Debates of Sept. 18th, 2001

Allotted Day--Anti-Terrorism Legislation

[Lynn Myers, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Solicitor General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I take this opportunity to provide the House with further perspective on the kinds of investments Canada has made and will continue to make with its many partners to combat terrorism.

The motion before us today poses some good questions. I would agree it is fitting that the House take a very careful and close look at the reality of terrorism today. We need a serious and indepth discussion about what more can be done to make sure we are doing all that we can to protect Canadians and Canadian interests from terrorists.

What more can be done to ensure that Canada stands with its friend and neighbour, the United States of America, in this fight? What more can be done to encourage the creation of an international net so tight that no terrorist can escape?

In this new millennium the world community is witnessing great turmoil including the increasing use of violence for political and ideological purposes. As a government and a nation we understand that our domestic safety and well-being are very much tied to global security. Our situation is shared by all western democracies. Our wealth, values, institutions, rights and freedoms make us an attractive venue for terrorist support activities.

Today we are not alone in our resolve to redouble our efforts to take the kind of action that will preserve our way of life: the values, beliefs, hopes and dreams of free and civilized people wherever they live. Our shared commitment remains to strengthen co-operation and action at the domestic and international levels, and to better anticipate, defend against and defeat terrorist threats.

Together through our solidarity we will prevail in the war against terrorism. We will prevail because we have in place the institutions, the expertise and the strong international working relationships we will need to continue to muster in the days, weeks and months to come.

As the Prime Minister said in the House yesterday, we have the patience and resolve to deal effectively with the threat of terrorism through a measured and sustained response. Let us make no mistake. We will prevail.

We know Canadians are up to the task. We have seen this so profoundly in the last week through the acts of compassion of ordinary Canadians across this great country of ours, in the words of unity and support from all Canada's leaders, and in the continuing work of Canadian men and women whose jobs are devoted to upholding public safety and security.

Canada's national security structure has many components involving many departments, agencies and levels of government, each with a critical partnership role to play.

Federal efforts to counter terrorism draw on the resources of the portfolio of the Solicitor General of Canada through the national security directorate, the expertise and advice of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, and the broader federal counterterrorist community.

Some of the key partners within this group include the departments of foreign affairs and international trade, justice, citizenship and immigration, national defence, health, transport, and the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency.

It is the Department of the Solicitor General that is responsible for the national counterterrorism plan which is practised through operational exercises conducted as part of the ongoing readiness program managed by that department. Through its emphasis on co-operation and co-operative action to ensure readiness to new and emerging threats, the operational readiness program is an important tool for creating broad based understanding and engagement in our national counterterrorism arrangements, and for ensuring they are as effective as they possibly can be.

In practical terms this means working at the local level with police, firefighters and emergency health services, and at the international level with our allies through exchanging intelligence and tactical information to improve our domestic preparedness and response capability.

The Government of Canada continues to develop and implement a range of tough new measures that will make it more difficult for terrorists to use Canada as a base for terrorist activities.

Among the investments in Canada's ability to combat terrorism is important proposed legislation known as Bill C-16, which contains a broadly based and integral part aimed at the suppression of terrorism. The bill proposes measures to deny charitable status to those groups that might seek to abuse Canada's charities registration system by collecting funds to support terrorist organizations and their activities around the world.

Implementing these measures will allow Canada to fulfill its commitments toward implementing an international convention aimed at cutting off sources of funding in support of terrorist activities.

Earlier this year the federal government established the Office of Critical Infrastructure Protection and Emergency Preparedness. This was done to develop and implement a comprehensive approach to protecting Canada's critical infrastructure in both its physical and cyber dimensions regardless of the source of threats and vulnerabilities. This new entity will play an important ongoing role in Canada's national security network and will be an important partner in international efforts.

Just last year the federal government allocated $1.5 billion to the RCMP, CSIS, CIC, and other Canadian security and safety partners to ensure that they continue to have the tools required to do their jobs effectively.

Let me now turn to collaborative partnerships with the United States of America. Canada is committed to taking a leadership role in strengthening international co-operation aimed at preventing terrorist acts. This is most clearly reflected in the strong alliance between Canada and the United States in the fight against international terrorism.

RCMP, CSIS, local police, customs, immigration and transport officials work daily, hourly and by the minute with their American counterparts each and every day around the clock. They are dedicated to ensuring the safety and security of all our citizens.

Joint investigations and operations and the sharing of information and intelligence characterize the unique and strongly collaborative relationship between our two great countries. These activities are firmly rooted in continued dialogue and co-ordinated action at the policy and operational levels by national law enforcement, intelligence, security, customs and immigration agencies.

Canada and the United States have and will continue to have a long record of successful collaboration in combating terrorism and transnational crime.

There are a number of practical examples of partnership initiatives that have contributed to the success: for example, the shared border accord which encourages the flow of people and goods across the border while protecting the health and safety of Canadians and Americans alike and, for example, the cross-border crime forum, an achievement unique in the world for its success in furthering co-operation and information sharing between our two countries in the fight against transnational crime and other emerging cross-border security issues.

In his visit to Canada this past summer to take part in this annual event, American Attorney General John Ashcroft underlined his country's gratitude for the continuing collaboration of the Canadian authorities in the fight against terrorism.

The bilateral consultative group on countererrorism also brings together agencies and departments in both governments engaged in the fight against terrorism to enhance collaboration, co-operation and information sharing.

The Government of Canada has pledged its complete co-operation with the United States and other international authorities in finding those responsible for these horrific attacks and strengthening international security co-operation to prevent such a catastrophe from ever happening again.

This is a complex, far reaching investigation that reaches into virtually every corner of the globe. At all levels Canadian officials are following up with their American and international counterparts to repeat the Prime Minister's sincere offer with respect to assistance and a pledge for complete co-operation with authorities investigating these unspeakable crimes.

Canadians can rest assured that in all we do and in all we will do in the days and weeks to come, we will continue to keep in mind our ultimate priority to ensure the safety and security of the Canadian public.

At this point I would like to seek unanimous consent to withdraw the motion as stated and replace it with a motion that the House mandate the Standing Committee of Justice and Human Rights to study the matter of anti-terrorism legislation and report to the House no later than February 12, 2002.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Does the Parliamentary Secretary to the Solicitor General have unanimous consent of the House to propose the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[James Rajotte, Canadian Alliance, Edmonton Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask a specific question following up on one of the responses of the Minister of Justice. She indicated that the government had some specific problems with one of the six points made in the motion.

Could the parliamentary secretary, in the interest of open debate, indicate what specific problems the government has with the motion as stated? I think he would further the debate if he were to do that.

[Lynn Myers, Liberal, Waterloo—Wellington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I repeat what I said at the outset of my speech. The motion as proposed raises some very important questions at which the House needs to look and needs to debate. That is precisely what we will do today.

It behooves us to listen to all the speakers before we finally come to a conclusion on where we are going on this matter. It seems to me with the government's resolve it is very clear that we will continue to work with our American counterparts. We will continue to gather the intelligence necessary. We will continue to assist in every way possible to ensure that the perpetrators of this horrific crime are brought to justice but, more important, that it will never ever happen again.

We need to work in a concerted, careful, co-ordinated and collaborative way. That has been the position very clearly of not only the Prime Minister but the Government of Canada. That is our position and will continue to be so.

[Peter MacKay, Progressive Conservative, Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the parliamentary secretary with respect to one element of the opposition motion.

The suggestion that there should be the creation of specific crimes for engaging in terrorism is one that many of us find compelling. In the current criminal code there are offences that would apply. It would have application for murder and for transportation of explosive devices, all of that. The member who engaged in police activity would know that as well.

Given the specific offensive nature of terrorism, particularly in light of the horrific events of last week, would the member not agree that delving into the definition of terrorism and the creation of a specific offence would act as a greater deterrent for those who chose to engage in this type of nefarious activity?

[Lynn Myers, Liberal, Waterloo—Wellington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in light of what took place on Tuesday of last week, it seems to me we now have the opportunity as a country and as a government working with the opposition parties to take a look at precisely the kinds of matters the member is raising.

This is exactly the kind of work the great Parliament of Canada is prepared to undertake in the next little while to take a look at all the efforts that need to be done, not only in terms of helping our American counterparts but ensuring that nothing like what took place in New York and Washington last Tuesday can ever happen here.

As I pointed out in my speech, and as the Minister of Justice alluded to as well, we need to and we will as a government redouble our efforts to ensure that at the end the day, with the process and with the co-operation of all members of the House and because of the importance of this matter, we put in place the kinds of measures, the kinds of tools and the kinds of resources required given the new reality, which unfortunately is not a pleasant one.

[Ken Epp, Canadian Alliance, Elk Island, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the motion lists six specific items. When the government tables legislation I am sure it would be free to add even more, but it would have to include the minimum of these six.

It includes things like naming all known international terrorist organizations operating in Canada. It includes a complete ban on fundraising activities in support of terrorism, not just taking away their charitable status but actually banning the fundraising. It includes immediate ratification of the stated international convention. It also includes three more.

In a follow up to the question that my colleague asked just moments ago, would the member from the Liberal Party who just spoke enlighten us on which of these six items the Liberal side specifically objects to that would cause it to contemplate not voting in favour of this very good motion?

[Lynn Myers, Liberal, Waterloo—Wellington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, over the course of this day we will be carefully reviewing all the comments of the members who are proposing to speak. The essence of debating in this great Chamber is to listen carefully to try to understand the points brought to the debate on the floor of the House of Commons.

At the end of the day the position of the government will be made clear. In the meantime we will assess, monitor and take a look at the kinds of comments being made and at the appropriate time we will make our decision.

[Pierrette Venne, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I seek the unanimous consent of the House to have the following words deleted from the motion:

—the prompt extradition of foreign nationals charged with acts of terrorism, even if the charges are capital offences;

[The Deputy Speaker]

Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed

[Some hon. members]

No.

[Pierrette Venne, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I must tell you that, from where I sit, I did not hear. Did I obtain unanimous consent?

[The Deputy Speaker]

I am sorry, but unanimous consent was not given.

[Pierrette Venne, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform you that I will share my time with the member for Laval Centre, our party's citizenship and immigration critic.

It is therefore with sadness that I rise to speak today in this debate on terrorism, following the attacks against the American nation and against the entire system of western values.

I will not go back over the adjectives that might be used to describe such acts. They have almost all been used and, in any case, there are no words powerful enough to express my utter repugnance at actions that are beyond my comprehension in a land of democracy and freedom.

When we realize just how shaken the U.S. was last Tuesday as a world power in defence and national security, it makes us stop and think about Canada's ability to fight terrorism effectively with the means currently at its disposal.

First off, our borders have holes in them. Doubtless, the length of the country does not help border control. However, Canada's policy of openness to refugees and its very minimal control over the movements of individuals make them even less secure.

With questions such as “Where have you come from? How long have you been gone? and What are you bringing back?”, customs officials are clearly far more concerned with the movement of alcohol and cigarettes than with identifying criminals and terrorists.

At the moment, the main concern of the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency is to keep tabs on the extra mickey that slips across the border, costing the government a few dollars in lost taxes.

The Canada Customs and Revenue Agency must change its strategy and focus first and foremost on increasing surveillance on nationals from countries known to be particularly tolerant of terrorism.

In addition, this does not mean doing ill-timed searches. Discretion is the watchword. In other terms, controls must be tightened, but we must avoid becoming xenophobic and paranoid.

Moreover, as the president of CP said on Friday in Calgary:

For the United States to keep an open border with us, it must have confidence in our ability to maintain the security of our borders.

I would draw your attention, as well, to certain passages in the annual report of CSIS for the year 2000, which caught my attention particularly. The report provides at page 7 that, and I quote:

Canada belongs to international institutions and bodies, participates in peacekeeping missions and hosts major international events, all of which are potential targets for terrorists.

Further on, the report states:

—Canadians, now more than ever, are potential victims and Canada a potential venue for terrorist attacks.

Both of these excerpts are of particular interest, for different reasons, if only when one considers the fact that the next G-8 summit will take place from June 26 to 28, 2002, in Kananaskis, Alberta. Clearly it is imperative that we act and provide for means to ensure the protection of both participants and residents during this summit.

This threat is real and cannot be taken lightly. We know that there are terrorist groups planning certain terrorist acts from Canada, and the fact that they are already here makes it that much easier for them to take action.

Pages 7 and 8 of the report read:

Individuals with links to international terrorist groups use Canada primarily as a base from which to orchestrate terrorist activities abroad.

It is not hard to guess why terrorist groups choose to live in Canada to plan their acts. The reason is quite simple. There is no anti-terrorist legislation in Canada. They know that as long as they are on Canadian soil they can act with impunity.

A good example of this is the case of Ahmed Ressam, who organized an attack on the Los Angeles airport while living in Canada without ever being inconvenienced by Canadian authorities. As a matter of fact, Ressam only started having problems when he reached American soil.

Not only has the Government of Canada demonstrated that it is unable to protect its citizens and its territory, but Canada was also severely criticized by U.S. authorities, who stated that we constituted a threat to their national security.

This is not surprising, when one considers that the only coercive measure relating to terrorism currently in effect in Canada is the deportation of foreign nationals connected to terrorist activities under the Immigration Act.

Moreover, this measure raises another problem. In the Suresh case, which the Supreme Court of Canada heard this past May 22, but on which it has not yet brought down its decision, the court is confronted with the following dilemma. Suresh being suspected of fundraising for a Sri Lankan terrorist group, the preservation of national security would require him to be deported to his country of origin.

However, since he has made a refugee claim involving fear of torture, returning a refugee in danger of mistreatment to his country would be contrary to all of the principles of human rights defended by the United Nations.

When the supreme court reaches its decision, it will have to decide whether to move us down to the lowest United Nations ranking as far as the protection of human rights is concerned, or to send the message that Canada constitutes a refuge for all the undesirables of the world.

With anti-terrorist legislation such as that passed in the United Kingdom—this is just an example—or with a criminal code that deals with terrorist activities, such as the one adopted in France, Suresh could have been punished in Canada. This would have been done in the respect of human rights, while also indicating to terrorists that we are not a haven for them.

With such examples, the Bloc Quebecois feels perfectly right in asking the federal government to introduce anti-terrorist legislation that would, of course, respect our fundamental values. Moreover, contrary to what some believe, a more aggressive fight against terrorism does not mean that rights and freedoms would necessarily be affected. For example, the fact that we have a criminal code and that we fight crime does not make Canada a police state.

Of course, when we talk about acts that have teeth and mete out appropriate punishment, we are not talking about something as meaningless, from both a practical and legal point of view, as Bill C-16. It might be useful to remind hon. members that this bill, the object of which is to prevent the funding from Canada of terrorist groups, simply seeks to strip charities taking part in the funding of terrorist activities of their status as registered charities.

When we are confronted with people who, in order to promote an ideology, take pride in sacrificing their own lives by taking thousands of innocent lives, can we seriously believe that the mere fact of preventing an organization from issuing tax receipts can be effective in the fight against terrorism? Once again, the government is much more concerned about tax issues than about safety issues.

Since I have very little time left, I will simply say that the Bloc Quebecois cannot agree with the Alliance motion, because in its current wording that motion does not respect the fundamental values advocated by the Bloc Quebecois, which is opposed to the death penalty.

[Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral, Bloc, Laval Centre, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the debate we are holding today in response to the official opposition motion obviously has an impact on everyone because for one week now Americans, as well as Canadians and Quebecers, have been directly affected. They have realized that we are no longer invulnerable. It is therefore important to take part in this debate in order to establish our values.

I will begin by reiterating what the leader of the Bloc Quebecois said on the day of the attack. His statement encompasses values we hold dear:

The Bloc Quebecois considers that this barbaric act is directed not just against the United States, but against all nations. If those responsible for these horrific deeds believe that they are furthering any sort of cause, they should know that they have achieved the opposite, that they have failed, and that their cause will remain forever stained by the blood of the victims. The Bloc Quebecois will support unconditionally any initiative by the Canadian government to provide assistance to the United States and to the American people, whether for humanitarian purposes or in order to track down the perpetrators and bring them to justice.

Any discussion of terrorism has to be about trying to find those responsible for deeds such as those we witnessed on September 11. But, this is no small matter. What is terrorism? Who is a terrorist? When may one be considered a terrorist? All these questions and what we think are the answers must of course be included in a bill, whose purpose will be to prevent terrorism and foil tragic deeds because they threaten the balance and democracy which it has been our privilege to enjoy and which we wish for all of humanity.

When we look at the reality of terrorism between 1981 and 2000, we note that internationally, it reached a peak in 1987. The question which arises is this: Will 2001 be a repeat? In the past five years, there has been an increase in the number of instances of terrorist activity in Asia and in Latin America. Everywhere else, such activity has decreased. Does 2001 signal a significant return to earlier levels?

It is therefore important that Canada take into consideration the fourth recommendation of the UN security council. This recommendation was drafted shortly after the events which concern us and provides that:

Calls also on the international community to redouble their efforts to prevent and suppress terrorist acts including by increased cooperation and full implementation of the relevant international anti-terrorist conventions and Security Council resolutions, in particular resolution 1269 of 19 October 1999.

Today's debate is in keeping with this logic. As terrorism has neither nationality, border nor respect for human rights, the measures that nations such as ours may take must consider needs and the major international agreements aimed at protecting individual and human rights.

Bill C-16 is currently being considered in committee. It falls within the context of anti-terrorist legislation. We fully expect that Bill C-16 will come back before the House. One of the elements of the motion of the official opposition refers to a total ban on fundraising activities. It is clear that Bill C-16 has a long way to go to totally ban fundraising activities.

So we must look at the problem.

There is a recent international agreement on the elimination of funding for terrorism. Canada has yet to ratify it. It might be useful, if not essential, for Canada to continue to give thought to this. I do not doubt that today's debate will contribute to advancing discussions on this matter, among others.

Before continuing, I would like to recall here the values Canada considers important. I was very pleased to hear the Prime Minister yesterday reminding Canadians and Quebecers, along with the international community as a whole, that Canada will not back down in matters of human rights.

The day terrorist groups succeed in making a country like Canada back down with respect to human rights will be the day Canada takes an enormous step backwards, in my opinion. Because of this, it is vital to reaffirm the desire of all citizens of Canada and Quebec, and this desire must be affirmed by parliament, to honour international agreements, including the Geneva convention on refugees and the Geneva convention on torture.

In this spirit, I am sure that the House fully understands the meaning of the amendment proposed by my colleague, the member for Saint-Bruno--Saint-Hubert, that the words “the prompt extradition of foreign nationals charged with acts of terrorism, even if the charges are capital offences” be struck from the main motion.

We are all aware that since the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms was adopted in 1982, the supreme court, in good conscience, rules on what is fair and in compliance with the charter of rights. The ruling handed down in the Burns case, just a few months ago, was very clear on this subject. This is therefore something to which we are fundamentally opposed.

We regret that the rigidity of some parliamentarians did not allow for this whole debate on terrorism, on ways to counteract terrorism and to come up with legislation to this effect that would be useful, not perfect, but useful, and all related aspects of terrorism to be fully examined in committee.

What is good and extremely motivating about committee work is that we can, in good faith, discuss important issues, and terrorism is indeed an important issue.

In this spirit, I would like to ask, for the second time, that the House give its unanimous consent to refer this debate on terrorism and the prevention of terrorism to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

In view of the profound values we all share here, I believe, I hope that the House will give its unanimous consent, in the name of justice.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Does the hon. member have the consent of the House to propose the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[Pierre Brien, Bloc, Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, before I ask a question of my colleague, I too wish to extend my sympathy to those who have been affected by this terrible drama. Many people in my region of Abitibi—Témiscamingue have been affected by this terrorist action as well and are very sensitive to what will happen next.

They are concerned, of course, but at the same time they want to see effective action taken against terrorism.

That said, and I believe my colleague will share this opinion, care must be taken to not move too precipitously and to take steps that, while clearing our consciences, might not necessarily be effective.

For example, in the motion by the Canadian Alliance MPs, reference is made to the necessity of extradition to country of origin of persons charged with acts of terrorism. But there is one thing we do not know: acts of terrorism committed where? Merely on the basis of a charge, they would be returned to their country. A state with the death penalty, or some other place in the world with the death penalty, would charge someone and, merely because he had been charged with an act of terrorism, he would have to be returned to his country. This is contrary to a number of international conventions, ones with which the hon. member is more familiar than myself, I realize.

Does she not find it somewhat of an aberration that someone can be returned to his country of origin merely because he has been charged? I would add, just to show how little homework has been done by certain Canadian Alliance MPs in this connection, that the United Kingdom's legislation states that, when a state has the death penalty, extradition is not automatic. The Canadian Alliance seems to be creating the illusion, by the way they have worded their motion, that it is.

I would like to hear what my colleague from Laval Centre has to say on this.

[Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral, Bloc, Laval Centre, QC]

Mr. Speaker, our position is very clear. We will always be opposed to having people in Canada be extradited to a country where they could face the death penalty.

We know about the recent case of Haroun M'Barek. This young Tunisian, who was denied refugee status, was sent back to Tunisia in early January, even though we had every reason to believe he would be tortured.

Indeed, once he was back in his country, our fears were confirmed. In the end, things got better for him, since he is now back in Canada. He arrived at Mirabel airport in early September, following the issuance of a ministerial permit. Canada recognized that it had an international responsibility to people who ask to settle here. In the case of Mr. M'Barek, the mistake was corrected. He is now back in Canada.

If we fight against torture, which is something despicable, should we not be opposed to the death penalty?

I will conclude with a thought. By definition, acts are like men: they are not perfect. As is the case with men and women, we must work to improve them. An act to deal with terrorism in Canada should be the result of a fair, full and vibrant co-operation between all the parties of this House. No parliamentarian wants incidents such as those that recently took place in the United States to happen here, in the United States, in Mexico, in France, in Israel, in Palestine or in Rwanda. No one wants that.

Therefore we have a responsibility. I call on our social conscience as parliamentarians and citizens to do a job that we will be proud of.

[Bill Blaikie, NDP, Winnipeg—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the floor of the House of Commons is always an interesting place. We see a development in the debate today, which is interesting and which I hope will yet resolve itself in a way that permits the House to speak with one voice on this important matter of anti-terrorism and the need to refer the subject matter of anti-terrorism legislation to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

I listened with care earlier to the leader of the official opposition who talked about the need for unity and the fact that what his party was engaged in was not any kind of political posturing, but rather an effort to enable the House of Commons to appropriately act.

I think what has happened so far, but I reserve judgment because the day is not yet out and the jury is not yet in on what the final response of the Alliance will be, is that there certainly seems to be unanimity in the rest of the House about referring the subject matter of anti-terrorism legislation to the justice committee so that the committee, on behalf of all us, can begin the serious work that I think Canadians want us to do, and that it is a good idea to do.

Twice members of the House have sought unanimous consent of the House to withdraw the motion that we now have before us and to permit the putting of a motion which would have that effect, and twice that unanimous consent has been denied. I hope that by the end of the day members of the Alliance will see that it is in its interest to agree, but not perhaps in terms of political tactics.

Perhaps the Alliance's intent was to make the rest of us look somehow soft on security or terrorism, but I hope it will see that it is in the interest of the country to have the House of Commons act in an appropriate way, both procedurally and politically.

I say procedurally because a lot of the concerns I have with the motion that we had before us were not just matters of substance. We certainly had some concerns about the motion, not just in terms of the substance of the motion but also procedurally.

We were being asked to refer a matter to committee, but in doing so to adopt in principle approval of the anti-terrorism legislation of the United Kingdom. Thinking about this procedurally, without any reference to the substance of the matter, to me this is a bit like having second reading before the matter is even discussed or before we even know what the legislation is. Often we have second reading before we hear witnesses, but we do not have second reading before we have the legislation.

If the Alliance thinks about it for a minute, it will realize that if the government were to have come forward with a motion referring something to committee with this much work of the committee already predetermined, it would say that this is unacceptable, that this was not the kind of motion it could live with and that it would be like a motion which created the maximum possible freedom for the committee to look at whatever it felt was relevant to the issue at hand.

I hope that by the end of the day, perhaps by repeated argumentation of this sort and repeated opportunities for the Alliance to show it is serious about having the House act in a unified manner, we may yet be able to agree on a motion to refer the subject matter of anti-terrorism legislation to the justice committee. I do not want to say yet that it is calling the Alliance's bluff with respect to posturing. Someone else may want to say that later in the day, if the situation does not change.

I have a few more comments even though I think we have made our position clear. We would like to see the standing committee study this matter. We believe that Canadians expect it of us. It may well be that there are a number of improvements we could make in our security and legislation having to do with anti-terrorism.

A number of suggestions have been made by the Minister of Justice with respect to things that have to be done in order to bring our legislative regime into compliance with conventions that we have already signed. All this is something the committee could look at.

I find it passing strange by reference to the motion before us now that by the Alliance's own admission it is not just a question, and in fact it may not be a question, of the need for the kind of legislation that it has laid out. It may also be, and I listened to the Alliance critic on this, a matter of resources and a matter of current laws not being used appropriately, or not being used as extensively as they could be or not being able to be used as extensively as they could be because of a lack of resources. The Alliance critic himself pointed out that this was a problem in his view.

One is tempted to ask him where the call came from in Canada's political culture for the radical cuts to government that worked their way through all the departments, including the ones he now laments the weakness of. One is tempted to ask him that question, but let us leave that aside for a minute and say that the motion which we have before us would bind the committee to looking only at what kind of new legislation is needed rather than questions having to do with other issues that the Alliance itself has raised with respect to the adequacy of the resources that the Government of Canada makes available to the agencies and departments that concern themselves with this issue.

On the face of it, the motion before us is inadequate. However the idea behind it, that the justice committee should have a free, frank, open and concerted look at this subject matter, is a good idea and we are behind it. We hope that the Alliance will permit that to happen by agreeing at some point in the day to the request for unanimous consent to withdraw its motion and move that the subject matter be referred to a committee. That is a good idea.

It seems that the Alliance is trying to do basically what its members would object to if the government did it, both procedurally and substantively, by presenting us with a kind of omnibus list of all the things that it is sure about. The Alliance does not like it when the government does it. The Alliance does not like it when the government gives us an omnibus list of things which other people are asked to agree to or be made to look bad, or hope that they will be made to look bad. If the Alliance is going to be consistent, it cannot expect to criticize the government when it does this and then do it itself and expect to be free of criticism.

For all these reasons, I would certainly urge the critic for the Alliance party, who I see in the House, to consider the wisdom of accepting the suggestion being made by all other parties, that the committee be given a mandate to look at this matter and that the House be given the opportunity by agreement on the part of the Alliance to act in this united way.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I would seek the unanimous consent of the House to withdraw the motion now before the House and to move: That the House mandate the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights to study the matter of anti-terrorism legislation and report to the House not later than February 12, 2002.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Does the House give its consent to the member for Winnipeg--Transcona to propose the motion?