Christine Moore

[Combating Terrorism Act, October 17th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, according to one of these provisions, it would be possible to keep somebody in detention without a trial. In my view, this makes absolutely no sense. It is a basic principle of the justice system in any great democracy in the world: you cannot detain a person without a trial, without giving him an opportunity to defend himself and without his even knowing why he is there.

It seems to me that this is one of the major flaws in this bill, and this is why I am not recommending that people support it.

[Combating Terrorism Act, October 17th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, as I said in my speech, at this point, the Criminal Code and the various pieces of Canadian legislation already adequately address our anti-terrorism requirements.

There is no need for the provisions set out in Bill S-7, because I think at this point our police have the means to act.

Last Monday, I said we would have to think about it. Are we ready to sell our souls to the devil? Are we ready to accept provisions that run counter to our fundamental rights to ensure, in theory, greater security even though we are really not any safer? The question must be asked.

With this bill, we are going too far. We cannot sacrifice our rights to justify security needs that are in fact useless.

[Combating Terrorism Act, October 17th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, before running out of time on Monday, I was speaking about the witnesses who oppose this bill because they believe it is pointless and violates various civil liberties and human rights. They appeared before the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security in 2011, when it was studying Bill C-17, the previous version of Bill S-7, in another Parliament.

This is what Denis Barrette of the International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group said:

The coalition believes that the provisions dealing with investigative hearings and preventive arrests, which are intended to impose recognizances with conditions, are both dangerous and misleading. Debate in Parliament on these issues must draw on a rational and enlightened review of the anti-terrorism law.

The first provision makes it possible to bring individuals before a judge in order to provide information, when the judge is of the view that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the individual has information about a terrorism offence that has or will be committed. A refusal to cooperate may result in arrest and imprisonment for up to one year. Furthermore, the provision dealing with investigating hearings gives the state a new power of search. Not enough is being said about this. The fact is that this provision can compel an individual to produce an object before a judge or tribunal, which will then pass it on to the police.

Furthermore, the current provisions encourage racial profiling and profiling on religious, political and ideological grounds. In its report on Canada in November of 2005, the U.N. Human Rights Committee noted its serious concerns with respect to the excessively broad definition of terrorist activity in the Anti-terrorism Act. The committee stated...“The State party should adopt a more precise definition of terrorist offences, so as to ensure that individuals will not be targeted on political, religious or ideological grounds, in connection with measures of prevention, investigation and detention.”

This shows that alarms were already going off about a number of problems in Bill C-17 with respect to civil liberties and how such a bill could be used. These problems remain in Bill S-7. This bill clearly has a problem balancing security and fundamental rights. What worries me is that I see no valid reason for these provisions.

These provisions have been expired for five years, so how can they all of a sudden have become so important and necessary, when they never proved to be useful when they existed? None of the witnesses was able to think of a case that would require this kind of law. None of the witnesses said that these provisions were necessary. On the contrary, witnesses clearly told the Senate committee that there were major problems with respect to human and children's rights.

I would like to talk about what Ihsaan Gardee of the Canadian Council on American-Islamic Relations had to say:

We are mindful of the increased emphasis on public safety and national security in response to the threat of terrorism during the last decade.... We are also cognizant of the real risks to our free and democratic society posed by overreaction and fear when they are used as the basis of public policy and legislation. At the end of the day we risk eroding the foundational values upon which Canada rests, while not making us any safer from terrorism....

We strongly disagree with those who would suggest that attaining a balance between human rights and security is an insurmountable task. In addition to sharing many of the concerns others have raised regarding the proposed legislation, Canadian Muslims have particular misgivings regarding how...Bill C-17 [could] have a disproportionate impact on members of our communities that may be considered discriminatory.

[...]

With regard to the impact on individual freedom and liberty, after 9/11 every major criminal terrorism-related incident, from the Toronto 18 to the case of Momin Khawaja, has been disrupted and prevented without the need for preventive detention or investigative hearings.

I repeat: here is another witness who is saying that the measures set out in this bill are not useful and could even carry risks.

Let us go back to the statement made by James Kafieh. He said:

We also need to bear in mind that not everyone who chooses to remain silent in such circumstances is guilty, and that choosing to remain silent is not an admission of guilt or a proof of guilt. People may, for example, have legitimate concerns for themselves, their families, and their communities.

Such an extraordinary measure as investigative hearings should only be used for the purpose of preventing an imminent act of terrorism. It should never be used as an investigative tool for past acts. The present text of [the bill]...allows for investigative hearings for past events, for which the imperative of safeguarding of innocent life from imminent attack is wholly absent. This is, in itself, an escalation.... Such an escalation shows that we are already witnessing creep in the use of such provisions before the court.

He also said:

This [bill] allows for the arrest and detention of people without ever proving any allegation against them. It could also make people subject to conditions on release with severe limitations on their personal freedom, even if they have never been convicted of any crime. Anyone refusing to accept and comply with the terms of the recognizance may be imprisoned for up to 12 months. The legislation does not limit the number of times this provision may be reapplied.

How is this consistent with our Canadian values and the principles upon which our system of justice is founded? ...The most recent cases of five men who were detained for up to eight years without ever being charged or convicted of a crime should give us all cause for concern.

That is food for thought for our discussions on this type of bill. When it comes to combatting terrorism, we cannot just simply add slightly tougher provisions to the Criminal Code without understanding why. The fact that Canada is already a signatory to a number of international conventions that address this makes these measures unnecessary.

In 2001, when these provisions were being discussed, the aim of the Anti-terrorism Act was to update Canadian laws to meet international standards, particularly UN requirements. All the provisions of the Anti-terrorism Act, except for that concerning investigative hearings and recognizance with conditions, remain in effect today, which is what we are discussing today and what is being presented in Bill S-7.

To be perfectly clear, all the provisions of the original Anti-terrorism Act have remained in effect except for the two that expired in 2007, which were never used and which parliamentarians felt did not need to be renewed because they did not prove necessary.

Now, we are dealing with a Conservative government that says that the NDP is against making the country safer when it comes to combatting terrorism. In truth, this bill does not add anything substantive in terms of security. What is more, this bill will undermine fundamental human rights and freedoms. In my humble opinion, this represents a real risk. Canada already has a legal arsenal to combat terrorism, including international treaties, a complete section of the Criminal Code that deals with this, and a whole host of laws.

Furthermore, another provision in this bill would amend the definition of “special operational information” in the Security of Information Act. Under this change, the identity of a confidential source that is being used by the government would be considered to be special operational information. This would reduce the transparency of information.

Considering this government's track record when it comes to transparency, reducing it any further on such a delicate subject would really worry me.

In short, I oppose this bill because we already have very effective measures in place. This measure would be ineffective and pointless in the fight against terrorism.

This bill violates civil liberties and human rights and, once again, does so unnecessarily. In particular, it violates the right to remain silent and the right to not be jailed without a fair trial, two rights that are absolutely fundamental in Canadian society.

The provisions we are debating here today were invoked only once, and unsuccessfully. This perfectly illustrates the fact that we already have all the tools we need to combat terrorism. Thus, there is no reason to pass legislation that threatens our civil liberties.

[Nuclear Terrorism Act, October 15th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, when talking about international diplomacy, the example that comes to my mind concerns the use of nuclear materials by the military.

Often, when there is the possibility of a conflict between two armed forces, neither will preclude the use of these weapons as long as the other side does not. This requires diplomacy. There are discussions and one side will say that it is prepared to stop using these materials as long as the other side is also willing to do so. Through diplomacy, these people can stop resorting to these materials, or stop having them in their possession.

Diplomacy and co-operation among countries results in the measured reduction of available nuclear materials that can be stolen and possibly be made into bombs that will be used to threaten us.

[Nuclear Terrorism Act, October 15th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know if this is an amendment per se to the bill, but if the intention is to enhance nuclear safety, it might be useful to ask whether our responders are adequately trained to respond when there are threats to nuclear safety.

As a military officer, I received basic training on how to respond to a nuclear threat, but it was only basic training.

It is worth raising the issue even though it would not result in an amendment per se. Perhaps the adoption of this bill, or discussion thereof in committee, will give rise to questions, such as whether our military personnel, police forces and others are sufficiently trained to respond when nuclear material has been stolen or tampered with. Canada is a big country, and if we only have one specialized team, a response on the ground may take some time.

Should we, therefore, be giving more training to our police officers, firefighters, and other front line responders, including medical staff?

I am an intensive care emergency room nurse, and in my hospital, nurses have no training whatsoever to treat patients who have been exposed to nuclear material. Perhaps rapid intervention by qualified medical staff who are trained to know what to do would be more appropriate.

That is a matter that should be raised in committee. I would really like to have the opportunity to discuss it. That is why the committee has to take as much time as it needs to study this bill.

[Nuclear Terrorism Act, October 15th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question.

I, too, was surprised that it took five years for this bill to be introduced in the House of Commons. Nuclear safety is such an important issue that I cannot understand why it has not been discussed earlier. It is my understanding that just about all my colleagues in the House of Commons intend to support this bill. I do not understand, however, why it has taken five years. Clearly, this was not a controversial bill. It has to do with the safety of the Canadians we represent. Yet, for me, it is a little incomprehensible.

When the decision was made to introduce this bill, it opened the door to an analysis of current security threats. This is another very interesting aspect for discussion. Is there currently any danger in Canada? For example, should our military get more training on how to respond to the possibility of a nuclear threat? This bill will give rise to a whole host of questions.

It really surprises me that it has taken five years. I do not suppose that members were waiting for my arrival in the House of Commons, but I still find it passing strange.

[Nuclear Terrorism Act, October 15th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, to know whether a bill will truly promote nuclear safety, we must know the dangers and risks. As the senator pointed out, when we do not know these dangers and risks, it is difficult to know whether we are truly preventing these nuclear materials from being used for terrorism.

There are two different contexts. We want to prevent terrorists from potentially using these materials, but the bill must also allow reasonable access to nuclear materials that will be used for medical purposes, for example.

In terms of nuclear safety, we must be able to balance these two things. If we are truly not aware of the dangers and gaps in the current system, it is really difficult to know whether we are eliminating these dangers.

[Nuclear Terrorism Act, October 15th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to be able to speak about Bill S-9, the Nuclear Terrorism Act, which amends the Criminal Code. I would like to point out that this bill comes from the Senate.

The bill was introduced with a view to implementing the requirements of two international treaties signed by Canada, but not yet ratified. For a treaty to be ratified, the laws that apply to it must have come into force.

The purpose of these two international treaties is to combat nuclear terrorism. They are the amended 2005 version of the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material, or the CPPNM, and the International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism, or ICSANT. Canada signed both of these treaties in 2005.

In Canada, there are several steps involved in signing an international treaty. To begin with, there are negotiations and the signing. Then comes ratification, which is the implementation stage, after which the treaty comes into force. For both treaties, we are still only at the signing stage.

Signing an international treaty is only the first step in the process. Signing means that a country is in principle in agreement with the terms of the treaty and that it intends to comply with them. After signing the treaty, Canada must avoid actions that are contrary to the purpose and intent of the treaty, but it is not officially bound by the treaty until it has been ratified. There is still a long way to go before these treaties come into force in Canada.

To be able to ratify these two treaties, Canada needs to amend some of its statutes. In practice, this means that we need to introduce legislation to criminalize the offences described in both treaties. That, moreover, is the purpose of this bill: to make the required amendments to the Criminal Code in order to be able to ratify the two treaties and move one step closer to having them come into force.

It is therefore important at the outset to ask what these two treaties would like to introduce.

The Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material, which was ratified by Canada in 1980, was at the time intended to develop measures designed to prevent, detect and punish crimes related to nuclear material. However, the field of application of the CPPNM was limited to “nuclear material used for peaceful purposes while in international nuclear transport”. In 2005, amendments were made to cover nuclear material used for peaceful purposes while in domestic use, storage and transport as well as domestic nuclear facilities. The amendments also introduced changes to foster co-operation between states with respect to the development of measures to recover stolen or smuggled nuclear material, mitigation of the radiological impacts of sabotage and measures to fight crime related to nuclear material.

This amendment clearly affirms that the objective of the convention is to prevent and combat offences involving nuclear material and facilities throughout the world and to facilitate co-operation between states. Canada ratified the 1980 version, but has not yet done so for the 2005 version, which introduced the amendments I have just mentioned.

The purpose of the International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism was to provide for new criminal offences for acts of nuclear terrorism and to impose the obligation to “extradite or prosecute” in the event of acts of nuclear terrorism.

The bill that was introduced creates various clauses to implement the provisions contained in these two conventions. It is important to take a few moments to understand why I support this bill as a member of the NDP and why the NDP in general has chosen to support it.

We all agree that nuclear terrorism is a major threat to international security. It is one of the most significant threats in the world because the consequences—as we have already seen, unfortunately—can be devastating. Currently, we know that it does not take much to cause significant damage. People here in Canada and around the world are quite concerned about nuclear terrorism and are very concerned when they hear there is a possibility that some countries have nuclear programs. This is something that is very important to people not only on a national level—to Canadians—but also on an international level.

I also want to note that we are committed to diplomacy and international co-operation. Ratifying treaties to ensure the co-operation of countries when it comes to terrorism and nuclear terrorism seems like common sense to me. When it comes to such worrisome situations as this for security, we cannot bury our heads in the sand. We have no choice but to co-operate with every democratic body in order to obtain results and ensure the security of every citizen not only of our country, but of all countries.

There is one reason, among others, that I want to support this bill. In the NDP, we are proud of our international reputation, even though it has been tarnished a bit by the Conservative government many times over the past few years. Taking one step closer to ratifying these treaties shows that we have not forgotten our international commitments and would allow us to get back on the right track with regard to the image Canada wants to project on the world stage.

As several witnesses testified during consideration of the bill in the Senate, one of the main ways to prevent terrorists from getting their hands on radioactive material is to beef up nuclear security and, whenever possible, to limit military applications of radioactive materials. It is simple logic. By limiting the use of nuclear materials as much as possible, such materials will become more scarce and terrorists will have a much harder time stealing them and using them to harm our society. It is a first step. The military is increasingly moving away from nuclear weapons. This should spare us quite a few problems in the future.

I would like to highlight something that Matthew Bunn, Associate Professor of Public Policy at Harvard, told the Senate committee:

At scores of sites around the world, dramatically improved nuclear security has been put in place, and, at scores of other sites, the weapons-usable nuclear material has been removed entirely, reducing the threat of nuclear theft at those sites to zero. More than 20 countries have eliminated all of the weapons-usable nuclear material on their soil. These successes represent, in a real sense, bombs that will never go off.

The five last words of that quote are worth repeating: “...bombs that will never go off.” This goes to show that if we can limit or eliminate the use of such material, there will be fewer bombs hanging over our heads, and more bombs that will never go off.

To that end, Canada must take concrete steps to support nuclear safety throughout the world, and I think that this bill is a step in the right direction. Although it applies to Canada's laws, it is based on a worldwide effort.

Canada is only one of the countries that signed these treaties, and since this is an international effort to reach a common goal, it is important to ensure that every country does its part to reduce the risk to our fellow Canadians. This bill involves international co-operation among various entities.

In the past, Canada was known on the world stage as a country that values co-operation. We must continue to do our fair share and follow through on our international commitments. If Canada wants to once again play a leading role in diplomacy and international co-operation and if it wants to convince other countries to adopt a responsible approach to reducing the risk of terrorism and the theft of nuclear material and weapons, then we have to set an example and take responsible measures immediately.

Canada's ratification of these treaties will also encourage other countries to take measures to ratify the treaties and thereby help us to take one more step in improving global security.

I would like to digress for a moment. Although I am emphasizing the importance of adopting these measures, the fact remains that nuclear safety is a fairly complex issue. Everyone agrees on that. However, the desire to ratify and implement measures fairly quickly does not mean that we should avoid doing the work in committee. What is important here is taking the time to carefully examine the issues so that we only have to do the work once and so that we do not have to make changes later. Although there is a somewhat urgent need to act, we must take the time to do things right because the safety of our fellow Canadians is at stake. I would like to point out that the Conservatives have been in power for a long time and that they could have introduced this type of bill a long time ago.

As soon as it is ratified by Canada, the treaty will become the legal basis for Canada's collaboration with the other parties to the treaty in areas such as criminal investigations, mutual legal assistance and extradition. This will quite clearly strengthen international co-operation and contribute to the fight against the nuclear threat.

The bill must be seen as a way to give effect to the treaty provisions on an international scale. To that end, however, the committee will have to undertake an in-depth study of the bill and review its technical aspects.

The bill seeks to enact provisions related to those found in the two international treaties. The committee will have the opportunity to go through every clause to make sure the bill achieves its goal, which is to ratify these two treaties signed in 2005.

As I mentioned earlier, we have to understand that several aspects of the issue of nuclear security are highly technical. The committee will need to take the time to study the issue in depth to make sure the bill includes all the necessary provisions and that it goes far enough without going too far. We have to act in a non-partisan fashion to protect the security of our fellow Canadians as well as international security.

Considering the number of Canadian travellers who like to gallivant around the world, even if a nuclear bomb were used by terrorists outside of our borders, this could have a serious impact on Canadians abroad. It is therefore important to create a bill that we can be proud of and can serve as an example to other countries that have not yet ratified the two separate conventions, in terms of what they can do to move forward on nuclear safety.

Quite apart from the technical details of the bill that will be thoroughly examined in committee, I would remind the House that it is extremely important to go ahead with the ratification of these treaties in order to support efforts to ensure global nuclear safety.

Between 2010 and 2012, Canada and several other nations taking part in the nuclear summit agreed to ratify these two conventions. Furthermore, at the 2012 summit in Seoul, participating states agreed to enforce the CPPNM amendments made in 2005 in time for the 2014 summit.

However, for that to happen, two-thirds of the 145 participating states must ratify the treaty. So far, only 56 have done so, when at least 97 ratifications are needed. If Canada were to ratify the treaty, this would be another positive step towards international implementation of this amendment to the convention.

This represents another step forward for the entire population towards enhanced nuclear safety in our country, as well as around the globe.

[National Defence, October 15th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, we are not just talking about Afghanistan. The Conservatives are leaving a trail of broken promises.

The Conservatives promised that the Cyclone helicopters that are supposed to replace the Sea Kings would be delivered in 2008. Then the Conservatives said that the helicopters would be delivered this past June. After that, they said it would be later this year. Now, attempts are being made to renegotiate the contract.

This guessing game has gone on long enough. When will our soldiers be able to count on these aircraft?

[National Defence, October 15th, 2012]

Why are the Conservatives promising one thing in the House but then doing the opposite as soon as parliamentarians' backs are turned?