Debates of Dec. 2nd, 2010

Opposition Motion—West Coast Oil Tanker Traffic

[Randy Kamp, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to participate in this debate about oil tanker traffic in coastal British Columbia, my home province.

This debate is important because it is about both economic development in B.C. and the protection of our beautiful coastal environment that we have been blessed with.

I would like to use my brief time to share with you some of the important work that our government has done to protect our oceans and the unique and biologically diverse marine ecosystems found on our Pacific coast.

Over the last few years we have put in place a number of mitigation, regulatory and protection measures that cover the treasured and spectacular ecosystems of our Pacific coast. Anyone who has been there can attest to this.

In the few minutes available to me, I want to explain how these actions demonstrate that our government continues to take action to protect the marine environment, while at the same time providing the opportunities needed to sustain our regional communities and their economies.

I will describe to the House how the measures already in place and the efforts under way make it unnecessary to bring about a legislated ban at this time on oil tanker traffic in this region as proposed by my colleagues from the NDP.

I want to assure this House that the Government of Canada is serious about the long-term protection of our oceans. We recognize that they have critical importance to all Canadians. They are a source of food, a means to mitigate the impacts of climate change and to improve our air quality, and are important for trade, commerce, adventure and discovery.

The ocean has shaped our customs, traditions and fisheries culture. They are an invaluable driver of the economy in coastal communities of British Columbia.

That is why in 2007 we announced a $61.5 million investment over five years toward the health of the oceans initiative. The intent of this initiative is to enhance the protection of fragile marine environments and to counter pollution. It does this by strengthening pollution prevention at source. It will also increase our capacity to lessen the effects of pollution when and where it occurs.

We all know how important science is for decision-making. Therefore, under the health of the oceans initiative, we are also investing in science to better understand the oceans.

It is important to this government to ensure that we also work with our international partners.

This initiative enhances our ability to work with our partners in order to promote co-operation. Such co-operation will work towards the ultimate goal of ensuring healthy and prosperous oceans for the benefit of current and future generations of Canadians.

Central to this initiative is the development of a national network of marine protected areas in Canada and the establishment of new Oceans Act marine protected areas in our three oceans. This initiative complements the already substantial efforts in place in British Columbia to protect our bountiful oceans.

The figures speak for themselves. The total number of marine protected areas in place in British Columbia is 183, including 10 federal areas and 173 areas established by the Province of B.C. In fact, almost 2.8% of the marine area in the Pacific region is under some level of enhanced protection.

Oceans Act marine protected areas in British Columbia established by the Government of Canada include the Endeavour hydrothermal vents southwest of Vancouver Island and the Bowie seamount, located west of the Queen Charlotte Islands.

Hydrothermal venting systems such as those found at the Endeavour MPA host one of the highest levels of microbial diversity and animal abundance on earth. In fact, Endeavour is home to 12 species that do not exist anywhere else in the world.

The Bowie seamount marine protected area, a complex of three offshore submarine volcanoes located about 180 kilometres off the shores of Haida Gwaii, is also an area of unprecedented biological diversity and uniqueness.

The seamount at Bowie rise from a depth of 3,000 metres to within 24 metres of the surface, making it the shallowest seamount in Canada. To the Haida Nation, the indigenous people who played a key role in establishing the protected area, this area is called Sgaan Kinghlas, which means in their language, “supernatural being looking outward”.

Preserving important marine resources that sustain communities and regional economies is a priority for this government. That is why, on June 7 of this year, my former colleague Jim Prentice tabled an amendment to the Canada National Marine Conservation Areas Act to formally establish the Gwaii Haanas national marine conservation area reserve and Haida heritage site.

This area has lovingly been referred to as the Galapagos of the north and its protection was indeed a great moment in our history. In total, the combined existing park reserve and new national marine conservation area in Gwaii Haanas protects over 5,000 square kilometres of spectacular wilderness from alpine mountain tops to the deep sea beyond the continental shelf, a first for Canada, North America and even for the world.

This great milestone was as a result of a historic and outstanding collaborative partnership between the Government of Canada and the Haida Nation. Parks Canada, Fisheries and Oceans Canada and the Haida Nation will continue to share in the planning, operations and management of the area to ensure the future health of our oceans as well as sustainable fishing opportunities.

It is worth commenting briefly on the amount of time and energy devoted to an undertaking as historic as the Gwaii Haanas National Marine Conservation Area, both by the dedicated public servants and the committed leadership of the Haida Nation and specifically to the devotion of my former colleague, Jim Prentice.

As minister of the environment, Mr. Prentice made this project a priority and provided the leadership needed to bring it to fruition.

Guujaaw, the president of the Haida Nation, called the event “a true changing of the tides” and indeed it was.

In fact, if members have the opportunity to go to Haida Gwaii and meet with Guujaaw, they will find him to be a very interesting and impressive leader. He played a very key role in the development of this marine protected area and this national marine conservation area as well.

Additionally, other groups, such as the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society and the World Wildlife Federation of Canada, were involved in this and they applauded the move, which they said was reached after two decades of discussion.

In fact, Darcy Dobell, vice-president of the Pacific conservation with World Wildlife Federation Canada said of the announcement, “We're definitely excited about the designation. It's definitely a landmark for oceans management”, and we believe it is.

It was an international landmark in oceans management and it was achieved under our Conservative government. As the environmental organizations said at the time, for decades there were discussions about protecting this area of our coast. However, it took the leadership of this government, of the Prime Minister and of our former colleague, Jim Prentice, to take those discussions and make them a reality. In so doing, they positioned Canada as true global leader in oceans management.

However, we are not stopping here.

On Oceans Day 2010, my colleague the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans announced a new area of interest for potential designation as a marine protected area under the Oceans Act, the Hecate Strait sponge reefs.

Sponge reefs of this size, over 1,000 square kilometres, have not been found elsewhere in the world. Made out of silica or glass, as most of us would call it, these reefs are extremely fragile and warrant the long-term protection a marine protected area designation would provide.

We are continuing to ensure protection of other ecologically important areas of the ocean by moving forward in implementing our health of the oceans initiative.

The Government of Canada is also working with provincial and territorial colleagues to establish a national network of marine protected areas, as I mentioned already. This is done through the developing of a national framework for Canada's network of marine protected areas, a process through which we can work together to plan and then implement these MPAs.

A network of marine protected areas strategically built and located has real and tangible benefits for our country. These MPAs can help restore and maintain a healthy marine environment and build in resilience or insurance against current or future stressors such as marine traffic, climate change, even habitat destruction and pollution.

Essentially what these marine protected areas provide are healthy oceans and good health helps us fight off malady.

Marine protected areas can improve the economy of coastal communities. They do so by providing conservation and tourism-related employment opportunities. Also, since the creation of marine protected areas can result in the size and abundance of fish, they can create spill over benefits to adjacent fishing grounds. This can translate into fisheries benefits over time, including higher catches, increased catch rates and reductions in fishing effort.

Marine protected areas can also contribute to the economic and socio-cultural well-being of coastal communities, including supporting subsistence and traditional harvesting of marine resources carried out by aboriginal peoples.

They can also contribute to climate change mitigation by protecting certain marine habitats that are especially good at absorbing carbon dioxide. Coastal habitats such as salt marshes, sea grasses and mangroves account for less than half of 1% of the world's seabed, but studies have shown that they can store up to 71% of the total amount of carbon found in ocean sediments.

Marine protected areas can also facilitate adaptation to climate change impacts through the protection of ecologically significant habitats as well as through protection of multiple sites of similar habitat types.

It is important to note that in addition to our emerging network of marine protected areas in British Columbia, there are also hundreds of other conservation measures in our toolbox, including fishery closures, marine mammal management areas, protected critical habitat for species at risk, first nations community conserved areas and coastal lands owned or managed by non-government organizations that contribute to the health of oceans. We cannot do it alone. We are in many partnerships that contribute to the health of our oceans.

The Government of Canada's efforts to protect our amazing and abundant oceans do not stop at the establishment of marine protected areas. Through the Pacific north coast integrated ocean management area planning initiative, which we call PNCIMA, covering British Columbia's central and north coast, we are engaging regulators, first nations, the marine shipping industry and a diversity of other interests to help understand and mitigate any potential environmental risks associated with shipping in British Columbia.

PNCIMA is one of five large ocean management areas in Canada. It is a collaborative partnership among the Government of Canada, coastal first nations and the province of B.C. The goal is to ensure a healthy, safe and prosperous ocean. Through this planning process, all interested parties will be engaged in an effort to develop an integrated oceans management plan by 2012. The entire area identified for the proposed ban is within PNCIMA.

Through the PNCIMA planning process, a balance will be struck between the conservation and protection of Canada's oceans and the sustainable development of its resources. This will generate economic prosperity for all Canadians, while ensuring a healthy and sustainable ocean.

We are committed to having an open and transparent process to discuss a range of issues within the PNCIMA process. It is at this forum where all views can be voiced and input provided to federal and provincial regulators.

This planning process will increase our ability to forecast and address future developments and needs, improve certainty and stability for industry, reduce conflict between user groups and improve the integration of multiple uses and coordination of new and existing processes.

The Government of Canada recognizes that healthy and resilient ecosystems are of fundamental importance if our oceans are to be capable of providing diverse economic opportunities and the generation of wealth for Canadians and coastal communities in particular.

Additionally, our government continues to provide our scientists with the resources they need to better manage our oceans. Under Canada's economic action plan, our government invested over $30 million to upgrade DFO laboratories across the country. This included $5.3 million to upgrades at the Pacific Biological Station in Nanaimo and $2.9 million in improvements to the Institute for Oceans Sciences in Vancouver.

We are also partnering with others to better understand our oceans, for example, the venus and neptune programs through Ocean Networks Canada. These world-class projects, that established cabled ocean observatories, combine the expertise of government scientists with leading academics and non-governmental organizations and provide real time data on the health of our oceans. They are very interesting projects.

Therefore, I hope members would agree that our government is demonstrating through actions, not just words, that we are committed to the health of our oceans. In fact, with historic success like the Gwaii Haanas national marine conservation area reserve and Haida heritage site, we are leading the way around the world.

It is clear that with the multitude of mitigation, regulatory and protection measures, voluntary and otherwise, which are already in place and efforts under way, we do not need a legislated ban on oil tanker traffic in this region.

I know some of my opposition colleagues may say that an oil spill does not recognize the boundaries of a marine protected area. Marine protected areas are special places that have been designed to improve the resiliency of our oceans. They work in combination with a suite of other management measures and planning processes to provide an overall approach to managing our marine environment.

There is no one magic bullet, but we are working across government, with partners and Canadians, to ensure the protection of our marine resources in British Columbia and throughout this great land for today and the future.

[The Acting Speaker, Denise Savoie]

It being 5:15 p.m., it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings. Pursuant to an order made earlier today, the question is deemed put and a recorded division deemed requested. The recorded division stands deferred until Tuesday, December 7, 2010, at the ordinary hour of daily adjournment.

[David Sweet, Conservative, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. If you were to seek it, I believe you would find unanimous consent to see the clock at 5:30 p.m.

[The Acting Speaker, Denise Savoie]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Acting Speaker, Denise Savoie]

The House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill S-215, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (suicide bombings), as reported (without amendment) from the committee.

Criminal Code

[The Acting Speaker, Denise Savoie]

There being no amendment motions at report stage, the House will now proceed without debate to the putting of the question on the motion to concur in the bill at report stage.

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

moved that the bill be concurred in at report stage.

(Motion agreed to)

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

moved that the bill be read the third time and passed.

Madam Speaker, I wish to speak briefly in support to Bill S-215 for what I hope will be the last time.

The bill has a long history. Bill S-215 was preceded by four earlier versions, commencing as Bill S-43, which was introduced in 2005 by Senator Grafstein.

Today, after Senator Grafstein's retirement, Bill S-215 is sponsored in the other place by Senator Frum, and I have the privilege of sponsoring it in the House.

Bill S-215 is a short bill, but it has a very important purpose, and that is to denounce the barbaric practice of suicide bombing as a form of terrorism, an act which is contemptuous of the most fundamental values that Canadians hold dear, life, human dignity, liberty and security. The bill proposes to add a for greater certainty clause to the definition of terrorist activity.

By enacting this clause, Parliament would achieve three results. It would specifically denounce suicide bombing as a particularly heinous form of terrorist activity. It would help to educate Canadians that suicide bombings that are designed to kill or cause harm in the context of terrorist activity are acts of terrorism to be abhorred, not praised. Perhaps most important, Canada would show leadership to the world, since, to my knowledge, no other country has specifically referred to suicide bombing in their legal definitions of terrorism.

The bill has been carefully considered by both houses of Parliament and appropriate amendments have been made accordingly. It is time to pass the bill and I would strongly urge all members of the House to support its passage.

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, the member is absolutely correct. In my time in politics, I have never seen a bill that has been supported unanimously by all parties in an assembly but has taken five years to get to this stage. In June, we were dealing with the issue of pardons for Karla Homolka and we managed to unanimously pass measures within a day and a half in this House that dealt with the issue.

One of the important parts of this bill is that we are attempting to actually punish the organizers, teachers and sponsors of suicide bombing operations because, in my view, they are the real cowards. They will promote it, encourage families to get involved in it and finance it, and they will build the explosives but are not willing to put on the vest and carry out the act themselves.

Could the member explain briefly how this bill would serve to get at the organizers, teachers and sponsors?

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

Madam Speaker, the member is absolutely correct. This bill would enable prosecutors to prosecute those who seek to educate, train and encourage individuals to commit these heinous acts.

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, I think the member would probably agree with me that suicide bombing is already covered under the Criminal Code. In fact, by passing this bill we will not only be establishing ourselves as a leader, the first nation in the world to specifically deal with this as a Criminal Code issue, but this should give leadership, at least on the part of Canada, to other jurisdictions in the world to perhaps look at doing the same sort of measure.

While we have not had a history of suicide bombing in this country yet, it is possibly only a matter of time before we do. We could have looked at England 20 or 30 years ago. People would have been shocked if they had realized what the future of that sort of activity was to become in England. People would not have believed it in 1970, right? We saw all the different activity we had there.

Would the member please expand on whether she believes it is a possibility that those activities could come to Canada?

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

Madam Speaker, absolutely. I think 9/11 demonstrated to North America and to all the world that we could be very vulnerable in terms of these kinds of violent attacks. I do believe that by passing this bill we would be showing leadership to the world and that other jurisdictions would then follow our lead and be willing to pass similar legislation.

[Brian Murphy, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Madam Speaker, I rise today with great pleasure to speak to Bill S-215.

The bill owes its origin to Senator Grafstein, who has since left the Senate and who has contributed so much to Canada in terms of its reputation abroad, internationally, through his great work on various United States-Canada committees and his great leadership in the Senate on issues of international human rights. What better way for us to honour his work than to talk about Bill S-215 today. Although he has left the Senate, his rather gravelly, loud and irresistibly strong voice can be heard in this chamber by echo today because this was his baby.

It is important for us to start out with a framework. These terrorism sections that were instituted in the Criminal Code, or passed into law in part II.1 Terrorism, came into effect in January 17, 2002. We were, as Canadians, reacting to the horror of 9/11. We were looking at the loopholes and in fact at the complete vacancy of legislation in this area and, as parliamentarians, we all came together and enacted section 83.01 and so on. It bears saying that the sections are quite complete. There are some three pages in the Criminal Code that define what a Canadian is, what an entity is, what a listed entity or scheduled terrorist entity is and what a terrorist activity is.

It is interesting that in that list of items that constitute terrorist activity is not the term “suicide bombing”. So that is what this bill attempts to do. It would not create a new offence. it is not saying that there was nothing in the field before. It is saying that we had better identify suicide bombing by the specificity that we know in common parlance where it to be.

Why is the bill important then? A study completed in 2005, three years after this terrorism part of the code was enacted, conducted by Scott Atran, in the United States, declared that:

Suicide attack is the most virulent and horrifying form of terrorism in the world today. The mere rumour of an impending suicide attack can throw thousands of people into panic.

It is a growing phenomenon. In the 1980s, there might have been five suicide attacks per year. In the 1990s, there were on average 16 attacks per year. Then, in the five year period between 2000 and 2005, there were an average of 180 attacks each year. It is a growing problem.

There will be some disagreement, perhaps, maybe even in the courts, as to whether the current definition of “terrorist activity” catches “suicide bombing” any way and whether this is superfluous and, in terms of vagueness, not legal.

However, I think our language is something like a tree that grows with time. I think even though the term “suicide bombing” is not defined in the Criminal Code, it certainly is a common word or phrase that we all know it when we see it. It is such a recent growing phenomenon that we need to lay tracks in the Criminal Code to recognize it.

In addition to paying homage to Senator Grafstein, I also want to pay homage to another great Canadian, Justice Reuben Bromstein, who is now head of an organization called Canadians Against Suicide Bombing. Judge Bromstein said that this bill, if passed into law, would:

...help build and strengthen the consensus in Canadian society on this issue; it will serve as a clear deterrent for those among us who might not be committed to this consensus; and it offers an opportunity for Canada to take the lead and send a message to further international commitment [to outlaw suicide bombing].

Canada would be the first country to include a specific reference to suicide bombing in its criminal law. That would make us a leader in an era when Canada is finding its way in international relations, to say the least.

Justice Bromstein went on to state:

...that the term “suicide bombing” is in common parlance. ...[it] triggers an instantaneous response in your head. You do not have to describe it. People know what it means.

This should allay the concerns of all courts of this country that when they see a suicide bombing, they know it is included as a terrorist offence under section 83.01 of the Criminal Code which says that terrorism shall be attacked by the Canadian justice system.

I want to render homage, as well, to the government of the day and the justice ministers of the day who recognized that this was a clear and immediate need within the Criminal Code and acted with lightning speed compared to how we get criminal legislation and Criminal Code amendments done in this era of minority Parliaments.

I think we would all agree that this is a very important bill. We all want to listen to the importance of it, too, because it makes Canada a leader in defining what a suicide bomb is.

In homage, again, to justice ministers, to Senator Grafstein and Judge Bromstein who went on to say that passing this legislation would send a signal about our values domestically, that we are a mixed society and that we cannot justify martyrdom to legitimize it.

The concern has been raised that including this expression in the Criminal Code will mean that acts not usually considered to be terrorist acts will fall into that category in future. For example, someone who commits suicide by detonating a bomb in a vacant field will be labelled a terrorist.

When the bill was drafted, care was taken to avoid expanding the definition of what constitutes a terrorist attack; the current definition was fine-tuned. Thus, someone who commits suicide by detonating a bomb on vacant land will not be covered by the definition of suicide bombing.

The reaction from stakeholders has been positive. The RCMP approves of the amendment to the Criminal Code and feels that it would be very much a useful tool for it. It is not just senators, justice ministers, parliamentarians and the RCMP who agree with the bill. We also have words of encouragement from the legal profession and the legal teaching profession.

The dean of Osgoode Hall Law School, Patrick Monahan, who was very supportive of the legislation, had this to say in three points. First he said that Parliament should adopt the bill because it would signal Canada's unequivocal condemnation of suicide bombing as the most virulent and horrifying form of terrorism in the world today.

His second point was that the phenomenon of suicide bombing has risen dramatically, as I have said, since 2001. Thousands have been killed and tens of thousands have been wounded in these attacks. Suicide terror, which a decade ago was relatively rare, has become a global reality.

His third point was that there is ongoing debate over the motivations and the psychology of suicide bombers. Evidence suggests that suicide bombers regard martyrdom for the sake of global jihad as life's noblest cause. Today's suicide bombers are increasingly as willing and eager to die as they are to kill.

We, in a civilized society, need to really give that some clinical care and observation. A person who is willing to kill himself, equal to or more than others, to further his or her aim is indeed a very dangerous individual who can change our society. That is why we must support this bill and this amendment to the Criminal Code which grows on the good work done by previous parliamentarians in addressing terrorism.

[Jean Dorion, Bloc, Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, QC]

Madam Speaker, Bill S-215, which has been introduced in the House under various titles since 2005, should have been passed back in 2005.

Incidentally, it is a shame that the Senate, where the bill languished for some time, did not heed the opinion expressed by the Barreau du Québec, which wrote to the Senate to point out that the French version of the bill referred to attentat suicide, suicide attack, whereas the English version referred to suicide bombing. “Attack” is a much broader term than “bombing”. Other sorts of attacks could also be targeted by this kind of bill.

That being said, I believe that everyone in the House should vote in favour of this bill. I know that members of my party, the Bloc Québécois, will do so.

We never lose sight of the fact that, when the Conservative government introduces amendments to the Criminal Code, its main goal is not necessarily to reduce crime rates, but to gain an electoral advantage by pretending that the Conservatives are the only ones fighting crime. We know their tactics, but that should not prevent us from supporting valid measures.

Getting back to Bill S-215, I think it can be summarized as follows: it would include suicide bombings or suicide attacks in the definition of “terrorist activity” and crack down on those who organize such attacks. We must not forget that those who organize such terrorist activities, the instigators, come out unscathed in most cases and use other people, some of whom are mentally unstable and some of whom are women or children. The instigators come out relatively unscathed because they have not, so far, been considered the perpetrators of these acts.

Our support for the measure before us rests on the fact that the Bloc Québécois cares about keeping all Quebeckers safe and protecting them from terrorist activities and suicide attacks in particular.

Suicide attacks carried out against civilian populations are barbaric and contrary to the values of the Quebec society we represent in the House and to the respect for life that all human beings should feel.

Terrorist attacks have been carried out again recently in various places around the globe and we need to bring in legislation before any such attacks happen on Canadian soil. Suicide attacks have become a more important weapon for terrorist organizations. We have seen many such examples in Afghanistan and Pakistan recently. How could we forget the recent suicide car-bomb attack on the Indian embassy in Afghanistan that killed 17 people and injured 63?

There have also been terrible attacks in Iraq that have killed hundreds and wounded hundreds more. Now there are reports that the Taliban is recruiting children to commit these attacks, thus turning them into kamikazes.

Even developed western nations are not safe from these attacks. Many will recall the terrible situation in France in 1986 when that country was forced to impose visa procedures for visitors from Canada, Brazil and a number of other countries. Not to mention the September 11, 2001, attacks in the United States, the terrible train attacks in Spain and the subway attacks in London, England. No country is safe.

Accordingly, it is extremely important that we pass this bill. It should have been passed five years ago. The members of my party will therefore vote in favour of this bill.

[The Acting Speaker, Denise Savoie]

I just want to remind hon. members that there are no questions in this private member's debate, unless the hon. member for Mount Royal was rising on a point of order.

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Madam Speaker, I wanted to enter a certain response in terms of what was being said.

[The Acting Speaker, Denise Savoie]

I am afraid there is no time allocated for responses.

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is just a point of clarification and I will tell you what it is, because my colleague from the Bloc just said that this should have been enacted in 2005. I just want to say, and it will take me one sentence, I felt at the time that we did not need--

[The Acting Speaker, Denise Savoie]

I am sorry--

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

I just want to say that I support the legislation as it now stands.

[The Acting Speaker, Denise Savoie]

I appreciate that. I believe that is part of debate and there is no opportunity for debate at this time.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Windsor--Tecumseh.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Madam Speaker, I was actually prepared to give a moment of my time to my colleague from the Liberal Party given the amount of work he has done on this issue over the years, but he managed to usurp that time in any event. I really should not be making a joke as this is a very serious piece of legislation.

As I said earlier when I first saw this private member's bill, because we have seen it on a number of different occasions, I had some serious reservations from the perspective of whether this in fact would accomplish anything. In that sense, it seemed to me that the existing provisions within the Criminal Code, including the provisions under the Anti-terrorism Act which are part of the code now, would cover the eventuality of someone conducting himself or herself in such a way that it would amount to a suicide bombing. I suppose that was the lawyer in me coming out.

The real reason for passing this bill, and I believe my colleagues in the NDP are overwhelmingly, if not unanimously, in support of it at this point, should not be approached so much on a legalistic basis insomuch as it is the power of the House to express its denunciation of the conduct that is entailed when someone contemplates or commits an act of suicide bombing.

We have heard from other speakers this evening and on other occasions of the prevalence of this tool. As far as I am aware, it has never been used in Canada but has been used quite widely in a number of countries around the world. Because of my contact with Sri Lanka, I think immediately of the use of it there repeatedly. In fact, there is a strong argument that it may have been the first time it was used certainly on a consistent basis by a rebel force in that country and used repeatedly to great sacrifice to that society with very many deaths and real tragedies. Of course we have seen its use in the Middle East on a number of different occasions. We have also seen it in parts of Asia. We have seen it used repeatedly now in Europe.

I am speaking now as a parent. Many suicide bombers are young people convinced oftentimes by other family members or organizations they become involved with that are led by people who are much older, much more mature, and I use that term advisedly, but certainly in age they are older than the suicide bombers. Because they are convinced of the validity of the ideology, sometimes religious based, they are convinced that they have an obligation to perform suicide attacks.

I say as a parent, it really is beyond my comprehension how adults, no matter how fanatical they are about the issue and the goal they are pursuing, can bring themselves to convince a young person, a teenager in some cases but oftentimes people in their early twenties, to take this conduct to the extreme of committing suicide and killing oftentimes many other people. It seems to me no matter what organization we belong to or goals we are pursuing, that we could never justify taking that route. Counselling a young person to perform that type of act is as reprehensible as one can imagine.

I speak both personally and on behalf of our caucus in saying that we support this legislation. This Parliament has a responsibility to express our outrage, and as I said earlier, our denunciation, of this conduct. This is our opportunity to perform that responsibility.

In terms of speaking to the rest of the country, we have to be clear that this provision by itself would not prevent suicide bombings. We have to be very clear on that. In my mind this piece of legislation has no deterrent value.

We can use this piece of legislation as a way for all of us to speak out against violence in general and this type of violence in particular. We can use it as a tool, an educational tool, a political tool, to say not only to the residents of Canada but to the rest of the world that this type of conduct is totally unacceptable, that we absolutely reject this type of conduct. This is a crime that calls for a determination of first degree murder. This conduct is as reprehensible as any conduct one could perform in our criminal justice system.

I have to say again, and I am saying this mostly to the rest of the world, that some people may have contemplated using this technique in Canada but it has never happened. I am speaking to the rest of the world, and those parts of the world in particular where this type of conduct is prevalent, that Canadians generally live in a peaceful way.

People in Canada come from all over the world. They have all sorts of faith backgrounds, ethnocultural backgrounds, ideological and philosophical backgrounds. In Canada, with very few exceptions, we have been able to live together in harmony and peace and with minimal violence. By passing this bill we would be saying to the rest of the world that it is possible to bring that kind of mix together, that broad multiculturalism that is Canada now. We would be saying to the rest of the world that it is possible to live in peace and harmony. We would be a model for the rest of the world. One way to do that is to pass this bill.

I am quite supportive of this legislation. I hope that the rest of Parliament will unanimously support it, get it through to royal assent, and get it on the books. We could then speak to the international community with one solid voice. We could unanimously say that this is where the House of Commons and Canada is coming from, that this is how we addressed this problem. We would be telling the rest of the world that we are the model to follow.

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to enter for the record that when I was the minister of justice and attorney general of Canada in 2005, I was approached both by the then Senator Jerahmiel Grafstein and by Justice Bromstein to enact what is now Bill S-215 as law. My response then, and I acknowledge it now, to both of them was, “Why should we be enacting a law to criminalize a terrorist act that is already criminal under our anti-terrorist law?”

Indeed, it appeared to me at the time that to seek to enact such a law would not only be duplicative of what already existed in the Criminal Code, but might send the wrong signal, as if this horrendous terrorist activity of suicide bombing was somehow not criminal under the law and that it was not as horrendous as I took it to be and regarded it then as already being criminal under the law.

Today, for the record, I support this legislation. I support it for the reasons given by my colleagues from all the parties, for the representations that were then made by Senator Grafstein and by Justice Bromstein, who attuned me as to why it should be enacted.

At this point, five years later, there are growing incidents of this horrific activity of suicide terrorism and a universalization of this phenomenon. The fact is, we are, as my colleague, Professor Dr. Walid Phares, put it with respect to anti-terrorism law and policy, “In a war of ideas with the terrorists”.

Therefore, enacting such legislation is not only an important substantive act at this point, but an important symbolic act. It would send a message and state clearly and unequivocally that we regarded this as a barbarous act and crime against humanity. We in the House need to stand up, condemn it, enact it as law and take leadership internationally with respect to combatting this horrific form of terrorism. I regarded it as being criminal then, but this needs to be reaffirmed, reasserted and enacted as law now to give it specificity that it requires, as my colleagues have put it.