Mr. Chair, the government bill currently allows for a foreign state to be sued only if it provides support to a listed terrorist entity. But the bill should allow a foreign state to be sued for providing support to a terrorist group that is not a listed entity, provided that the non-listed entity is acting at the direction of, or in association with, a listed entity.
Again, Mr. Chair, the whole purpose of our amendment is to actually make the legislation more effective. I thought we would not have had to come here to do this, that the government would have said, you know what, you have provided and made recommendations that in fact enhance our legislation, that allow us to make it more effective for the victims of terrorism. This is what this legislation is all about.
For greater clarity, this amendment will only allow a suit against the foreign state if it sponsors unlisted terrorist groups that are functionally connected to terrorist entities presently listed by Canada, but not if the foreign state sponsors terrorist groups that are unlisted and unaffiliated with those already on the Canadian list.
What we are saying here, Mr. Chair, is basically that the rationale for this change is that terrorist organizations often function under other names. So you have the situation where one name of the organization may be listed as a terrorist organization under Canadian law and other aliases of that same terrorist organization may not yet be listed. This is a phenomenon that we know only too well, that the same terrorist entity now listed just changes its name, and is no longer listed, but it still commits the terrorist act, and you still have the victim. The victim will not have a remedy unless the amendment that we propose here will catch those who in fact then operate under an alias.
Simply put, the amendment more fully enables the bill to meet its stated objectives--again, not my stated objectives, which I share with the government, but its stated objective with regard to this legislation.
The alleged sponsors being held liable for supporting terrorist entities that are satellites of already listed entities thereby in effect closes a gap in the law that would allow listed entities to escape liability through the use of an alias or through let's say outsourcing terrorism to other terrorist bodies. This is another way they immunize themselves from the terrorism, by simply outsourcing it or going under another name.
The amendment does not alter the nature of the conduct for which the terrorist sponsor is being held accountable; nor does it permit civil liability for unlisted entities that are totally independent of listed ones. It simply removes a kind of ruse that is commonly used by terrorists and their supporters.
Furthermore, I close with this, Mr. Chair. Most unlisted entities, if they have committed a significant terrorist act, are likely to be listed by Canada eventually. Therefore, this proposed amendment, while effectively spreading a wider net in the pursuit of justice, also in effect seeks to implement a basic intent of the bill. I'm saying this over again. It seeks to more effectively implement the intent of the bill, as proposed by the government, by allowing suits to be launched in a more timely way, rather than having victims wait for a prolonged listing process to run its course before being able to seek redress.
It just means that if they change their name, they go under an alias, but they are the same terrorist entity, and are associated with the listed terrorist entity, then that ruse of going under another name will be caught by this amendment, and we will be able to in fact hold that outsourced entity also responsible because of its relationship with the listed entity.
That's what it's all about, Mr. Chair, only to make the legislation more effective.