Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this debate on Bill S-215, introduced by Senator Grafstein, who has since retired from the Senate. The bill would add suicide bombing as an offence in the Criminal Code.
Like my colleague who just spoke on behalf of the Conservative government, all Canadians have been witness to numerous suicide bombings that have been committed in many places around the world.
I would like to give some examples. In May of 2010, Colonel Geoff Parker was killed in a suicide car-bomb attack, which also killed 18 other people in Kabul. He was the highest ranking Canadian to be killed in Afghanistan since the mission began in 2001.
Furthermore, also in May of 2010, another suicide bombing was attempted near a Canadian military base, but the attempt failed. Last week, a suicide bomber killed 16 innocent civilians and injured about a hundred others in southern Russia. Suicide bomb attacks are becoming increasingly common as a terrorist act.
A study completed in 2005 by Scott Atran in the United States declared, “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”.
His study also noted the massive rate in which suicide bombing worldwide has taken place. During the 1980s, there were five suicide attacks each year. In the 1990s, there were on average 16 attacks a year. Then, in the five-year period between 2000 and 2005, there were an average of 180 suicide bombing attacks in each of those years. Clearly, this is a global problem that keeps on growing.
Bill S-215 would add to the Criminal Code the act of suicide bombing as a type of terrorist activity. I will not go through the relevant clause in the Criminal Code, because this has already been done by my colleague on the Conservative side.
Although the current definition of “terrorist activity” does catch the act of a suicide bombing, it does not explicitly list “suicide bombing” within the definition of a terrorist activity.
As the justice critic for the official opposition, I am pleased to say that I support this bill and I recommend that my colleagues also support it. It is a Senate private member's bill, and now a House private member's bill, unlike another bill which was supposedly sponsored by an MP even though we know very well that it was really an official government policy. But I will not say anything more about that.
The bill further clarifies the Criminal Code. As the Liberal justice critic, I support it wholeheartedly.
It does not create new legislative provisions. It only reinforces the basic principle that Canadians abhor these types of acts.
Some would argue that a suicide bombing is an act that is already covered by the current definition of terrorism in the Criminal Code. That is true. However, we must not forget that one function of criminal law is also to represent Canadian society and values.
Including suicide bombing in the list of terrorist activities would clearly indicate to everyone that Canada is irrevocably opposed to this type of violence. It would let Canadians know that our country does not tolerate this type of violent behaviour and would unequivocally convey our position on this matter to the world.
The former Senator Grafstein championed this bill after much input from former Justice Reuben Bromstein, who is now the head of the organization called Canadians Against Suicide Bombing.
Justice Bromstein said that the 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...to further international commitment [to outlaw suicide bombing].
As the colleague across the way mentioned, Canada would be the first country to include a specific reference to suicide bombing in its criminal law if the legislation is adopted, and I hope it will be.
Some have expressed concern that by including the words “suicide bombing” in the Criminal Code that would lead to absurd consequences. I can give an example. Some feel that the words “suicide bombing” are open to interpretation, which would make cases difficult for prosecutors.
However, today, we use many common definitions to describe acts. We use the words “hijacking” and “street racing” in some of our laws. If I refer back to Justice Bromstein who stated:
—the term “suicide bombing” is in common parlance....The term triggers an instantaneous response in your head. You do not have to describe it. People know what it means.
He also went on to say:
Passing the legislation would send a signal about our values domestically, that we are a mixed society and 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, a suicide bomber who detonates an explosive in a vacant field will be labelled a terrorist.
When drafting the bill, 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. His action shows that he did not intend to create other victims and it does not correspond to the original definition of what constitutes a terrorist activity.
Let us look at some stakeholder reaction.
The bill has the unwavering support of the RCMP, which believes that it will not hinder its investigations. The RCMP believes that the bill will be very useful.
Patrick Monahan, the dean of Osgoode Hall Law School, is also supportive of the legislation and has made a number of arguments on this. I will not be able to elucidate all of them, but let me cite one of them. He said:
First, Parliament, in my view, should adopt Bill S-210 because it would signal Canada's unequivocal condemnation of suicide bombing as the most virulent and horrifying form of terrorism in the world today.
Dean Monahan has made a number of other points, but I will stop here because it has been pointed out to me that my time is virtually up.
I strongly support the bill and I advocate for it. I call on each and every member of the House to support the bill. I call on my colleague opposite to seek the unanimous consent of all members of the House to see the bill adopted unanimously at all stages.