:
I call this meeting to order. This is meeting number 32 of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.
Today we have on the agenda, pursuant to the order of reference of Friday, October 8, 2010, the consideration of Bill
The witness and proponent of the bill, fellow MP Kelly Block, is with us today.
We'll go to MP Block for 10 minutes, after which, if needed, we will call upon Glenn Gilmour, counsel in the criminal law policy section of the Department of Justice, to answer questions from members of the House.
I welcome Kelly Block here to present her bill.
You have 10 minutes.
:
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I am very pleased to appear before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights to speak in support of Bill , which is the same as the former Bill , as passed by the Senate with some amendments on June 10, 2009.
Former Bill was then debated at second reading in the House of Commons last October and November. It was referred to this committee in November 2009, but it died on the order paper in December.
Mr. Chair, please allow me to provide some background information about this bill for the benefit of all distinguished members.
The bill expressly seeks to include the act of suicide bombing within the context of the Criminal Code definition of terrorist activity.
Suicide bombing is a monstrous way to wreak havoc, because it shows the utmost contempt for human life. The damage from a suicide attack can be tremendous. The September 11 attacks killed nearly 3,000 people.
It is also clear that suicide attacks are becoming an all too common terrorist tactic. The July 7, 2005, London bombings; the 2008 attacks in Mumbai, India; the Moscow metro bombings in March of this year; other recent incidents in Dagestan, and many in Afghanistan--all are part of a worldwide trend of terrorizing ordinary people.
Suicide bombing is already covered by the definition of terrorist activity in the Criminal Code, and deservedly so. The definition of terrorist activity is contained in subsection 83.01(1) of the Criminal Code.
Bill seeks to amend section 83.01 of the code by adding the following after subsection 83.01(1.1):
(1.2) For greater certainty, a suicide bombing is an act that comes within paragraph (a) or (b) of the definition “terrorist activity” in subsection (1) if it satisfies the criteria of that paragraph.
To begin with, the first part of the definition of “terrorist activity” incorporates, in part, criminal conduct as envisaged by the International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings, one of the United Nations' counterterrorism conventions.
Further, the general definition of terrorist activity found in the second part of the definition includes terrorist activity that intentionally causes death or serious bodily harm, or endangers a person's life. Thus, it could be argued that suicide bombing committed for a terrorist purpose already falls within the definition.
While a general definition of terrorist activity that encompasses suicide bombing would be sufficient for the purposes of prosecution, distinguished Canadian criminal lawyers told the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs that explicitly covering suicide bombing in the Criminal Code could help prosecute and punish the organizers, teachers, and sponsors of suicide bombing.
Therefore, Mr. Chair, this bill proposes that a “greater certainty” or definitional clause be added to the definition of terrorist activity. The benefit of this clause is that it provides a clear and forceful education message, not only to the people of Canada but also to the world, that Canada denounces suicide bombing as a tactic of terrorists given its obvious contempt for human life and dignity.
Mr. Chair, this bill is drafted with precision to ensure that this definitional clause is consistent with the definition of terrorist activity currently in the code and does not accidentally enlarge the scope of terrorist activity. The bill expressly states that it is only seeking to include, within the definition, a suicide bombing in circumstances that satisfy the criteria for terrorist activity as stated in the definition of a terrorist activity. In this way, the wording of this provision ensures that any other type of suicide bombing with no connection to terrorist activity is not included in the definition.
Let me provide an example to demonstrate how carefully this definitional clause has been drafted.
On the one hand, I believe we can all agree that a suicide bomber who deliberately targets innocent civilians in order to advance his or her terrorist goals and those who assist him or her in those efforts should be caught by this new definitional clause.
On the other hand, consider the case of a mentally ill man who straps bombs to his body, goes to an empty field, and threatens to blow himself up but no one else. If he does blow himself up, he has engaged in suicide bombing, but there is no intention to intimidate the public for a political, religious, or ideological purpose. Nor is there any intention to harm anyone other than himself. Put simply, in this situation the suicide bomber has no connection at all to terrorism. Such a man was not intended to be caught by the original definition of terrorist activity, nor should he be caught by the new definitional clause.
Proposed subsection 83.01(1.2) of this bill achieves this clarity of result because it makes it clear that a suicide bomber must satisfy the criteria set out in either paragraph (a) or (b) of the definition of terrorist activity. In other words, it must be linked to terrorism.
Mr. Chair, I would also like to briefly note that the bill proposes to come into effect on a day to be fixed by the Governor in Council rather than on the day on which it would receive royal assent. This ensures maximum flexibility for the government to advise provinces of this change before it comes into effect.
As I previously stated, this bill has a lengthy history. It was originally introduced as Bill S-43 on September 28, 2005, reintroduced as Bill S-206 on April 5, 2006, reintroduced yet again as Bill S-210 on October 17, 2007, and reintroduced a fourth time as Bill S-205 on November 20, 2008. By finally passing this bill, Canada would show international leadership by likely being the first nation in the world to adopt this reference in its legislative definition of terrorist activity.
In closing, I support this bill because it promotes the worthy aim of specifically denouncing the despicable act of suicide bombing by terrorists. The changes brought by this bill to the definition of terrorist activity would continue to give Canada the necessary tools to prosecute persons for terrorist suicide bombings, whether it's the suicide bomber himself or herself where there has been an unsuccessful suicide bombing, as well as persons involved in the preparation or counselling of a terrorism offence.
Thank you very much.
Ms. Block, I'd like to begin by saying, one, I commend retired Senator Jerry Grafstein for bringing this forward and you for taking it up when Senator Grafstein retired.
I support this bill wholeheartedly. I think the objective of the bill is laudable and that you are correct, as was Senator Grafstein, that this will put Canada in a leading role.
Perhaps in order to allay some of the concerns that my colleague Mr. Lee expressed, I'd simply like to go to the paragraph in the Criminal Code that this bill would be amending.
If one looks at the text immediately following item 83.01(1)(b)(ii)(E) in the Criminal Code, we see the words:
and includes a conspiracy, attempt or threat to commit any such act or omission, or being an accessory after the fact or counselling in relation to any such act or omission
And then it goes on.
So I believe that the concerns of individuals, and perhaps some organizations, that this bill has no purpose because, by definition, if a suicide bomber is successful there's no one prosecute, are in fact incorrect, because the bill would allow for sweeping up those who counsel this kind of activity and those who engage in facilitating it.
And for that you have my complete support.
Thank you.
I think it is arguably the case that the French wording is not the same as the English in that suicide bombing.... If one interpretation of “l'attentat suicide” is “suicide attack”, then that is certainly a broader phrase than the “suicide bombing” in the English version.
However, my understanding is that in the interpretation of the texts, there are various rules of statutory interpretation that come into play. I believe one of them is that when it comes to interpreting criminal law, you should generally read an interpretation that is the most favourable to the accused, given the possible impact that could be had on the accused.
My guess is that in interpreting these provisions, the courts would look at both the English and the French and possibly conclude that suicide attack, in this particular context, or at least the phrase “l'attentat suicide”, would be interpreted along the same lines as terrorist bombing.
However, I do concede that there is a difference in the wording between the two phrases, in my view.
:
Having worked as a criminal lawyer, I am obviously familiar with the legal rule. An accused must benefit from the most favourable interpretation of the law. As a lawmaker, it seems to me that if we're talking about suicides attacks, the definition must be far broader than would be the case for “suicide bombings”, considering that the worst suicide attack to have occurred on this planet did not involve the use of a bomb. Mr. Lee gave examples of other suicide attacks that could be carried out in the same fashion.
Perhaps I could just give you another random example: a terrorist gets on a bus filled with tourists that is travelling up a mountain, jumps on the driver, grabs the wheel and drives the bus off the mountain, killing all the passengers. It seems to me that is just as serious an act as placing a bomb under a bus on a public thoroughfare.
I could certainly have understood your thinking had you said that suicide attacks are already covered under the legislation. If they are, then that necessarily means that the legislation also covers suicide attacks carried out using a bomb. However, when I read the French or the English version, it seems clear to me that the intent of the person who drafted this bill was to ensure that suicide attacks would be covered. One may well think that there is no need to cover them, because someone carrying out a suicide attack receives the punishment he deserves, but the fact is that here we are considering everything related to that attack: the preparation, the person who gave advice, and so on. Given all of that, I would like to see this apply to all suicide attacks, and not just those carried out using a bomb.
I realized that this bill will be referred back to the Senate. And it's not a bad idea for people in the Senate to see that members of the House of Commons sometimes have better ideas than they do… Sometimes.
:
Just very briefly, as it has already been mentioned, I believe the intention of this piece of legislation was to focus specifically on the aspect of suicide bombing and to ensure, in case there was any lack of clarity, that suicide bombing was caught by the definition of “terrorist activity”.
Certainly other forms of suicide attack, I think it's fair to say, Monsieur Ménard, would be caught by the general definition of “terrorist activity” even if they don't fall within this greater certainty clause, given the way the general definition, I would say, of terrorist activity is defined.
So for the purpose of this bill, focusing specifically on terrorist bombing, I think the way the English is worded is suitable, because that was the purpose of the bill.
As to the question of whether, in a particular situation, that would amount to a suicide bombing or not, I suppose there will always be those factual instances where there might be disagreement as to whether it constitutes a suicide bombing or some other form of terrorist attack.
Nonetheless, the general definition of “terrorist activity” would still catch it.
:
Mr. Chairman, I would like to share my speaking time with my colleague, Mr. Norlock.
First of all, Ms. Block, I would like to commend you for this, because it isn't always easy for a member to pilot a bill of any kind through Parliament. To begin with, it's a lengthy process and, very often, a bill—even a good bill—can die on the Order Paper, as they say, between parliamentary sessions. In this case, it came back to life. I checked the titles and wording of the various bills submitted prior to this one, and in every case the term used was “suicide bombings”. No other term has ever been used.
Furthermore, I would also like to commend the senator, with whom I frequently travelled for activities involving the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe. He truly is a great gentleman who, I believe, has fought long and hard, as part of the different groups he was associated with, in order to prevent terrorists, whether it be for religious, national or political reasons, from carrying out bombing attacks, and so on. I believe that is the purpose of this bill and that is really what he was seeking to do.
Having said that, on behalf of my colleagues, I would like to confirm that we will be supporting this. I will now turn it over to my colleague, Mr. Norlock.
:
I don't really need much time to discuss it. I think I've already made most of my arguments through the questions that were asked.
However, one thing is certain. I believe, with all due respect, that if there is one thing we should not do and that I find unacceptable, it would be to allow two contradictory versions to pass into law on the assumption that the courts will deal with it later.
I can also tell you when the courts do deal with these issues subsequently, their interpretation is generally not the one that most benefits the accused. That is a rule laid out by the Supreme Court that is now part of our case law—a rule articulated by the highest court in the land, which was to always give the accused the most favourable interpretation.
I, personally, feel that if this is an important provision, it should include all forms of suicide attacks, because the worst suicide attacks that we have experienced thus far were not necessarily carried out using a bomb. Obviously, if an airplane explodes, we can assume that it contained explosives. However, I am not sure everyone would agree that if someone flies a plane into a building, that plane could be considered a bomb. However, the other example I cited earlier is just as appalling. If someone decides to deliberately drive a bus full of passengers off a cliff into a ravine, by grabbing the steering wheel from the driver, the outcome is just as appalling.
Furthermore, if we don't need more security, then we don't need this at all. It's as simple as that. This is already a terrorist act covered by the legislation. So, if that legislation meets a certain need, I guess that need will cover all forms of suicide attacks, and not just those carried out using explosive materials or bombs.
That is the reason why I tabled this amendment which—I should point out in passing—was suggested to me by the Quebec Bar. It was initially the Quebec Bar that drew our attention to this point. As I recall, they were also of the view that the term “suicide attack” would be closer to the expressed intent of the framer of the bill, which was to fill a gap… That's why I am presenting this amendment, as well as the one that follows. I believe they should both suffer the same fate—in other words, both should either be passed or defeated.
:
The rule of interpretation that the most narrow interpretation should be used in terms of an accused seems the correct one; therefore, this really is a “suicide bombing” bill to amend the Criminal Code.
However, I live and breathe this bilingual mentality and ethos in Moncton, New Brunswick. That's the centre of bilingualism, right? And I just can't imagine....
Usually that statutory interpretation rule is used where unwittingly Parliament has two versions that are different. They didn't do it on purpose. We're almost saying that we're going to do this on purpose: we're going to have suicide bombings on one end and suicide attacks on the other, knowing, therefore, that the courts will interpret it as suicide bombings.
It's almost like deliberately bad drafting, so part of me says that we can't do that. On the other hand, what we heard from you, and what I believe, is that the glue needed to fix any ambiguity in the existing section is to specify suicide bombings. We have a Conservative government that is also supporting an amendment that is very narrow and precise and surgical--congratulations.
So I'm somewhat torn on the amendment. But we have to draft legislation in both languages that, as far as we know, accord with each other.
For that reason, I believe I'm going to support Mr. Ménard's amendment. It shouldn't be against the idea that we're doing something good for attacking the idea of suicide bombings or attacks; it's indeed broader. Mr. Ménard raises the question of whether that is covered by the section as it exists; I don't suppose we're doing any harm, and at least his amendment makes us adopt two versions that are in accord, as far as I can tell.
That's where I am on the amendment.
:
Mr. Chair, I concur with Mr. Woodworth.
It appears to me that the problem, if we can assume.... When Mr. Murphy was in the chair, he assumed that if Senator Grafstein was the author of the original bill, it was likely drafted in English. I think that's a reasonable supposition.
So the problem is not with the English translation, the problem is with the French translation of Senator Grafstein's original intent. I wonder, then, if it's not the French version that ought to be amended. I understand that the phrase “les attentats suicides à la bombe” might more accurately reflect the English version.
I agree with Mr. Woodworth that this is the appropriate way to resolve this discrepancy.
I will be voting against Mr. Ménard's motion unless he will allow me a friendly amendment to his motion to amend the French version.
I have the impression that Ms. Block was the sponsor of this bill in the House, so we can look at the record of proceedings in the House. We don't really have to resort to whatever might have been Senator Grafstein's intention.
For the benefit of my colleagues, I'd like to read into the record the excerpt from Hansard in which Ms. Block speaks to the introduction of this bill. I have to assume that it would have been on first or second reading. I'll just give you the relevant extracts. Her words were as follows:
Please allow me to provide an explanation of the contents of this bill for the benefit of all hon. members.
The bill seeks to explicitly include the act of suicide bombing within the context of the Criminal Code definition of “terrorist activity”.
Suicide bombing is a monstrous way to wreak havoc because it shows the utmost contempt for human life.
Elsewhere she stated as follows:
Explicitly including “suicide bombing” in the definition would also serve to denounce this horrendous practice and to educate the public that such suicide bombing is repugnant to Canadian values.
Finally, elsewhere she stated as follows:
For these reasons, I agree that there are benefits in making an exclusive reference to suicide bombing in the definition of “terrorist activity”. However, it is also important in doing so not to adversely affect the current definition of terrorist activity. Fortunately, this bill has been drafted with precision in order to address this concern.
Clearly, if I'm right that Ms. Block was the sponsor of the bill in the House, she has placed on the record in Hansard her intention with respect to the bill, and in a way has issued an implicit caution that the bill is drafted with precision in order to ensure that it doesn't adversely affect the current definition of “terrorist activity”.
For this reason, I would strongly counsel my colleagues to maintain the intention that was expressed in the House when this bill was introduced and spoken to by Ms. Block, and to avoid any proposal, such as would be contained in Mr. Ménard's amendment, to widen the scope of the bill beyond “bombing”.
Thank you.
The committee is really getting ahead of itself. We've really gone off the topic here.
The Criminal Code, in existing section 83.01, has a very exhaustive definition of “terrorist activity”. There are 11 paragraphs that fall under section 83.01, and I'll just read one of them. There is some concern, if I'm understanding my friends on the other side of the table correctly, that the 9/11 attacks somehow would not be captured by this bill, and I think they're right, but what they're missing is that it's already covered by section 83.01 of the Criminal Code.
One of the current definitions of “terrorist activity” is in subparagraph 83.01(1)(a)(ii):
the offences referred to in subsection 7(2) that implement the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Civil Aviation, signed at Montreal on September 23, 1971,
If my friends on the other side of the table are having trouble understanding that we're trying to make sure that “terrorist activity” includes suicide bombing, that is what this amendment is meant to do. That's not the exhaustive definition of “terrorist activity”; that's in addition to the 11 paragraphs that are currently contained in section 83.01.
For those reasons and the reasons outlined by Mr. Woodworth, we need to vote against Mr. Ménard's proposed amendment. If there is some concern about the difference between the French and English translations, the committee should accept my solution and amend the French version to make it narrower.
Thank you.