nations' counterterrorism conventions. The second part of the definition includes terrorist activity which intentionally causes death or serious bodily harm or endangers a person's life. However, it is also true that the words “suicide bombing” are not expressly mentioned in the present definition of “terrorist activity”. There is considerable support for the specific criminalization of suicide bombing as part of the terrorist activity defined in the code.

Canadians Against Suicide Bombing, a Toronto-based group led by a former judge, has been particularly supportive of the objectives behind Bill S-205. The group established an online petition in support of the bill. Many prominent Canadians from all walks of life have signed an open letter of support for this bill.

I have had the pleasure of serving in Parliament for nine years. As the elected representative of the constituency of Crowfoot in Alberta, I have served in a number of different capacities in my parliamentary duties. Right now, I have the pleasure of chairing the House of Commons Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development.

One of the opportunities that I have as the chair of the foreign affairs committee is to sit down with ambassadors from many different countries. In the last couple of days, I had the pleasure of sitting with the high commissioner from Pakistan. I think that everyone in the House understands what Pakistan is facing today. Pakistan is facing a barrage from the Taliban and terrorist groups there. We commend Pakistan on the way it is standing up to that direct line of fire, in some cases as its military goes in to try to rid the country of terrorist activity.

The topic he brought to my attention was the fear in which many people in that country live, not out on the battlefield, not in the valleys or up in the hills as they go after the Taliban or al Qaeda or other terrorist groups, but the fear in the malls and shopping centres because of terrorist activity in the towns and cities, in Islamabad and in other places, the fear of suicide bombers.

We see this more and more around the world. We see it in Iraq. We see the huge fear in Israel where people go through a metal detector before going into a mall. Their bags and backpacks are checked before they go into a shopping mall. Why? Because they have a fear of terrorist bombing. We see it in places like Pakistan and obviously in Afghanistan, where we have lost many, many troops to roadside bombs, but also to suicide bombers.

Among other things, we have studied the impact of suicide bombing in our mission in Afghanistan. Brave Canadian men and women are being targeted by suicide bombers. They see the vehicle coming toward them. They look at the eyes of the person and they watch as the person reaches into his pocket to detonate the explosives that blow up the vehicle and ignite many other explosions. We are losing far too many people from that.

I have also had the pleasure of serving as the opposition critic for public safety and emergency preparedness when we brought forward Bill C-36, the anti-terrorism bill. Again, so much of our committee time is taken up talking about the suicide bombers in many of these countries.

A number of years ago I served as the vice-chair of the subcommittee on national security. That was another committee that spent so much time concerned with bringing forward and helping to draft legislation, influence legislation that would address issues like suicide bombing. I do not want to read my resumé; that is not what I am trying to do here. But I am trying to point out that this place has been dealing with criminal and national security issues in many different committees. We are dealing with issues like the suicide bombing and it is taking up a lot of energy and a lot of time here in the House.

The main thing I learned, which is applicable in our debate today, is that when a person, a community, a nation or even the international community is threatened by violence, we have to do something about it. For that again I commend our senator and I commend our minister, I mean our member for Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar--I called her a minister; she is a member, but I think someday she will be a minister--for bringing this forward.

That is what Bill S-205 is accomplishing. The bill is doing something about suicide bombing. It is specific and that is what I like about it. That is why I support it. That is why I am very pleased to look around this place and see every party pledging their support for the bill.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I was hoping that this debate would collapse tonight because this is significant. One of our colleagues from the other place, Senator Grafstein, I understand will be retiring in December and this is his swan song. This is his last opportunity to make yet another contribution to the Parliament of Canada which includes the Senate.

We are in an interesting Parliament. It is quite uncertain what is going to happen next week, a week or two from now, or even tomorrow. Since we have the support of all members on the bill, we have an opportunity under our rules to allow this debate simply to collapse. No more people would stand up, the mover of the bill would speak for the last five minutes and then we would have a vote and we would pass Bill S-205 tonight as a tribute to our colleague, Senator Grafstein.

It does not look as though that is going to happen. I do not know why, but I am a little concerned that given the uncertainty of this place the bill could in fact never come back before this Parliament. There are a number of ways that could happen. Certainly one would be the call of an election. Another possibility would be that even though the bill would go down to the bottom of the order paper which--

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I do not believe that the hon. member has said anything about the bill at this point. I think the time reserved for these speeches is a time reserved to speak to the bill. I know that we have members on this side of the House who wish to speak to the bill.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

I am not sure that is a point of order. The hon. member for Mississauga South.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

I hear the member, Mr. Speaker. I did hear all the other speakers talk about Senator Grafstein as well.

There is this issue, and it has to do with the hon. senator, that bills can be traded up and down on the order paper. This one might go down to position number 20. That means 20 sitting days from now it would come up for its second hour and then there would be a vote on the following Wednesday.

I am a bit concerned that there is a risk that the bill may never come back and that would be a shame. I think everybody would understand why.

We always want to fete our colleagues in both chambers who have done such great service to Parliament. I am a bit saddened that we cannot seem to have agreement to let this debate collapse so that we can allow the senator to enjoy yet another victory on behalf of Canadians and Canadian legislation.

Bill S-205 is a simple bill but a meaningful bill. Sometimes a word or two makes all the difference in the world in terms of its application.

The bill would amend the Criminal Code of Canada. This particular bill is seeking an amendment to Section 83.01 of the Criminal Code by adding the following subsection 1.1. “For greater certainty” is the title of this paragraph. Subsection 1.2 says:

For greater certainty, a suicide bombing is an act that comes within paragraph (a) or (b) of the definition “terrorist activity” in subsection (1) if it satisfies the criteria of that paragraph.

That substantively is the bill. It is not very much. It also says that it comes into force at a date fixed by order of governor in council. That is another reason why it is important to deal with this now because it will not come into force when royal assent is granted. It will only come into force when cabinet gives an order in council making it law. Even then, once it gets that, it depends on whether it is proclaimed.

There are many other steps in the legislative process that have to happen, and if we have to wait another 20 or 30 sitting days it may not happen before the senator has to leave the red chamber and retire, and not get the credit that is due him.

I am going to appeal to other members in the chamber. We have enough time to still make this happen. I think it is the honourable thing to do. I do not know of any reason why anyone would want to delay this legislation since there is unanimous support for it. There is no misunderstanding of its intent.

I simply want to appeal to members in all sincerity to heed the good wishes, the goodwill, that all hon. colleagues who have already spoken have expressed to Senator Grafstein. We could make this happen. There are substantive reasons why it should happen tonight. People who would like to have it happen should maybe speak to others to determine whether or not there is good reason for it not to happen.

I am going to conclude my remarks. I do not intend to speak out the clock just for the sake of speaking. I support the bill. All hon. members support the bill. All parties support the bill. All opposition parties, the Bloc, the NDP and the Liberals have agreed not to put up any further speakers so that we have this opportunity. I offer it to the Conservatives now to allow this debate to collapse so that we can have our vote and give Senator Grafstein his due reward.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to stand and speak in favour of Bill S-205. I must begin my remarks, though, questioning the remarks just made by the hon. member for Mississauga South.

As is well known in this place and probably throughout Canada for those people who watch the parliamentary channel, I do not think there is a member in this place, either now or in recent history, who has not stood and spoken to more and varied pieces of legislation and bills than the member for Mississauga South. Yet, he stands here today and, in effect, admonishes everyone who wants to speak to this bill. It makes no sense to me.

If I recall correctly, a few years ago a university student, on his own, on a volunteer basis, started charting the number of words spoken in the House. I guess it was to try to equate loquaciousness or the number of words spoken with hard work or perseverance. I am not sure exactly what the intent of the study was, but he put the study together and created a chart with all 308 members, including Speakers, and it showed how many words were spoken.

I can certainly say without fear of retribution that the member for Mississauga South was quite near the top of that list. I would suggest that if we look from year to year, the member for Mississauga South would be near the top of the list of words spoken every year.

It surprises me to hear the member say this. The member for Mississauga South is a very experienced, knowledgeable member of this place, who has at least on two occasions that I am aware of, and I give due credit to my colleague, won the prestigious Hill Times award for hardest working MP in the House. That is something he should be very proud of.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Three times.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

I stand corrected by the hon. member.

I believe one of the main reasons that he has won those awards is because he stands in this place at almost every opportunity when a piece of legislation or a private member's bill comes in and speaks to it. He obviously thinks it is important to stand, from his own perspective, but yet he admonishes and criticizes others who would do the same thing.

He references the fact that his Liberal colleague, Senator Grafstein, is looking at this piece of legislation as perhaps his legacy as he works his way to retirement, which I understand is going to occur in just a few months. We wish the good senator well in his retirement and hope that he is able to find something to occupy his time as actively as his senatorial duties have over the past number of years. Nonetheless, with all due respect to the senator, there are members in the House who want the opportunity to speak, not only on this bill but other bills.

If we were to take the advice of the hon. member for Mississauga South and collapse this debate, I would suggest that may set a very poor precedent. I would not say a dangerous precedent but a very poor one, for other members, particularly rookie members who come into the chamber on nights like this prepared to speak, sometimes giving their maiden speech, sometimes giving a speech because they want to overcome a fear of nervousness or the ability to articulate, or to speak extemporaneously for a number of reasons.

Members of Parliaments come in here day after day, evening after evening wishing to speak to a particular piece of legislation. Yet, this member, an experienced member of Parliament, stands and dares criticize members not only on this side of the House but I dare say he criticizes members from all sides of the House when he says we should let this debate collapse.

I do not think that is appropriate. Even though the admonishment may have been in what he considers to be in the best interests of this bill and the senator, I do not believe it is appropriate.

I hope the member for Mississauga South reconsiders his remarks the next time he stands on his feet to speak to a bill that perhaps has been close to exhaustion in terms of the words spoken, the rhetoric and the points made. I have made my point and I hope my hon. colleague from Mississauga South gives it very careful consideration before he utters such an admonishment in the future.

Let me speak briefly about the bill itself.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Hear, hear!

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

I thank the hon. member for Mississauga South for his encouragement. Finally, it appears that he has changed his mind. He has encouraged me to actually speak to the bill and I thank him for that. I think that is a very positive sign. It speaks to the level of conviviality and the level of co-operation we are now starting to see occur in the House.

I should also add before I go on to my remarks about this particular bill that the member for Mississauga South seemed to question the motivation of members wanting to get up on their feet and speak to the bill. I would suggest simply this. Now that the official opposition, the Liberal Party of Canada, has backed down from its threat to force an unwanted and unnecessary election, there is more opportunity for that level of co-operation among all members, and I welcome that.

I think Canadians welcome that. I would merely say that if the member for Mississauga South was one of the members behind that decision to step back, to reverse themselves from that terrible decision of a few weeks ago, when the Leader of the Opposition said to the Prime Minister that his time was up, and that he would oppose this government and attempt to bring this government down at every opportunity. So, I congratulate that member--

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Order, please. The hon. member for Mississauga South is rising on a point of order.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member has been given a lot of latitude, but he is well aware of relevance to the matter before us. His time is almost up. I would certainly indicate that the only reason this is happening is that the Conservatives have decided to put up three more speakers and talk it out anyway. Therefore, they have not good faith whatsoever on this bill.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

I would encourage all members of the House to remember that there is an item before us and that all remarks ought to be relevant to that item. The hon. parliamentary secretary to the House leader.