Mr. Speaker, I would first of all like to say that I will be sharing my time with my colleague, the member for Hamilton Mountain.
I am pleased to rise today to speak on Bill S-9, Nuclear Terrorism Act. It is an important issue, and one that will allow me to go a little bit beyond the specific subject matter of the bill. The NDP will be supporting this bill at report stage and at third reading. We want to promote the implementation of its provisions in Canadian law.
On the other hand, before I begin, I would like to express some reservations about the fact that the bill originated in the Senate. I will repeat what my colleague, the member for Hamilton Mountain, said when she raised this issue a little earlier and put questions to our colleague from Winnipeg North. I still believe that the Senate has no business introducing this kind of bill, even less so on an issue as important as amending the Criminal Code regarding possible sentences for nuclear terrorism. This should be done by the elected officials. In fact, bills must originate in the House of Commons, period.
International law has an important place in Canada. No one is disputing that. However, there are questions about the adoption and implementation of international conventions in Canadian law. Some countries may have different methods for incorporating standards and rules of international law in domestic law. There are basically two different methods.
Countries with a monist legal system, in general, automatically incorporate the rules of international law once they have been ratified. They become part of the country’s legislation more or less directly, and some states will grant them superior force to any other domestic law. It is a simple and straightforward method.
However, Canada does not have a monist system; we have a dualist legal system. This means that international law is not immediately applicable in Canadian law. The Canadian Parliament must pass implementing legislation before the international provisions are applicable in domestic law. In a sense, this does justice to our political system—something that is not always very simple—for two reasons.
First, our federation is made up of provinces, which have their own areas of exclusive jurisdiction and separate legal systems. Second, it is logical that the legislative body should validate in legislation something that the executive has signed. If this were not the case, it would be as if Parliament were giving a blank check to the government of the day to sign anything and it would immediately come into effect in Canada. Not only would this be unacceptable, but when we look at some of the Conservative government’s foreign-policy directions, I would be afraid of what might emerge.
We could well be told that parliamentarians hold up the implementation of certain provisions by making it mandatory that there be implementation legislation, but frankly, I am extremely pleased that we can give attentive consideration to all the provisions of international law that come in to Canada.
With regard to the subject of debate today, the amendments to the Criminal Code would affect the implementation of the criminal law requirements contained, first, in the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material and, second, in the 2005 International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism.
In short, the bill creates four new offences under part II of the Criminal Code, with respect to the possession and use of nuclear or radioactive materials or devices, acts committed against a nuclear facility or its operation with the intent to cause death, serious bodily harm or substantial damage to property or the environment, or attempts to compel a government or international organization to do or refrain from doing anything. I will not be reading all the amendments contained in this bill.
I see two main reasons we can support this bill. First, Canada is a producer of fissionable materials such as uranium. Until recently, Canada was the world's largest exporter of uranium until Kazakhstan reclaimed that title in 2009. Most of our mines are located in northern Saskatchewan. As of October 2012, Statistics Canada says that 15.2% of the electricity produced in Canada comes from nuclear plants. Naturally, these fissionable materials are moved around in Canada. And Canada has nuclear power plants.
Therefore, we in Canada are vulnerable to acts of nuclear terrorism. We cannot hide from that fact. We have been lucky until now that we have not had to face threats, but we will not always be so lucky, not with the new, stubborn, warlike foreign policy the government has adopted.
Second, it is important for Canada to express the provisions of these conventions in Canadian legislation. Then, later, we will be able to ratify them. That is important because it takes a certain number of ratifications in order for international conventions to come into force globally. It seems very complicated at first, but the purpose is simple: if more countries adhere to the treaties, it will be easier to implement them, since all countries will have the same rules to follow.
When we look at the international situation of countries with nuclear capabilities, we quickly see that these conventions are not a luxury. Unstable countries like Pakistan have nuclear weapons; in Russia's vast territory, control and supervision of fissionable materials can be extremely difficult.
Canada has been a model for other nations. The message we are sending, in ratifying these conventions, is clear: we are taking a step forward and inviting other countries to join us. Leading by example is the way to produce tangible change.
Our obligations with regard to nuclear safety are also serious. They began in 1968 when Canada signed the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. Since then, Canada has been a constructive partner in controlling the proliferation of nuclear weapons, working with the UN in Geneva, New York and Vienna.
The subject may seem abstract, but the scientific advances that began with mastering atomic fission in the 1940s have not come without great danger. Even today, North Korea is threatening the United States with a pre-emptive nuclear strike. It is clear: we have a long way to go.
The nuclear security summits in Washington in 2010 and Seoul, South Korea, in 2012 have helped control nuclear weapons. The more supervision and control of the fissionable materials circulating around the world, the less chance that these materials will be misused. That is the stated goal of the next summit, which will be held in the Netherlands in 2014.
However, there is one element that cannot be ignored. In the grand scheme of things, Canada must be a party to these two conventions. There is no question about it. However, I have concerns about this government’s foreign-policy directions that are becoming increasingly belligerent, inflexible and especially devoid of compassion. We used to be recognized worldwide for our moderate and rational stances on international issues. In addition to being seen as an unparalleled mediator, we were the very picture of an older brother, who listened closely, always sought compromise and campaigned tirelessly for peace.
Seven years after the Conservatives came to power, this is really no longer the case. There can be no better example of this than the loss three years ago of our seat on the United Nations Security Council. Furthermore, our development assistance policies are inconsistent, and shot through with a really tight-fisted idea of what helping your neighbour is all about. For this government, helping your neighbour really only means helping the big mining company make a bigger profit at the expense of the developing world.
Managing foreign affairs is a delicate exercise, but the Conservatives simply do not have the skill that it takes. Now they come onto the scene with their big boots and their preconceived ideas, giving lectures to all and sundry and preaching how we are better than everyone else. This is not how you make friends, especially when we regard our partners only from a financial point of view.
Why am I talking about this now? We can tell the Conservative government that we are supporting this tangible initiative on sentences for nuclear terrorism, but we should never lose sight of the global idea of our foreign-policy interests. By acting like coarse, combative villagers in our relations with the other countries of the world, we will end up pouring oil on the fire. There are better ways of doing things, and I believe the legacy of former Prime Minister Pearson must still serve as a guide.
We are not a major world power; we never have been. We are a middle power, with many natural resources, and an educated, resourceful and open-minded populace. I think Canadians are our greatest resource. In international relations, it is not just a question of trade and money. There is what Canada can bring to the table: ideas, responsiveness and compromises. There is still time for Canada to get back into multilateral forums with our international partners. In my view, it would be better for us to reach our goals with our allies, rather than against them.
Unbelievably, very few people agree on the literal definition of terrorism, because it involves unpredictable acts with many different causes. It is not just a question of religion or politics.
I am afraid that we are making the problem worse, with our one-dimensional foreign policy that is oriented solely toward money and that is totally insensitive to cultural, political and social demands. That hurts everyone and, much to the Conservatives’ dismay, it also hurts the economy.
