Mr. Speaker, I am always pleased to follow my colleague on the justice committee, the member for Winnipeg--Transcona. I have no hesitation in calling him a colleague.
I will be splitting my time with my political proximity, the hon. member for Prince George--Peace River.
Perhaps an appropriate place to start is this issue of priorities. Suffice it to say that on the fatal morning of September 11 a lot of people's priorities changed. Some people's priorities inevitably change when they get married, have a child or a new job and I think that catastrophic event caused many of us to change our priorities.
Certainly the focus of this debate is on how Canada's immigration policies and priorities change. There are matters of internal security and the way in which government allocates resources to those vested with responsibility of enforcing internal security and to those in the policing community and national defence community who have a very important role to play in our society. How do they live up to those priorities? If we can bring the debate back to that focus I think we would be well served.
Looking at the opposition day motion, if I may comment briefly on the way in which it is worded, I have no difficulty with this forming the subject matter of the debate and forming somewhat the terms of reference for the justice committee, which will be tasked with the study. I would feel more comfortable if it included somewhere in the text the wording that the justice committee study these issues but not be limited exclusively to these issues.
I certainly interpret that we can read it in that fashion, because I would not want to see the justice committee in any way precluded from examining acts that may exist in other countries and from looking at other methods by which countries enforce and carry out their internal security matters and immigration policies. I believe that all of this in the broader context has to be on the table if we are to look at this in the most intelligent and most reasonable fashion.
Yesterday we saw many members, both collectively and individually, express their horror on the events of September 11. While the rescue workers are sorting through the concrete and shards of glass, trying to aid those whose lives have been shattered, I think we have to sort through some of the political rubble and rhetoric surrounding this issue. We have to look for real purpose to find some motivation in these events and give this study and issue our laser guided attention in trying to come up with some conclusions and make some sense of this, because this is something with which Canadians have collectively struggled. They ask how we can make some sense of this horrific act and move to the next stage, which is enforcing justice for those who were responsible, but perhaps equally and more important, how do we prevent matters like this from occurring?
We heard discussions about specific attempts to change the way that airport or airplane security is put in place. The opportunity we have before us with this supply day motion talks about a reference to the committee with the United Kingdom's terrorist act as a starting point. It then goes on to outline some of the elements of legislation that we should be looking at, such as the naming of all known international terrorist organizations operating in Canada. To some extent we have this information available to us now so we are partway there.
Should we be banning any form of participation in terrorism in Canada? On the face of it, yes, but then we have to delve deeper. What defines terrorism? What defines a legitimate form of protest? When does it cross that hazy line into activism that is bordering on violence or on civil disobedience and into activities that endanger people's lives, safety and security?
There are other elements like banning fundraising activities that support terrorism. We know that these activities are underway now in Canada. There is a bill currently before the other place that will hopefully address this, yet anyone who has looked at the legislation knows that it is insufficient. It simply says that charitable status is lost for engaging in that activity. In light of the horrific circumstances, it is really an insult to suggest that this would be the only repercussion from engaging in that type of activity.
We must go forward. The ratification of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism is now merely a matter of Canada living up to its obligations, that is, fulfilling its word. There is detail before us on this convention, which was signed and adopted at the UN General Assembly on December 9, 1999.
Some of those elements that Canada penned and was a participant in must now be brought to fruition. We must give weight to this international convention. We must be prepared to co-operate fully with our international partners. We must be prepared to give the resources that are necessary to implement this convention in the country.
Creating specific crimes for engaging in terrorism is certainly something we have to do. We have to define it. We have to make that definition and give that definition weight by clearly enunciating that there will be ramifications, that there will be retribution, if you will, for engaging in terrorist acts.
The elements of our immigration policy with respect to extradition certainly have to be re-examined. There was a time in the early 1990s when there was contemplation of putting in place a super department for internal security which would bring together elements of immigration and internal security. Interestingly, at that time there was a great hue and cry from the Prime Minister, who was the leader of the opposition of the day. In essence he alluded to the fact that this would bring about some element of anti-immigration sentiment in the country.
The Prime Minister stated in 1993 that it would be a cynical and manipulative action if the Conservative government of the day were to move in any way in that direction. The Prime Minister went on to define the contemplation of this by stating that it would be unthinkable for a future Liberal government to continue to slot immigration with public security.
We are at that point now where we have to talk about this. We have to contemplate looking at immigration because it is so closely associated with this element of terrorism, this element of violence that can be perpetrated by those who come from away, from this massive global community we live in, over our international borders and carry out acts of horrific implications, either here or in close proximity, in the United States.
All of these issues have to be given great discussion and insight. Minute details have to be examined because the grave implications are clear. We know now what can happen. We need not look any further than last week's events to see the absolutely apocalyptic implications for not acting and not acting swiftly.
Much of the discussion has already touched on the issue of resource allocation, the issue of giving CSIS, our RCMP and our national defence agencies greater resources. There can be no denying that this is an area we have to pursue. Admittedly this is simplistic thinking, but simplistic as it may be, perhaps there is an admission from those who are currently in positions in those agencies. There is an outcry for greater tools, for greater resources to carry out the tasks that they are asked to enforce.
If we take this obligation seriously it is something that can happen quickly. We saw in the United States an immediate response from congress in allocating $20 billion toward a thorough examination of where the resources should go.
That could be the response of the government as well should it choose to move in that direction. That in the short term would provide some solace and some comfort for the areas in which we are clearly lacking.
There is a great need and again an opportunity with legislation before the House to make the changes necessary to immigration, the gatekeeper of the country. The majority of Canadians are looking to us now in this time of need to come forward with intelligent, thoughtful and decisive action. We have to take that obligation very seriously. In the justice committee and in the House we will have that task before us now and for some considerable time in the future.
