Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Legal and Constitutional Affairs
Issue 14 - Evidence for April 10, 2008
OTTAWA, Thursday, April 10, 2008
The Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, to which was referred Bill S-210, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (suicide bombings), met this day at 10:53 a.m. to give consideration to the bill.
Senator Joan Fraser (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Honourable senators, welcome to this meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, which is continuing its study of Bill C-210.
We are pleased to have with us this morning as a witness the Honourable Reuben Bromstein, President of Canadians Against Suicide Bombing.
Hon. Reuben Bromstein, President, Canadians Against Suicide Bombing: I am honoured to be here before you. I am the president of the organization, Canadians Against Suicide Bombing, CANASB . Last night, Senator Milne asked me to provide her with a copy of this document brief, which I can give you to send out. It sets out a lot about who we are, and it has some of the information that you already have.
We are a group of dedicated and experienced men and women who work together to help end the scourge of suicide bombing. We have gathered pretty broad support. In our views, there are three good public policy reasons to make a legal change: It will 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 and send a message to further international commitment.
You have my outline, which I do not think I need to repeat. I would like, with your permission, to go through the list of names and how they connect to what it is we are doing, which will give you some idea of the support that we have received and how this has developed.
Beginning at the top of the list, there is the Honourable Lincoln Alexander. We were talking about him appearing at your committee. but he is too fragile. I have worked with him and the Ontario Bar Association.
Haithem Al-Hassani is one of our directors. As you can see, he is a Canadian-Iraqi. He is the president of the Iraq Foundation in Washington. I was on the phone with him yesterday in Iraq, and he wished me the best and said, ``Please, ask them to support us.''
I was also at lunch yesterday with the ambassador from Iraq, who said that anything that he can do to be helpful, he would like to offer to do.
Then I go down the list to the Honourable Ed Broadbent, who was at one of our very first events in Ottawa. If you check our website, you will see a picture of him with the Honourable Stockwell Day and the Honourable Irwin Cotler supporting us back then.
Then the next one that I select is the Right Honourable Kim Campbell, and I will read what she sent to me a while ago:
It is this whole process that has to be denied legitimacy by holding all the participants culpable in law and opinion. . . We need to create a seamless web of legal liability around terrorist acts. . . What is perhaps not clearly established and could be done by your campaign is to extend EXPLICIT legal liability for terrorism committed by suicide bombers to ALL who have played a role in encouraging, assisting or rewarding . . . the act.
As a result of that, I met with Senator Grafstein and, ultimately, the bill was involved. That was part of the agenda that made me do what I am doing.
The next person in the list is Chand Chandaria. He is a Jain and an example of the interfaith breadth of the people who support us. He is in an international conglomerate with businesses all over the world. He is a friend, and we meet regularly.
Then we have the Right Honourable Jean Chrétien. A couple of weeks ago I got a phone call and the phone call went like as follows: ``This is former Prime Minister Jean Chrétien, and I want you to know . . . .'' I called my wife and said, ``Is somebody joking with me?'' I called back, and sure enough it was Mr. Chrétien. We had an interesting discussion where he said that the problem today is that we do not have tanks. What will we do with them, attack the Americans? It is a different war, and we have to recognize that for what it is and how to deal with it. We had an interesting discussion about that.
The next person I would like to refer you to is Tarek Fatah, founder of the Muslim Canadian Congress. Just so you are aware of some of the things that we do, the Iraq websites and the Sri Lanka websites have our bill and our petition in Muslim design. You can access them, and they are also on our website.
The Honourable L. Yves Fortier is also very heavily involved as a mediator internationally, one of the most prominent ones, and that is what I have been doing since I retired. He also said to me, ``You have got to make this thing work.'' He was a Security Council president, as you know, and that is the kind of support that we have gathered.
Buzz Hargrove, LLD sent money to help support us; I met him. Down the list, there are some of the religious leaders. There is the Most Reverend Andrew Hutchinson, who is the archbishop of the Anglican Church. There is the Reverend Stephen Kendall from the Presbyterian Church.
I have been involved with interfaith work for a number of years and people who helped to create CANASB in the beginning, Catholics, et cetera. In this list, you will find, from the Jewish synagogues, the leading orthodox, the leading conservative and the leading reform rabbis. Therefore, we have an interfaith dimension throughout what it is that we are doing.
The Honourable Marc Lalonde also voiced this. He is one of the leading mediators internationally. He said, ``Look, we bring people together. You can help bring people together on this issue.''
Major-General Lewis MacKenzie said to me not too long ago, ``Reuben, if you want me there, I am on standby.'' I did not think it would be quite right to have him here, so I let that go.
Preston Manning was one of the first people to support us.
There is also Dr. Salim Mansur, who has a fatwa issued against him. When I finish my presentation, I hope you will allow me to read the message that he sent the other day from Bali. It is at the end.
I met Imam Abdul Hai Patel at the Canadian Council of Christians and Jews dinner. He said, ``Of course, this is what we must do. We must help those who do not properly deal with the issue to understand that we have to deal with it properly.''
I recently ran a seminar for the Ontario Bar Association and the Honourable Bob Rae was one of my panellists. I told him I was going up to Ottawa, and he said, ``As you know, I was involved in the Sri Lanka problem. Maybe I can get you a Sri Lanka lawyer.'' I figured that was not necessary with the people we had yesterday.
I was on the phone with John Tory, LLB at length a while ago. While I was on the phone with him his daughter said, ``I wonder if we can get them some musicians to support this bill.'' I could not get into that. Then he got involved in a leadership campaign, and he was not able to do very much.
Next on the list is the Right Honourable John Turner. I worked with Mr. Turner many years ago when he was the justice minister. Recently, when he signed on, he sent me a photograph that he had signed of the two of us together when I was doing those things.
These are the people. It is a very broad perspective. They are helping us to work to get this type of legislation passed.
We have been covered in the media. The National Post published the article entitled ``The ultimate crime,'' which will be in the documents that Senator Milne asked me for if you decide to send it around.
I believe that the term ``suicide bombing'' is in common parlance. People relate to the words. It is almost like, instead of saying ``car,'' saying ``Honda.'' The term triggers an instantaneous response in your head. You do not have to describe it. People know what it means. It may not be technically correct in every situation, but it is in daily parlance in the media.
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. Every day, on my Internet, from Google, I receive many different items from many different websites including articles on suicide bombing. Some of it I cannot handle, especially when they show the children being told by their mother that the mother will die and the child should follow in the mother's example of suicide bombing. I cannot handle that, but I have to watch it and deal with it as best I can.
We know what happened with the British planes last week. We know it is coming here possibly, so we have to do something about it if we can. Our website, if you have had the chance to check it, has the countries, many different countries that are struggling with this. It is not the cause. We do not get into an argument about the justification of a cause. They are all different. There are Irish suicide bombers, Chinese suicide bombers and Iraqi suicide bombers; there are all sorts of them. We say that this means is simply not justifiable. It is wrong; it is wrong in law, in faith and should not be done, so we say let us catch the words. Let us do something about it.
I would like to read to you now, as I promised Mr. Mansur I would when I spoke to him. He sent me his email because he has been trying to come here for quite a while. He is with the influential Asia Society's Williamsburg Conference, which the Indian government is the host, and the President of Indonesia was scheduled to be there with representatives from the United States, Thailand, India, China, Japan and Pakistan. Mr. Mansur's email to you reads as follows:
Honourable Members of the Senate:
I had expected through the years I worked with The Honourable Reuben Bromstein and Canadians Against Suicide Bombing to attend the Committee hearings if and when Bill S-210 introduced by Senator Grafstein took place. I am presently attending a conference in Bali, Indonesia on `Islam in Asia' and, hence, regrettably cannot be in Ottawa to lend my voice in person in support of this Bill.
He happens to be, as a professor, extremely knowledgeable about that and has written internationally on these issues in regard to Islam. He continues:
I have been speaking about Bill S-210 with a number of participants at the conference here in Ubud, Bali. I have not encountered any disagreement from any individual, Muslim or non-Muslim, on the substance and purpose of this Bill, and hopefully its passage into law. Let me mention one individual with whom I spoke about this bill. Abdullah Abdullah is a former Foreign Minister of the first post-Taliban government in Kabul supported by NATO countries, and presently Chairman of the Massoud Foundation, an NGO committed to the making of Afghanistan into a free and democratic country. Massoud Foundation is named after Shah Massoud, the brave Afghan leader during the decade-long war against the former Soviet Union killed by suicide-bombers of Osama bin Laden's al Qaida terrorist organization on the eve of September 11, 2001. Abdullah Abdullah is fully supportive of Bill S-210 and he hopes that Canadian parliamentarians will, by passing this Bill, send a resounding message to the Arab-Muslim world and beyond how a civilized, democratic and highly respected country as Canada views the terrible plague of asymmetrical warfare launched by forces of radical Islam to deny Muslims, as in Afghanistan, to move forward and embrace the modern world of democracy, pluralism, science and gender equality. Similar is the sentiment of others, particularly women participants who watched with horror the murder of the Pakistani leader, Benazir Bhutto, last December.
I urge you, honourable senators, please do not let this opportunity pass in sending a powerful message across Canada and the world by supporting Bill S-210 — a simple and yet unmistakable message that as Canadians we will do whatever is legal and appropriate to defeat those who plan and execute such evil as suicide-bombings to intimidate governments and common people unwilling to bend to their anti-democratic and regressive use of politics, society and religion.
He echoes properly what I would have said in conclusion; for that I offer it to you.
Senator Andreychuk: Thank you for your presentation and your commitment to the issue. As I said in the speech on the floor of the Senate, I do not believe there are many Canadians who would support suicide bombings, although I will acknowledge that there may be some. I believe the majority of Canadians are adamantly against suicide bombing and that concept.
I am struggling with the definition of the term ``suicide bombing'' within a Criminal Code context because if we say that suicide bombing is included in terrorist activity, I would presume it was already there. I think most experts say it is. If we are now about to clarify it — I am not sure why we are clarifying it, I thought it was there all the time and that that was already part of our law — if we think there is some political message, some societal message that warrants us identifying suicide bombing, how would you define it? Having been a judge myself, I want some precision.
The concept is known, but we need precision in the Criminal Code and in our activities. How would you define suicide bombing?
Mr. Bromstein: You initially said that we are suggesting it is not defined. We are not suggesting that. We are suggesting that picking wording to symbolize the terrorism that is associated in people's minds would help.
Let us take an example that happened last week. We all know that people who use cellphones while driving can have accidents. It is wrong, and we know that. However, two provinces last week decided to pass legislation banning the use of cellphones while driving. It particularizes an event that we all know is wrong and sends the message: Do not do it.
That is what this bill does; it sends a message. I do not think we need to define it. We do not need to be precise, because it is there is in the legislation; you are quite correct. We are sending a message to people that this is a growing trend over many years. It keeps growing in more countries. Every day, more people are being killed.
We are triggering something in you, the average Canadian, to say: Let us pay some attention to this. Let us recognize that Canada can do something about this by being explicit. Let us stop those who are naive and wish to become suicide bombers. Those words trigger that.
In that sense, we do not need to be more precise. It is precise. We are suggesting that we do what they have done with cellphones and with all the other pieces of legislation that particularize a point. We are saying that this is the example that helps you, the individual Canadian, to recognize what must be done.
By the way, the lawyers yesterday dealt with this at length.
Senator Andreychuk: I wanted your opinion on this.
Mr. Bromstein: I accept what they say. They are very articulate and know more about the issue than I do.
Senator Andreychuk: I will leave that one alone.
My concern about the cellphone example is that I do not believe everyone thinks that driving and using a cellphone is wrong. If anyone thinks it is slightly wrong, they say that we will go to a non-hand-held device of some sort. I believe there is a debate, and the government is taking leadership in that.
I do not hear a debate in Canada about its usefulness or not. Most people find suicide bombing abhorrent. I am concerned that we trap the activity correctly. If we are sending the signal, we had better know what we mean by ``suicide bombing.'' Is it a bomb, or can it be an attack, or can it be some other concept where someone utilizes their own life to take other people's lives?
Mr. Bromstein: I am not suggesting that the word ``attack'' would not cover some things that suicide bombing does not cover. That is not my point. There is a debate. I wish that you were wrong about whether suicide bombing is acceptable or not. Unfortunately, I see that regularly.
Salim Mansur has a fatwa issued against him because of things he does and stands for, so there is a debate. We are trying to simply say that this is the method of identifying it. I do not know how else to say that.
Senator Andreychuk: It is an international debate.
Mr. Bromstein: It is a debate in Canada. There are people who debate the issue in Canada. I wish I were wrong.
Senator Andreychuk: Would you put on the record the source?
Mr. Bromstein: I would have to go back and dig out the material. Do you suggest that there are not people who think that suicide bombing is acceptable, that it is justifiable? There is an article in the Osgoode Hall Law Journal suggesting that suicide bombing is justifiable.
Senator Andreychuk: I am suggesting that there has been in Canada, and will continue to be, either an academic debate or another type of debate, for whatever reasons, within a small segment. I think that is known. What I am saying is that I believe the majority of Canadians agree with you.
Mr. Bromstein: I have no disagreement.
Senator Joyal: I read your brief. It does not address specifically, with all due respect, the letter that the Minister of Justice sent to you. I do not believe I am revealing a confidential letter here, because I am sure it has circulated. I have a copy dated March 19, 2008. I am not sure that is the date of the letter, but it is the text of the letter I received, and it comes from the ministerial correspondence unit. Do you have a copy of that letter?
Mr. Bromstein: Yes, I do.
The Chair: Would you provide a copy of that to the clerk?
Senator Joyal: Of course, I will provide a copy.
I do not think I am breaching the confidentiality of the correspondence between you and the Department of Justice Canada.
Mr. Bromstein: No, you are not.
Senator Joyal: In this letter, there are different arguments that the minister spelled out in answer to your request in support of Bill S-210. Could you, in more specific terms, give us your answer to that letter? Unless you have already sent an answer to the Minister of Justice, whereby, of course, we would certainly, if possible, like to get that answer. Otherwise, if you have not replied in writing to the minister, maybe you would want to address the various arguments that the minister outlines in the various paragraphs of that letter.
Mr. Bromstein: The main point he makes is, very simply, that suicide bombing is covered. That is the main argument that he makes. I do not disagree with that. The lawyers yesterday did not disagree with that as such.
They are saying, and I would have said, that we need to focus on the words. I outlined them in what I gave out, where I suggested problems.
Representatives of the Department of Justice Canada and Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada have offered three main reasons why suicide bombing should not be explicitly included in the Criminal Code. They argue, first, that it is already covered implicitly; second, that it could narrow the definition of ``terrorist bombing,'' or confuse the definition, or have some other undesirable, unintended effect; and, third, the current legislative wording reflects the consensus that was negotiated internationally. I think that is, in essence, what he would be saying if he were here.
I then tried to deal with each of these, and I said that, first, prominent counsel have dealt with the argument that suicide bombing is probably covered implicitly in the Criminal Code. As I have pointed out earlier in my remarks, there are strong public policy reasons to cover it legally, explicitly. I was not disagreeing with him in that sense.
Second, while I have some experience, I am not an expert in this area. Counsel have dealt with the argument about narrowing the definition. They pointed to phrases such as ``without restricting the generality of the foregoing'' and ``for greater certainty,'' which appear regularly in Canadian legislation.
Finally, on the third issue, it is time to take the international consensus further and include suicide bombing within it explicitly. The Parliamentary Assembly of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe passed a resolution urging the UN to remedy the unnecessary uncertainty about suicide bombing and make it a crime against humanity. More recently, the Secretary-General of the United Nations labelled suicide terror an unacceptable political weapon and said that he would personally ask the President of the United Nations General Assembly for a special session on suicide terror. This is an opportunity for Canada to again be an example, as we have been before with the Ottawa treaty on land mines and other peacekeeping initiatives.
My answer to the justice minister is simply, ``I appreciate what you say. I understand your response. I understand why you say that it is covered. I am trying to make a different point.''
My background is communications, and I am suggesting that we want to communicate that this is wrong, and suicide bombing triggers something in people. That is why we have the websites in Muslim design promoting the bill and the article that talks about the ultimate weapon; that is why we say that it is important to focus on something that has meaning for people. It will not cover every event, and it will not cover every attack, but it will have meaning. I do not know what else to say. I hope that is of some help.
Senator Joyal: That is your answer to at least two of the main arguments, as I read them, in the minister's letter, but the minister also spells out another argument in the last two paragraphs:
There are definite instances where suicide bombings are clearly not terrorist activities. For example, the act of a man blowing himself up in a farmer's field will not qualify as a terrorist activity. The adoption of this bill will unduly expand the scope of the definition of terrorist activity.
Do you have a rebuttal to that interpretation by the Minister of Justice?
Mr. Bromstein: Yesterday, one of the lawyers dealt with that, and I cannot disagree with what he said. There are many parts of the Criminal Code; it is a massive book. Before I went in as a judge, it was much smaller. I knew the Honourable Arthur Martin, author of Martin's Annual Criminal Code. I would not disagree that those other instances are covered and that suicide bombing would not necessarily cover that particular event.
Senator Joyal: In your opinion, this bill does not need to include a definition of suicide bombing to be effective.
Mr. Bromstein: No, definitely not. Let me give you an example: TVO had a British show that was a supposed- documentary but was not a documentary. In it, a young woman is being heavily influenced by the people from her community about terrible people doing all sorts of terrible things to her family. She ultimately dresses herself up as a young pregnant woman and has a vest of bombs beneath her clothes with ball bearings and such that explode. At the end of film, she walks into an open park where young people are playing music, and the film ends there. Obviously, the message being sent was that she felt justified in doing what she was doing. You do not know whether the kids in the orchestra were killed or not, but that was a perfect example of the type of things that relate. There are three components: One, there must be a suicide; two, there must be a murder — and I assume in that show there was; and, three, there must be people who assist or aid, financially or otherwise. Those three components tie together under the words ``suicide bombing.''
Senator Joyal: What type of relationship do you make between glorification of terrorism and suicide bombing?
Mr. Bromstein: That is the terrible problem. It is just awful. I cannot discuss that without feeling terribly about it. There are people who say that you will go to 72 virgins and that God demands this of you. It is a terrible thing. That is how they justify suicide bombing. As Patrick Monahan said yesterday, they are trying to legitimize it by the argument that it is religiously sanctioned. Salim Mansur, who writes on this issue, tells me it is not religiously sanctioned; he is a Muslim. We have Jewish and prominent Christian people working with me. I met with the archbishop. The person who worked with me initially on interfaith matters was Archbishop Terry Prendergast, who is now the archbishop in Ottawa.
I cannot handle that easily. It bothers me. That is the type of thing where I hope that we can send a message that it is wrong.
Senator Joyal: It has been explained to us that objective of the bill is not per se to sanction suicide bombing because that is already covered in section 83 and following paragraphs of the Criminal Code. The main alleged objective is deterrence. For most of the examples that have been given to us, the suicide bombing activities have a political or religious or ideological purpose, so they are then directly linked to glorification of terrorism in the broadest sense. Therefore, I make the following reasoning: If this bill's objective is deterrence, as you spell out in your brief, then should it not be complimentary to a bill that would sanction glorification of terrorism?
Mr. Bromstein: I am not quite with you about sanction; I am sorry.
Senator Joyal: One of the objectives of this bill is deterrence; that is what you said in your brief. If we are to act to add to the code a deterrent for that type of terrorism activity, should we not at the same time adopt in the code a section that would sanction or prohibit glorification of terrorism?
Mr. Bromstein: You mean stop it.
Senator Joyal: Yes, that is correct.
Mr. Bromstein: Sanction, to my way of thinking, is to accept something.
It is tricky, because then you get into a religious argument and the argument that was dealt with in the Khawaja case. I believe it is wiser not to get into that because everything is sufficiently covered. Triggering the words would probably do it.
The Honourable Roy McMurtry, who initially asked me to join his bench when I was on the list for the Superior Court, signed this. He thinks that this makes sense. Someone of that level, and three former prime ministers, three former justice ministers, three provincial premiers and three leading political experts all think this is something that can be useful and should be done. I feel I am not as knowledgeable as some of them. They may have answers to what you are asking.
I would like to think that I, as a citizen, have said I would like to do something. When I started this, the main suicide bombers were in Sri Lanka. Now, it is everywhere and every day in Iraq; they glorify it. I feel that it is covered in the code. However, triggering the words in people's minds will help them recognize that perhaps when they see an instance of it developing, they can help stop it. If it is glorification, maybe they can say, ``Look, you cannot justify suicide bombing by saying that it is sanctioned religiously.'' Of course it is not, but if that is their argument, then people will say that it is wrong and not to do it. I wish I had another answer.
Senator Stratton: Welcome, sir. I am glad to have you here today. It is an interesting discussion. Having travelled to the Middle East a reasonable number of times in the past and into Iraq and Jordan, specifically, before the First Gulf War and Second Gulf War, and meeting Jordanians, in particular, who were former Palestinians, I know they view bombings and suicide bombings as the only route they have left because they tried everything else.
I am not quoting directly, but that is what I have been told by them. They were quite strong in their feelings about that. It had nothing to do with religion at the time. It had everything to do with a fight for freedom, for the recognition of the independent state of Palestine. That was what they were fighting about.
The root cause, as explained to me, was essentially that. Then I believe it evolved from that; at least, that is my understanding.
With respect to the Irish, I do not recall, having an Irish heritage, suicide bombing in Ireland. I recall that there were bombings but not suicide ones.
Mr. Bromstein: There was a suicide bomber in London, an Irish one.
Senator Stratton: I am sorry, but not within Ireland. Forgive me if I am wrong.
I go from the root cause — that there are two sides to every story. Having failed to achieve independence or achieve their aims through success in war, they resort to this. It is reprehensible, as I said yesterday. However, you must at least recognize that there is a reason, other than religion, for doing this. I am not saying the reason is correct, but at least I want to put it on the record that there are reasons other than religion.
No one is arguing how reprehensible this is; however, when we consider the definition, it has been bothering me consistently. When we consider the event of Air India, we question what that was. It is the same for the event of 9/11. Was that a suicide bombing, or was it a suicide attack? Then we have to consider, as one of our researchers pointed out to me, the women with Down's syndrome who were wrapped with a belt of dynamite and sent into a crowd and remotely triggered, killing them and people in the crowd.
I understand the message you are trying to deliver, but my bigger fear is that not only do we have to recognize the suicide bombing events but also the greater threat that seems to be there, with the recent arrests in London, where they were actually planning and had identified two Air Canada flights coming to Toronto and Montreal.
That, to me, is as reprehensible; that they can knock out an aircraft with a huge number of people on board — with these new airlines, over 500 people — that they could remotely trigger something without being there. They could shoot that aircraft down standing at the end of the runway with a rocket launcher. Those events, to me, are as reprehensible as an individual walking into a market strapped with a bomb.
My concern is that if we use the term ``suicide bombing,'' what about these other events that have or could take place? How do we point out to individuals that it is as reprehensible as a suicide bombing?
Mr. Bromstein: Precisely. Once we get people to start focusing on suicide bombing, when another event comes up, we tell them that that is covered, but now that suicide bombing is recognize as something we should pay attention to, we have to stop those. We do not have to cover it in the legislation. We have to ensure that people identify with it and tell others to stop doing that.
As a matter of fact, the London flight was not remote; they were going to be on the flight.
I am not saying that those instances are not covered, or that they are not something to which we should pay attention. I am just suggesting that you start with that which is in the daily news, which is in common parlance. It is in the media. It is accepted. Those are the words that people associate currently as the most widely used method of terrorism.
On the issue of national liberation, children having coffee and being killed by these people, is that the method to deal with national liberation — killing civilians? I do not think so.
I am not disagreeing that there may be people who use the national liberation argument. It is one of the issues as to why they have not been able to cover it internationally because people keep saying that it is justified for national liberation purposes. To me, it is morally wrong. It is not the cause; it is the means.
Senator Stratton: I was not justifying why they are doing it; I was simply putting on the record there are other reasons than religion for doing this. That was my point.
Mr. Bromstein: Fair enough.
Senator Stratton: My last point is with respect to Assistant Commissioner McDonell. He agreed with the premise, but wanted to change the wording of ``suicide bombing'' to ``suicide attack.'' He had very good explanations for the reasons for that change. Do you agree with that?
Mr. Bromstein: I agree that the term ``attack'' has perhaps greater coverage, but he also said that he agreed that ``suicide bombing'' would be a good first step. You move a step at a time.
Senator Stratton: He also said it is not necessary to have the legislation. He said that he could live with the law as it is, but that he would prefer the term ``suicide bombing'' be in the code. However, if he had his preference, it would be worded as ``suicide attack,'' just to make it clear. If every agrees with me around the table, I think that is the summary of what he said.
That is my only real concern. Once we put something in the shopping cart, as someone said, we will continually be doing it ad nauseam. One wonders if there is not a better way of approaching this issue, rather than through the law.
I believe one of the witnesses said, yesterday, that without education attached to this, it will have no impact. It will have a very short-lived impact, and then it will die. The impact will be the initial hit of the bill and then it will just quietly die; whereas, if it is tied directly to an education program, then we could do something. Why would we not approach this on the basis of education, rather than passing a bill?
Mr. Bromstein: Why not do both?
Senator Stratton: Do you think you need to do both?
Mr. Bromstein: Yes, I do.
Senator Stratton: Then I would argue, for the sake of being counter here, that perhaps you could do that better. There are two sides to the story, I will agree with you.
I remember in the early 1980s, the campaign to prevent smoking started through advertising and education. They tried to measure the impact of the education process. In the beginning — because I worked with the then health minister — they really did not think there was an impact. It took 15 or 20 years for that impact to be felt. We can now measure it today.
How do you convince young kids who are impressionable teenagers? You can now impress upon them not to smoke. How do you impress upon them not to blow things up, along with themselves? That, to me, is the core issue.
Mr. Bromstein: I accept what you say.
Senator Di Nino: There is no doubt that suicide bombing is an evil act — which I call a ``brilliantly evil weapon'' — and that the vast majority of people around the world abhor.
One of the purposes of legislation is deterrence. I am not suggesting that this should not go forth, but I fail to understand how this legislation could prevent a suicide bomber from committing this heinous crime.
Is it mainly a symbolic gesture that we are dealing with and trying to achieve?
Mr. Bromstein: That is well put, as was Senator Stratton's comment to straighten it out for me. Symbolism is important in having people pay attention to problems. Without symbols, we do not always pay attention to that which needs to be focused on. If there are communities or people gradually developing the use this brilliantly evil weapon, as you call it, or considering the use of such a weapon, then you are helping people to recognize it. The next step would be for those people to think about it in a way that when they encounter an instance of a naive young person being influenced by that, perhaps they would say something or do something to help stop that.
In the same way that, when I started this campaign for Canadians Against Suicide Bombing, most people said that it is motherhood and asked why I was bothering. I told them it is because there are people who are not saying that it is motherhood, and, perhaps, you will agree that this is something that makes some sense.
In that way, it is not just symbolism; it is a mechanism, and that is why these people signed this letter to the Senate. They said, ``I guess you are right. We should say or do something.''
Senator Di Nino: I do not disagree with the campaign. To shine a light on this issue is critically important. I am not sure that passing a bill will add much, although it will not harm it. I want to make a strong comment to you that the education and the shining of this light must continue, as my colleague Senator Stratton said about smoking, because it is probably a more important undertaking than a piece of legislation that, once it is passed, will never be heard from again.
Senator Andreychuk: I believe that the point was put to you that it is a deterrent. As I understand from previous evidence by Mr. Monahan, he replied that he did not agree with Senator Grafstein on the point. I quote:
I do not think the point is to deter individuals who are thinking about bombing. It is part of a global struggle for legitimacy. It is the claim of moral justification that is at issue. It is to influence the global debate that this legislation will lead to others picking up on this provision.''
In other words, if I understand Mr. Monahan, and I agree with him, I do not think this legislation will get at the individual who will be either brainwashed or led to the bombing. However, it might send a signal, as a part of a global struggle for legitimacy, if you can use the term ``deterrence'' in that broad way.
Senator Joyal: The last paragraph of page 2 of the submission by CANASB raised the same point that you make. It says:
If they are fanatic in their belief and are committed to acting on it, they are unlikely to be deterred whether we add the words ``suicide bombing'' to the Code or not.
That is the very point that you and some other witnesses have made.
The Chair: The next sentence says: ``However, the naive on whom they prey may well be influenced.''
There was testimony last week about the people who fall into that grey zone — those who are neither the masterminds nor the people who have already crossed the Rubicon and decided to be suicide bombers. They are the influenceable. There was some testimony to that effect last week in committee.
Senator Andreychuk: Following up on Senator Fraser's question, Mr. Bromstein, you said that three categories would be trapped under this definition. The last category encompassed people who finance suicide bombers. They may, but how? My understanding of your first two points was that they could be trapped in our understanding of a suicide bomber. However, with respect to the money trail, it does not necessarily follow, in my opinion or in any of my readings, that that would be included in a definition of ``suicide bombing.'' That falls under financing terrorist activity.
It might be that, down the road, someone would draw the equation, but I do not see instantly that if someone goes in and has a purpose of financing a suicide bomber, we would make the equation. I would like to know how you make that equation.
Mr. Bromstein: They create schools that teach people to be suicide bombers. They finance them.
Senator Andreychuk: A school of suicide bombing.
Mr. Bromstein: Yes, that is correct. They also provide money to the families who have had children commit suicide.
Senator Andreychuk: You are suggesting that by adding the words ``suicide bombing'' to Bill S-210, we could charge all those other people for the act?
Mr. Bromstein: They can be charged anyway. I am simply saying that it provides a rubric — an overall approach.
Senator Andreychuk: We are back to their being charged anyway.
Mr. Bromstein: It brings it all together. It provides a framework to which people can pay attention.
Senator Andreychuk: Perhaps that is where we disagree. The framework is the terrorist activity, of which suicide bombing may be one issue.
Senator Grafstein: I will not take too much time because I know of Mr. Bromstein's hard work. I commend him for presenting to the Senate the most outstanding list of bipartisan Canadians for a single cause that I have seen since I have been here. Former prime ministers, both sides, former political leaders and four federal ministers of justice are supporting this bill. Senator Andreychuk, four federal ministers of justice are supporting this amendment to the Criminal Code, and three of them are former prime ministers.
That is an astounding amount of support. I cannot remember when we have ever had such outstanding support in my history in the Senate, which stretches over two decades.
I want to deal with the question of education. I am sorry Senator Di Nino is not here. Mr. Bromstein, this is an education book, and the Criminal Code is all about education. However, it is not education in the universities. Mr. Trudell will give us such evidence shortly. He will agree that this is a book of public education with legal consequences. The whole purpose of the Criminal Code, I hope you agree, is to educate, but with specific legal consequences if you continue to refuse to be educated about following conduct that is egregious under the code. Therefore, I fundamentally disagree with two of the other senators who want another educational process. It has not worked. The Criminal Code is, in fact, the education of last resort.
I want to refer to Senator Andreychuk's argument. Genital mutilation is covered by the Criminal Code. Why express it? It is aggravated assault and is named in the code; we added it. Most recently we added street racing. It is covered in the code, so why add the words ``street racing''? Senator Andreychuk has said that if it is covered in the Criminal Code, we do not need it.
Senator Andreychuk: With respect, that is not what I said. I wanted to know if there is any other reason that the interpretation, as it stands in the Criminal Code, does not include suicide bombing of any type. The answer was that it is in there. I think, with respect, the witness has given his full answer.
Mr. Bromstein: I agree. There are two functions to criminal law: punishment and prevention. Prevention includes education. It is not acceptable conduct. That is my message.
Senator Grafstein: I want to go back to your response to the question of a suicide bomber and Senator Andreychuk's argument that just adding the words does not add to the offence. I understood that was the very reason why the person most responsible for these prosecutions, the assistant commissioner, said that it would be helpful as a deterrent to be able to tie up the elements of an offence in one phrase. That was my understanding of his evidence.
Do you agree with that reading of his evidence?
Mr. Bromstein: I was very appreciative of what he said, yes.
Senator Grafstein: Do you agree with that reading of his evidence?
Mr. Bromstein: Yes, I agree.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Bromstein. It was a useful contribution to our deliberations.
Senator Andreychuk, in response to an earlier question, you referred to an article in the Osgoode Hall Law Journal. If you could forward the reference to that article to the clerk so that our records can be complete, that would be helpful.
Mr. Bromstein: I thank you for your courteous method of dealing with my concerns. This has been something I have had to live with for five years, and it is not easy.
The Chair: It has been our pleasure to have you among us.
Our next witness is Mr. William Trudell. Welcome back, Mr. Trudell.
William Trudell, Chair, Canadian Council of Criminal Defence Lawyers: Thank you. As always, it is an honour to be invited to perhaps assist on this legislation. The Canadian Council of Criminal Defence Lawyers, CCCDL, as you know, is a council of defence lawyers across Canada. We represent lawyers in every province and territory. We are often consulted by Senate committees, House of Commons committees and the federal government to provide input into matters involving criminal justice. We are grateful for the opportunity.
I must tell you that it is very unusual, I think, for defence lawyers to not oppose criminal legislation, especially where the Department of Justice Canada basically says that it is not necessary. When I first thought of this and consulted with my colleagues, we wondered why we would want to be here. What is it that we would want to say?
We look at this in a different light. This is not creating new legislation. I had the opportunity to review the testimony of the representatives of the Department of Justice Canada and of the RCMP and, very briefly, scanned the evidence from your guests yesterday. However, the thread that has run through everything you have heard is that this legislation is not necessary. It does not fill a gap.
It is for another reason. I am impressed, as a chair, for what I see as the other reason. We understand that this is a non-partisan piece of legislation.
Senator Grafstein: So far.
Mr. Trudell: So far. It is a statement of basic principle. We feel it is an affirmation of the sanctity of life that is important to Canadians and, in effect, is reflected in the Criminal Code and in some of the representations made.
We abhor murder. Murder is punishable by life imprisonment. However, we do not have capital punishment in this country. There is a debate, and we are careful before surrendering persons to other jurisdictions where capital punishment exists. That is because Canadians, in our respectful submission, appreciate and honour the sanctity of life.
What we think you are doing here with this bill is reinforcing a principle. In that regard, we do not oppose this legislation. It is an affirmation of a basic principle. If it was new legislation, we would be talking about something different.
In one of the previous testimonies, someone suggested there are other offences in the Criminal Code, like street racing, I heard as an example. We opposed street racing. The Canadian Council of Criminal Defence Lawyers did not feel that it was necessary. We thought it was a response to a political movement or lobbying. We argued that there is no street racing in Nunavut. It came from political concerns and, perhaps, a response to citizens' requests.
This is different. This is not new legislation. This does not come from a political impetus, as we understand it. It is for clarity. It is the words that are missing. We do not feel that you need to worry about floodgates opening, because there is no question that it is for clarification. You can always add the words without limiting the generality; to deal with anyone who is concerned with the question of if you say it in this case will someone not come back and say it in another situation. We do not think so. We are not concerned, as the Department of Justice Canada was that it seemed the floodgates might open. You can deal with it. It is an issue of clarity.
Canada does not need to worry about this not being found in other jurisdictions. Quite frankly, we are saying that terrorist bombing is unacceptable, for whatever reason. We do not know whether there is a deterrent effect. It will certainly not deter the bomber, but it may send a message to the bomber's family. It may have an educative effect. No one wants to be branded a terrorist. They may think of themselves as a martyr. Therefore, there is nothing wrong with it because it may send an educative message. It may be a deterrent. However, even if you were to decide it is not a deterrent, is there anything the matter with saying it? Since it is clarification, we do not oppose the bill.
We come here to help you. You are the persons who are charged with introducing legislation leading the country. Therefore, if you decide this is necessary, please proceed, but not because there is a gap that needs to be filled. There is no gap that needs to be filled; the legislation is pretty clear. However, if you, in your wisdom, decide that it is important because of what is happening in the world, that it is important to put the words in the Criminal Code, then do it. If we come here to tell you that you should not do it and do not need it, we are just giving you help that is all. If you decide as the persons responsible that this is something — and I hope in a nonpartisan way — that you should say, then we certainly do not oppose it because this is your job.
On behalf of CCCDL, we do not feel that the arguments presented should prevent you from certain wording if you decide that it might help this legislation, which is not new legislation. It just sends a clarion call for those who want to hear it that Canada takes the position that suicide bombing is a terrorist offence.
Before I am asked, I will speak in relation to the issue of the term ``suicide attack.'' I read the testimony. That is up to you. However, if you think that it begins to ask more questions or is not as defined or not as clear, then do not go there because the term ``suicide bombing'' is clear. If you are comfortable with the word ``attack'' and that reflects the need that you perceive, then, by all means proceed. However, if it raises grey areas or is used by persons who say that it allows them to investigate further or close the circle, that is not what this is about. This is not being brought in or introduced to increase prosecution or to help the police. It is a statement that is missing in the Criminal Code, and you may decide that it should be in there.
Is there another way to do this? I do not know, but certainly terrorist activity and criminal offences are covered by the Criminal Code. The vehicle is there; and with respect to the message, if you want it to go out, then there is nothing the matter with putting it in the code because, perhaps, that is where it should go.
In essence, why are we here? Why is the defence counsel saying that it is up to you? We see a basic principle that we all represent: The sanctity of life for the victims and maybe for the bomber. It is wrong, it is unacceptable, in any form, and you will get caught if you do not die or if you are part of the conspiracy, part of planning, abet, et cetera. The Criminal Code has all kinds of sections that will catch and prosecute. It is the message that we want to send, and we do not oppose it.
Senator Andreychuk: Thank you for putting your point on the record as you have, namely, that you believe it is a decision for the parliamentarians to make if they want to send a message.
However, I do not quite understand the distinction for street racing because it may not be of the same degree. I do not want to equate the two issues in any way. However, at that time, clearly Parliament wanted to send a message, too.
Mr. Trudell: I was trying to say that we were invited and testified before committees in relation to street racing. We are a national voice. When we were given the opportunity, we came forward and said that this is a political response — Parliamentarians did not agree with us — to what seems to be happening in a couple of big cities. It is the Criminal Code that will change, and street racing is not a problem in North Saskatchewan or in Nunavut. Therefore, if it is covered already in the Criminal Code, we have been critical of just adding sections to the Criminal Code to deal with changes that react to, with respect, political pressures, political views and some law-and-order-type movements. It is different for us.
That is why I said that we opposed that. It was creating a new offence; this is not. This is saying clearly that, without limiting the generality, suicide bombing is a terrorist activity. Therefore, that is the difference. We had this debate around the CCCDL table. It is not the same as street racing; it is not a new offence; it is not politically motivated. It is a general Canadian statement of principles. That is how I tried to suggest it.
Senator Andreychuk: Thank you for the clarification. I would simply say that I take issue with your statement of ``politically motivated'' in regard to street racing. It was parliamentarians in their wisdom responding to citizens caring about an issue. I believe it did affect Northern Saskatchewan as much as anywhere else. It was a political judgment at that time to add it. It was not politically motivated; it was a political judgment. I want that on the record.
However, I take your comment that this is a message that you believe parliamentarians wish to make. It is not adding to the Criminal Code.
Mr. Trudell: Yes, that is correct. Honourable senator, we are not debating this. We make submissions; we help you, and if you say, ``You are wrong; this is not politically motivated,'' that is fine. We are here to test you. The decision was made, and the bill was passed. You did the job that you have to do; we did the job we had to do.
Senator Stratton: I want to go back to the issue of street racing.
Mr. Trudell: Could I withdraw that whole analogy. Could I just race out of here?
Senator Stratton: You measure a law by its effectiveness. I ponder on whether the law has been effective today. That is a fundamental question that can only be truly measured over a period of time. However, it appears to have been effective. I look at that and consider how this current proposal dealing with suicide bombing that is before us will have an impact, both immediate and over time.
I return to my fundamental argument, as I recall it vividly, of tobacco being finally recognized in the early 1980s as being a very serious problem, causing a great number of deaths. We had a discussion with the health minister at the time about banning tobacco — it does not work, we have been through that before with alcohol.
We could educate or try to tax it out of existence. The government of the day opted for the latter — in other words, tax it out of existence. It did not work because we had contraband cigarettes running across the United States to Canada and from Ontario to Manitoba, et cetera.
The only approach that was effective over time was education. Even then, when we were starting the education process, its effectiveness was questioned. It took a great deal of time.
I am still at the fundamental problem of if we pass this bill, it will have an impact and then die. In effect, how will you encourage and ensure that it will be effective without an education process in the schools with the young? If you do that, then why do you need the bill in the first place? Why not just educate?
Mr. Trudell: Let me try to respond to that.
There was a lot of debate in relation to the tobacco legislation. Some people think it is acceptable. It was a problem. However, this is different. Maybe in that situation we are talking about the sanctity of health. Someone said that if they want to smoke and kill themselves, they have a right to do it. We may prohibit doing it in a car or classroom or in a public place.
We are talking about something we all agree on — there is no debate — the sanctity of life. Therefore, with respect, I throw it back. Why not put it in?
I understand there is a long, distinguished list of Canadians who believe it may help. Some may feel it is educative; some may feel it is a deterrent, but everybody agrees it is a statement of Canadian principles. Once it is in there, it will have an educative effect because the articles that are written from this point on will mention it. International studies will mention that Canada has specifically said, to bring it home, that we believe in the sanctity of life by this piece of legislation.
I say to you — which is a strange thing for a criminal lawyer to say in relation to this — why would it hurt? Where is the downside? It is not new legislation, so why not? The statement itself is educative.
I agree that the Criminal Code is a vehicle to get the word out. and it is in force that we respect the rule of law. It is a vehicle that is educational because every day there is another section that judges are looking at and interpreting. Therefore, it is an important vehicle. I would respectfully submit that criminal justice is moving up the scale in terms of public awareness and people being concerned. It may very well be a really good starting place.
Let us say, for purposes of this discussion, that we were educating students. We are sending them this message: You hear things about people being martyrs or acting out of total frustration. Whether it comes from complete despair or some ideology or both, it does not matter. It does not matter because it is wrong. It is fundamentally against Canadian principles for you to create a situation where you are destroying the lives of other people, for whatever purpose, along with your own. You can kill yourself if you want; it is not an offence in the Criminal Code, but it is absolutely unacceptable, for whatever reason, to destroy others.
If I was teaching in a classroom and talking about the precious Criminal Code and the precious criminal justice system and looking at the anti-terrorism legislation, as a teacher, I would say that Canada is the only country that has said it. There will not be one student in the classroom who will ask why Canada did that or why was that necessary.
With respect, I do not feel that this is an example of something that gets passed and then sort of dies, and no one talks about it any more. Suicide bombing seems to be the vehicle that is growing. It is affecting our soldiers in Afghanistan; we are all afraid that it could happen. It is a new phenomenon of terrorism. Someone said that there are articles that justify it, and you talked about people who figure this is the only way to do it. That is fine; I do not care about their motivation. We are talking about the sanctity of life. Canada stands for it; it is a basic principle.
Therefore, I ask — and I do not mean to be trite about it — what is the matter with it? It might be a vehicle for further education. A statement by the Prime Minister is something that can be used as an educational vehicle, but that probably will be news for a day. If you put it into the Criminal Code, it will be taught for years and years to law students, to academics. Every time the terrorist legislation is looked at, it will be a reminder; so it could have an educative effect.
Senator Stratton: I am not disagreeing. Essentially, I am trying to understand how we get to the individuals who are planning and thinking of doing this. How do you get at them?
Mr. Trudell: You remind them they are terrorists, not martyrs.
Senator Stratton: I understand that, but how do you get at them? If you just pass the bill, their attitude is so what?
Mr. Trudell: None of us know how to get there. Let us imagine there are 100 people in a room, and you get one of them. This is fanciful, but imagine for purpose of this discussion, there is a group of young people who are being recruited, for whatever reason, to become suicide bombers. They will not use the word ``terrorist''; they will say that they are doing it for a higher cause. Suppose 1 of the 100 people in the room thinks: Is this not a terrorist offence?
Senator Joyal: One of the comments about the proposed bill from the representative of the Department of Justice Canada, was that it may make the responsibility of the Crown attorney more difficult in terms of choosing under which subsection of section 83 of the Criminal Code they will launch an accusation against a person or persons who would be involved in a suicide attack.
I understand you are aware of the presentation by Mr. McDonell. In his presentation, he says:
While the existing anti-terrorism provisions of the Criminal Code may be applied to the planning or attempting of a suicide bombing, I would ask this committee to look into whether the existing penalties contained in the code are appropriate. The current maximum sentence permitted for facilitation is 14 years, and the penalty for participating in a terrorist group is only 10 years. In my opinion, anyone participating in or facilitating a suicide bombing should face a penalty similar to that for murder or attempted murder, which is life in prison.
Thus, the committee might want to consider whether in the proposed legislation there is a sufficient bridge to section 83.2, the commission of offence for a terrorist group, where both participants and facilitators are liable to imprisonment for life.
Mr. Trudell: I will deal with the last point first. When I read the transcript of this very articulate witness, I said to myself, is this not a side issue? Are not punishment provisions a side issue for another committee at another time in deciding whether the penalty provisions are severe enough? Hopefully, you would then have the Canadian Council of Criminal Defence Lawyers coming forward to say that they are fine and should be left alone. I thought that those discussions had very important questions. We are moving into an area that this bill does not reflect. The basis for this bill is a statement. It does not create a new offence. My answer might be insufficient, but, although you engaged him in some of these issues, I believe it is a different concern. It concerns the prosecution and penalty provisions, and this bill is limited to, as I understand, clarification of the words. When I saw copies of the Criminal Code being passed around today, I was hoping that I would not be asked questions about its sections.
Senator Joyal: We can provide you with a copy.
Mr. Trudell: Please, they keep doing that in my office, too.
The bill is not about penalty provisions. They encompass an entirely different issue. The people at the Department of Justice Canada might be able to help you with that, but I cannot.
With the greatest respect, every time I go back to Toronto, I tell people that when you go before the Senate, you are asked questions, so you had better have read the law.
I felt the discussions were moving off into areas that this bill was not about, such as whether it would make it easier to investigate, and so on. We are not here for that. The Criminal Code is loaded with ways to charge offences that cover this area. I do not feel that you should get muddled into discussing those issues.
On the first point about whether the Department of Justice Canada or the prosecutor will have difficulty deciding which charge to lay, I would say, yes, perhaps. That is their job. One of the thrusts of criminal justice right across the country is looking at the front end to determine the proper charge to lay and not laying one without that front-end screening and thought about the effect. If they said they cannot do it because it will muddy the waters, then that is a concern. However, that is not what this bill does. They will have a problem, in any event, if they have a pre-existing problem about what charge to lay because it will not go away simply by virtue of a clarification statement about suicide bombers. It will be there anyway. I am here with no difficulty because I see this as an essential statement of what we believe in, as opposed to taking this section to see whether it has any effect on other sections. It does not have an effect because it is simply a clarification.
I believe that the articulate gentlemen from the Department of Justice talked about the slippery slope without limiting the generality. Those words are in the Criminal Code and, of course, I believe other witnesses have testified about the existence of the words ``for greater certainty'' or ``without limiting'' in many sections of the code. I do not know whether that answers your question in any way.
Senator Joyal: It is a fair comment.
Senator Grafstein: Mr. Trudell, your testimony is powerful and persuasive in support of what I consider to be a nonpartisan piece of proposed legislation. You have articulated, from the criminal bar perspective, in a way that is even more powerful than some of the other witnesses.
As a lawyer, I will ask you a legal question as opposed to an educative or deterrent question. The purpose is to ask whether this provision would have more ample scope than that of the existing provisions of the Criminal Code. This might argue against my argument and yours, but I want to test it: the Internet.
We have heard that there are proliferations of websites on servers in Canada and overseas that teach people on the Internet how to make a suicide bomb vest and the ingredients that will maximize its damage or the sowing of seeds of damage. We are struggling with the question of whether the provisions in the code deal with this amply. There is great frustration in the legal justice system that we cannot reach those who are teaching or the advocacy vehicles. Will this provision help or hurt the criminal justice system in dealing with such Internet sites?
Mr. Trudell: I cannot see how it would hurt.
Senator Grafstein: Could it help?
Senator Stratton: It is similar to chicken soup.
Senator Grafstein: No, chicken soup always helps — that is known internationally.
Mr. Trudell: The fact that you are having this debate and these discussions helps. Let me share something with you: One year ago, I defended a young boy charged with the murder of a police officer in a city in Eastern Ontario. To my horror and to everyone's horror, he went to The Anarchist Cookbook, where he was able to learn how to make explosive devices, how to saw off shotguns and many other things. I could not believe that it is right there.
If we can link people to those sites that have instructions on how to make a bomb, if we can join the dots, as opposed to it being an issue of freedom of speech and so on, then that is what is necessary. The link has to be made to be able to say that that person abetted or assisted. They would have to know that there is a link because you cannot just charge everyone.
I am a defence counsel, but I believe it is absolutely abhorrent that that material is available online. I do not know how you get at it, until you are able to join the dots. The police are spending a great deal of time trying to get into the Internet to reach into the connections on child pornography, et cetera.
The debate you are having, raising these questions and talking about the condemnation of suicide bombing, is a healthy debate and may have an effect. Perhaps some honourable senators did not know that you could go into the Internet and see how to create a suicide bomb. Maybe when the police are back on another bill, you can say the government will consider how to link up, how to join the dots with respect to the Internet.
Senator Grafstein: Is it fair to say, Mr. Trudell, that this might be helpful?
Mr. Trudell: It would be helpful only from an educative point of view or from an awareness point of view for all of us.
Senator Grafstein: Would it be easier for them to connect the dots by identifying suicide bombing as precision? I fail to see why it would not be helpful — this is me speaking as a lawyer — because at the end of the day, here is education. These sites train a person to do something that has no other singular purpose except suicide bombing.
Mr. Trudell: There are not too many people on the Internet who will read section 431 of the Criminal Code and figure out that it is a criminal offence to detonate. However, to say that suicide bombing is a terrorist offence is a pretty simple message.
Senator Grafstein: This is really Senator Baker's question; I thought it was a good one. Again, there is some disagreement. When I spoke to the Department of Justice officials, I posed a scenario where someone puts on a suicide bomb vest and, instead of going into a crowded marketplace, decides to stand out in the middle of an open area and detonate themselves in front of a mosque, synagogue or church at an appropriate moment in time when a lot of people are congregating in these institutions. Their only purpose is to sow fear, and they die.
Would that be criminal, and would this provision help or hurt? The justice department's idea was that someone out in a field would not be criminalized at all, which is why I posed this particular scenario.
Mr. Trudell: It is not an offence.
However, forget about terrorism and all the rest. If I was to tell a kid, for example, that we have to make a statement and outline what I wanted that kid to do, then they can link me to that. The police investigate and find that this kid was not acting alone. He killed himself, but there was someone else. As the investigator, I will connect the dots, and if I can connect the dots, I can lay a criminal charge if it is aiding and abetting or promoting.
Senator Grafstein: All the provisions that are in the Criminal Code.
Mr. Trudell: You have to connect the dots.
Senator Grafstein: Would this provision be helpful or useless in those circumstances?
Mr. Trudell: It may have no relevance on the individual case. This person may be suffering from a mental instability or whatever. However, let us say that there is a link to terrorist activity. If a young person stood on a street corner 10 years ago, detonated themselves, and there happened to be a synagogue across the street, we would be talking about a young person committing suicide. Now, we will go to the next step, because we have been educated. If they happen to be down the street from the RCMP headquarters, our thinking will go to the next step now because of 9/11 and the world in which we live.
Someone will ask the question that they never would have asked before. Whether that person committed suicide in a field alone, across the street from my office or a synagogue or St. Patrick's Cathedral, we will ask the next question now. We have become aware, and we are sensitized to realize that it is unacceptable. There is a life gone.
In that way, this provision helps.
Senator Joyal: Mr. Trudell, in your opinion, does this bill affect section 241 of the Criminal Code, entitled ``Counselling or aiding suicide''? I can read it to you to refresh your memory.
Section 241 is under the heading ``Suicide'' and sub-heading ``Counselling or aiding suicide'' and reads as follows:
Every one who
(a) counsels a person to commit suicide, or
(b) aids or abets a person to commit suicide,
whether suicide ensues or not, is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years.
As a commentary, the offence is somewhat unusual. Suicide is not itself a crime, nor is its attempt.
In your mind, does this bill affect the substance of this provision of the CriminalCode?
Mr. Trudell: Suicide itself is not an offence. However, in that section, the promotion of suicide is a reflection on the sanctity of human life. That is really what it is. The person who has died, you will not prosecute. However, what that section says is that if there is something behind it, then there may indeed be a need for prosecution.
Will it be any different if Bill S-210 is passed? No, I do not believe it would have any negative affect on it, but it may cause someone to start connecting the dots and investigating. Am I answering your question?
Senator Joyal: In a way, yes. I am trying to understand where the distinction is between the suicide of a person and a suicide bombing.
Senator Andreychuk: If you cover yourself in gas and burn yourself, which many people have done as a religious or political statement, it is not covered by suicide bombing.
Mr. Trudell: With suicide bombing, you will almost certainly die yourself, but you do not do it in a field; you do it where it will take other people's lives. That is the purpose, and that is why you look at suicide bombing separately.
Senator Joyal: That is the intent to cause damage to someone else. That is essentially what we sanction here, if I understand.
Mr. Trudell: That is right.
Senator Joyal: It is the very substance of this bill.
Mr. Trudell: That is right. With Bill S-210, you do not only want to get the message out to those people who are facilitating it because they may not listen anyway. It also may have some affect on the bomber. We do not have as much sympathy for that individual, but it is a life; it is a life that is being wasted, in our view of it, for an illegal purpose. Perhaps that person who is strapping on the bomb will think about it.
Senator Joyal: I will quote from section 14 of the Criminal Code entitled ``Consent to death'':
No person is entitled to consent to have death inflicted on him, and such consent does not affect the criminal responsibility of any person by whom death may be inflicted on the person by whom consent is given.
Mr. Trudell: I think of Sue Rodriguez.
Senator Joyal: In the present circumstances of this bill, namely, suicide bombing, and the example that Senator Stratton has given — about the person who straps the explosives around her waist and then there is a detonator because the person has accepted that a second person trigger the death — is this section affected by the scope of this bill?
Mr. Trudell: If no one ever thought of introducing this bill, the Criminal Code sections still exist. They can still be used, and they can be used to prosecute persons committing offences for terrorist purposes or persons who are promoting euthanasia. Therefore, this bill will not change that element; it will not affect it, nor will it fill any gaps. It will not be used. It is there as the most appropriate vehicle to send the message out for a new way of using these types of activities in the Criminal Code.
I am trying to think about the future and whether this piece of proposed legislation will have any negative affect on any other sections of, interpretations of or prosecutions based on the Criminal Code.
The Canadian Council of Criminal Defence Lawyers does not see it. As I said earlier, we do not believe that this is what this bill is about.
Senator Joyal: I am sorry to have pushed you on that. However, it is important for us to understand.
Mr. Trudell: If I have not satisfied you with the answers, I know that there are really smart people across the street who can answer those questions.
The Chair: Mr. Trudell, thank you very much, as usual, for an extremely interesting encounter. We are grateful to you.
Mr. Trudell: It is a real honour, and we appreciate being here.
The committee adjourned.