Mr. Chairman, this is in fact seeking to implement the principles of international law. The whole question of international law is set forth in the whole notion of the State Immunity Act, which at this point, before any amendments, the government's or mine, shields state sponsors and their agents from any acts of civil remedy in Canadian courts.
The government has agreed that we no longer want to immunize these state sponsors of terrorism or their listed entities. All I want to do is say that you're right. You've already done the international law thing. All we want to do is make it more effective. Once you've already agreed that the State Immunity Act should be amended so as to not shield state sponsors of terrorism and to not shield their aliases, agents, or proxies who go under another alias, then make it effective.
What is the point of putting forth legislation and bringing in an irrelevant notion about not wanting to give it to the courts? It has nothing to do with the courts, Mr. Chairman. It has to do with the fact that you want to go ahead and hold state sponsors of terrorism responsible or you don't.
The government already agrees that Canadians should have a civil remedy in the courts. They've already agreed to give the courts jurisdiction. They've already agreed to give the courts jurisdiction so that they can hold states responsible for acts of terrorism and so that they can hold their proxies responsible. This is not a matter of giving the courts jurisdiction they wouldn't otherwise have. It's the same jurisdiction the courts will have. It's the same liability the states will have.
We want to make the legislation more effective. This parroting of some notion that this is not in accordance with international law is simply incomprehensible, Mr. Chairman. With all due respect, it doesn't make sense. In accordance with what they are proposing, they should be supporting this amendment. I shouldn't have to be here today to argue for this amendment. I'm trying to make their legislation more effective. If they really care about giving civil remedies to victims of terror, then they should want to adopt an amendment that does that. Otherwise, what's the point of putting forth their own legislation?
To talk about international law and courts and the like.... The legislation is giving Canadian courts jurisdiction. This government legislation is giving Canadian courts jurisdiction. I'm not doing it with my amendment; the legislation does it. I don't think the government understands the legislation they themselves are proposing, because if they understood the legislation they themselves are proposing, they wouldn't be making these comments here today, because these comments just don't make sense.