Marlene Jennings

[Criminal Code, September 21st, 2010]

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.

[Criminal Code, September 21st, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleague from the Conservative Party and I would like to repeat the question asked by my colleague from my own party.

When the member says that she will do whatever she can to see that this bill is passed, will she actively seek the consent of all of the parties to see this bill adopted at all stages by unanimous consent?

[Combating Terrorism Act, September 20th, 2010]

Madam Speaker, all I can say is it has become a recurring pattern, the modus operandi of the current government.

I have seen the government in action for the past four years, now going into five years. It is a government that seems to be governing based on gut feeling, based on hyper-partisanship, based on whether or not it can actually divide a people and in so doing go get a few votes here, or get some financial support and donation there. It does not appear to be a government that governs based on actual fact and scientific studies.

One only has to look at its decision with regard to the census. One only has to look at how it is now muzzling our scientists on the environment and climate change. One only has to look at how it is a government that has either fired or not renewed any independent officer of the government or of Parliament who it disagrees with, that it does not like what it hears.

It is unfortunate, and why? It is unfortunate for Canadians because Canadians deserve better. Canadians deserve a government that is competent, a government that actually governs and develops policies based on the best advice and the best knowledge of facts, science and evidence at the time, not based on hyper-partisanship, or on rhetoric or on ideology.

[Combating Terrorism Act, September 20th, 2010]

Madam Speaker, no, I cannot and that is another good reason why the bill should be sent to committee so the experts who have that information and knowledge, who can properly respond to his questions and do so on the basis of scientific evidence and empirical data.

[Combating Terrorism Act, September 20th, 2010]

Madam Speaker, I would like to point out that the legislation and these provisions were actually enacted, as I stated quite openly and freely, by a Liberal government back in 2001. I was one of the members of Parliament at the time who sat on the committee reviewing the Anti-terrorism Act and therefore had a certain amount of impact.

I take note of the point that the member made, which I as well attempted to make, and that is a responsible and competent government does not govern or enact policies out of fear. I believe she would understand that there was a great deal of fear back in 2001, but calm heads did prevail and made the point that these were draconian measures, that we were not satisfied that the case had been made that they would ultimately be required, that our existing Criminal Code and laws would not be sufficient.

As a result of that, the Liberal government listened. It listened to the experts, to the members of the House of Commons, who had these concerns and preoccupations, and agreed to put a sunset clause in the bill. The sunset clause was over five years later. If the government did not re-enact it, the provisions automatically died, and they died under the Conservative government. That government said that it was important to revive these provisions, knowing full well they had never been used. However, it has never provided, as my colleague said, any cogent evidence to support its claim that these provisions are absolutely needed.

The member asks how my party can support this. My party is a responsible party. We have heard experts in the past, some who have said the provisions may be needed, others who have said they may not be needed. We would like the debate to continue on this. The only way for it to continue and to hear from all stakeholders, including individuals who may have been targeted by the existing and still active provisions of the anti-terrorism bill, is to come before the House of Commons to speak of their experiences and give us the evidence either in favour of or opposed to so each individual elected to the House can make a cogent choice.

I have no shame in saying that my party has decided it will allow this to go to committee. It does not mean that we are in support of the provisions being re-enacted. We want to hear what the stakeholders and experts have to say because the government certainly has not made a case for it yet.

[Combating Terrorism Act, September 20th, 2010]

Madam Speaker, thank you for giving me the floor.

I am pleased to be participating in this debate on Bill C-17, especially because I was a member of the Liberal government on 9/11. I was a member of the committee that studied the bill introduced in the House of Commons by the Liberal government at the time, a bill that specifically included these two clauses, the two provisions that the Conservative government would like to re-introduce.

I would say to all those listening at present that most members at the time were very concerned by the drastic measures affecting people's basic rights. It was not partisanship. In fact it was a concern for many members of the government as well as some Bloc and NDP members.

In response to these concerns, the government of the day brought forward what is known as a sunset clause to ensure that the House would retain responsibility and monitor the government bill to prevent any abuse.

Under this provision, a review was to be conducted after five years and the two provisions were to expire.

That sunset clause came into effect under the current government. The Senate actually carried out a major study in 2007.

I listened with quite a bit of care to the member of the Conservative Party who spoke just previous to me where she talked about how the government is very concerned with ensuring the safety and protection of Canadians and why it is so essential that these two provision be brought back to life. I find it interesting that these provisions died several years ago under the current government. The government has brought the legislation to bring them back to life three times, has moved first reading in the House, and then has let the bill sit on the order paper for months and months.

In one case, the bill finally died on the order paper because the Prime Minister, in 2008, in violation of his own fixed election act, went to the Governor General and asked the Governor General to table the election writ and in so doing knew full well that this bill, that was going to revive these two provisions that this hon. colleague of the Conservatives who just spoke talked about how it is so essential, so important, was going to die on the order paper, knew as well that it had been sitting on the order paper waiting for the government to move second reading so that debate could actually begin. The government did not move second reading.

Then, after the 2008 election, what happened? The government came back with the identical bill, moved first reading, it went on to the order paper, and then it just sat there.

Then, on the eve of December 2009 and January 2010, the Prime Minister, knowing full well that this bill, its previous incarnation which was now this second incarnation under a Conservative government, was sitting on the order paper, waiting for him to give the order to one of his ministers to move second reading so that debate, like the debate we are having today, could begin, because it was in the government's hands under the rules. Canadians have to understand that. It is up to the government to move second reading of its own bills. No other party can do that. No other member of Parliament can do that. Only the government can move second reading of its own bills and allow the debate to begin.

The Prime Minister, said this is so important, to use the words of the member from Manitoba, that we absolutely need these two provisions to be brought back to life. Law enforcement, anecdotally from what I hear from the member from Manitoba because she did not cite any studies, have said that, “Some members of law enforcement have told me that we are going to need these provisions at some time in the future. Even though we have not used them in the last nine years, at some time in the future we will need them and so, it is urgent that we revive these two provisions, bring them back to life and it has to be done now”.

The Prime Minister prorogued the House. He put a padlock on Parliament. He shut it down. And he did it knowing full well that he killed every single one of his government's bills, the bills, especially the law and order ones, that the current government for the last four years has been beating its chest that the Conservatives are the only ones who care about the protection of Canadians, they are the only ones who care about victims of crime and victims of terrorism, and yet, the Prime Minister and his government killed the bill.

Then when we came back from prorogation, all of the parties agreed, including the official opposition, the Liberal Party of Canada, with the government that we would forgo certain time off that had been built into the parliamentary schedule, that we would work those weeks instead, in hopes that the government was going to put forward the bills that it found to be a priority.

The government did not move second reading of this bill. It took the government three months, and there is not a word in this bill that is different from what was in its predecessor and in the predecessor before that. All the government had to do was tell legislative services to reprint the bill. A new number would have been assigned to it. The minister would have given notice to the order people and would have risen during the segment of the day the procedures allow for and moved first reading of the bill.

I am not putting into doubt that member's good faith, but I find it a bit rich to listen to her talk about how her government is concerned about victims of terrorism, that the government is concerned about victims of crime here in Canada, and that the government is the only government that is really for law and order and for ensuring that the proper laws are in place. That is a government, going on to its fifth year now, that has played games with Canadian lives. It has used the issue of law and order to try to gain some kind of partisanship advantage.

The report of the Senate, which is dated February 2007, has a series of recommendations. The Conservative government has not implemented any of the ones I am going to read out. The chair was the hon. David P. Smith. The deputy chair was the hon. Pierre Claude Nolin, a Conservative senator. This report of the Special Senate Committee on the Anti-terrorism Act is not a partisan report. Let me just give two recommendations.

Recommendation number 4 talks about racial profiling. It recommends:

That, in addition to implementing clear policies against racial profiling, all government departments and agencies involved in matters of national security and anti-terrorism engage in sufficient monitoring, enforcement and training to ensure that racial profiling does not occur, the cultural practices of Canada’s diverse communities are understood, and relations with communities are improved generally.

That is a recommendation from February 2007, almost three years ago, and the Conservative government has done nothing about it. Yet it says that it is interested in Canadians' protection.

Let us look at recommendation number 2, which states: “That the government legislate a single definition of terrorism for federal purposes”. It has been two and a half years since the Special Senate Committee on the Anti-terrorism Act made that recommendation, yet the Conservative government and the present Prime Minister have not acted on it.

I find it very rich to hear the Conservatives now arguing that it is a pressing need to have these two anti-terrorism provisions on investigative hearings and preventative detention revived, that the bill has to be re-enacted, and that it is essential, because one day in the future we might need it. They have produced no empirical evidence. They have produced no studies.

A colleague from the NDP, I believe, made the point that the provisions of the Criminal Code used for every single individual charged with terrorism in Canada, homegrown terrorism, as some people refer to it, were not the provisions under the Anti-terrorism Act.

The Criminal Code and the regular provisions we had, even before 9/11, were sufficient to allow our law enforcement and our prosecutorial people to prosecute successfully. All I am asking is: would the government please do its job? If the government sincerely believes that these two provisions are needed, would it please make the case, based not on anecdotal reports but on actual studies that have been done, on empirical studies, on evidence-based studies, and on actual fact?

Any one of us sitting here can come up with anecdotes. That is not governing. That is not a competent government. A competent government bases its policies—and policy legislation is government policy—on fact, on empirical evidence, and on scientific evidence, not on anecdote. It does not do it by saying, “It is my opinion, and therefore that goes, and that is good enough, because it is my opinion,” or ”It is my opinion, on which I have done absolutely no research and have nothing to base it on except gut feeling and perhaps emotion”. That is supposedly a basis from which to govern and enact new legislation and policy. It is not. No responsible government does that. A responsible government actually gathers the facts, goes and talks to people who have made it their life's work to know all the ins and outs of the issue and have the expertise to provide solid, sound advice that is based on fact.

The government today, from the debate I have heard, has not done that. I am asking the government to go and do its job, the job it was elected to do, which is to be a responsible government, a competent government. When the government comes with legislation, come with the facts, come with the reports, the empirical data, the scientific evidence, and the actual facts to back it up. Do not base it on some whim or on gaining partisan advantage and maybe destroying one politician and getting a gain for another politician and gaining a few more ridings and a few more seats. None of it is based on fact. None of it is based on competency. It is based on whipping up a motion.

This legislation is not important to the government. If it were important, the government would have acted on it four years ago. The government sat on its hands. The only reason the government is bringing this legislation forward now is because it is hoping to change the channel. It has had a disastrous 2010 to date.

The Prime Minister padlocked Parliament and raised the ire of hundreds of thousands of Canadians, some of whom actually signed petitions, some of whom participated in rallies to denounce the government. It then decided that it should build a fake lake in Toronto and waste $1 billion on photo ops for the Minister of Industry and for the Prime Minister. Then this summer, it decided that it was going to do away with the long-form census on the basis that state repression can never be justified and that it will use a voluntary survey, which will provide data that is just as good. The experts, including business experts, have said first, that this is not true. Second, if that argument has a solid basis, why is the government allowing the short-form census to remain mandatory? How is that not state repression under the government's thinking but the long-form is?

The government did not consult anyone. It went behind the scenes, in secret, and did exactly the same thing the Prime Minister did with prorogation. He did it when he thought no one was listening and no one was paying attention.

I am going to come back to the issue of Bill C-17.

I ask the government to please make its case that reviving these two provisions is needed. Make the case based on fact, based on actual studies that have been done, not based on rhetoric, not based on ideology, but on actual fact. Be a competent government and show that you have done your homework, because to date that has not been done. I have not heard any Conservative show that he or she has at least done the homework the government has not done. I have not heard one Conservative speaking on the bill provide any facts, any scientific facts, any studies that have been done, or any empirical data. None. All I have heard is anecdote. That will not suffice. A party cannot govern on anecdote. At least it cannot govern competently, because sooner or later that incompetence will catch up with it. We saw that with Brian Mulroney.

I beg the government to do its job, give the House of Commons and Canadians the respect they are due, and provide the actual evidence showing why these two provisions found in Bill C-17 should be enacted. I would like the government also to explain why it has waited four years. Why has the government allowed the bill to die several times on the order paper because the government did not bother to move it to second reading. Why?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, September 20th, 2010]

With respect to funding from Status of Women Canada: (a) what organizations have applied for funding since January 23, 2006; (b) how much money has been allocated to each organization since this date; and (c) for each organization that was refused funding, what were the reasons for the refusal of funding?

[Starred Questions, September 20th, 2010]

With respect to the funding from the Canadian International Development Agency, and in follow-up to the January 21, 2010 letter from KAIROS addressed to the Prime Minister: (a) for what reasons was KAIROS recently refused funding; and (b) does either the Prime Minister or the Minister of International Cooperation intend to meet directly with this organization to discuss this issue?

[Questions on the Order Paper, September 20th, 2010]

With respect to the final report of the Commission of Inquiry into Certain Allegations Respecting Business and Financial Dealings Between Karlheinz Schreiber and the Right Honourable Brian Mulroney: (a) what specific recommendations does the government intend to implement; (b) when does the government intend to implement each of these recommendations; and (c) does the government intend to pursue legal action against the Right Honourable Brian Mulroney in order to recuperate the $2.1 million awarded by the government in a 1997 settlement?

[Questions on the Order Paper, September 20th, 2010]

With respect to the health effects and stress response to airport noise, from 2003 to present: (a) what specific research has been conducted by Health Canada; (b) what advice has Health Canada provided to Transport Canada; (c) what specialist information has Health Canada provided to (i) Montréal-Pierre Elliott Trudeau Airport, (ii) any other Canadian airport; and (d) when does Health Canada intend to update the January 2010 version of the document entitled “It’s Your Health: Aircraft Noise in the Vicinity of Airports”?