Bill C-35 (Historical)

Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act

An Act to deter terrorism, and to amend the State Immunity Act

This enactment creates, in order to deter terrorism, a cause of action that allows victims of terrorism to sue perpetrators of terrorism and their supporters. The enactment also amends the State Immunity Act to prevent a foreign state from claiming immunity from the jurisdiction of Canadian courts in respect of actions that relate to its support of terrorism.

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Thank you for the presentation. It's good to see you here again.

I'm very impressed with the work that this organization does along with Amnesty International and the battle that you've undertaken here. The fact that we even consider the sovereign nation has a sovereign right to torture, that it can even be discussed, is in itself very disgusting.

We do have a problem. Bill C-7 is awaiting debate in the House. Bill C-35 died at prorogation. Bill C-483 is teetering because of a potential election. But I want to say on behalf of my party that should there be an election and should the good people of Hamilton East—Stoney Creek send me back here, I'm going to be working with, I presume, the members of this committee to make sure Bill C-483 comes forward again.

But I think what we need to do as well is have a discussion about making it as comprehensive as we possibly can, to include those positives that get lost along the wayside because of the proceedings of a minority Parliament. It's very important, so I want to give you that commitment here today. I've just looked down the aisle here, and I see my friends nodding.

The other thing we have to address as members of Parliament is the order of precedent, that this comes forward. Because if you're a private member, and I happen to be, I think, 163, there's a long wait before you have.... So we have to ensure a bill of this importance gets a priority, and I commit also to work with my House leader to try to get unanimous consent to get this up sooner, no matter who has the precedence on it.

Considering places like Iran or Libya or maybe the Democratic Republic of Congo—I have trouble saying “Democratic” Republic of Congo—if you have Canadians working there and let's just say we made these changes in law here, is there any consideration given to the risk factor for Canadians abroad following this? What kind of reaction might there be? That's something that concerns me, and I'd like a response, if you would, please.

[Matthew Eisenbrandt, Legal Coordinator, Canadian Centre for International Justice]

Thank you.

Distinguished members of this committee, I also want to express my sincere thanks for the leadership you have shown on the need to ensure that there is access to Canadian civil courts to sue governments such as that of Iran for their torture when there is no other justice option available. We very much appreciate this opportunity to be with you today to discuss how to achieve this.

I'm the legal coordinator for the Canadian Centre for International Justice. I've held this position for three years. Previous to this I served for more than five years as the legal director of the Center for Justice and Accountability, a U.S.-based non-profit organization that also works to prevent torture and other severe human rights abuses by helping survivors hold perpetrators accountable through legal cases.

I have worked on CCIJ's intervention as a friend of the court in the Kazemi case to provide legal analysis about the issue of state immunity. And I coordinated a workshop of leading Canadian and international legal scholars and practitioners who came together at the University of Ottawa in 2008 to discuss what changes were needed in Canadian law to allow torture survivors in Canada to have access to justice.

Having endorsed Bill C-483, we thought this committee would be interested in hearing some of the key arguments in favour of this legislative change and the responses that can be given to what we anticipate may be some of the questions or concerns raised by your colleagues as you discuss it with them.

First, it is important to note that there is a global trend away from immunity in civil lawsuits. Most countries--including almost all civil law countries, which make up two-thirds of the world--do not have legislation providing immunity to foreign governments. Many also allow victims to file civil claims in conjunction with criminal prosecutions of torturers and war criminals.

Courts in the United States have heard dozens of lawsuits concerning torture and other atrocities. The U.S. Supreme Court recently ruled that the United States immunity law, which is very similar to Canada's, does not grant immunity to individual officials. Italy's top court has ruled on several occasions that Germany is not immune in lawsuits for Nazi-era abuses. Even though the U.K. House of Lords did apply immunity in a torture case, that decision is now on appeal at the European Court of Human Rights.

An important United Nations committee has underlined the trend away from immunity and pointed to Canada as being in violation of its international legal obligations in this regard. In 2005 the United Nations Committee against Torture, the body charged with overseeing the proper implementation of the Convention against Torture, made it clear that the convention requires all states to provide civil remedies to survivors of torture.

Canada and most other countries have ratified the convention. And the committee pressed Canada to “ensure the provision of compensation through its civil jurisdiction to all victims of torture”. This was shortly after the Ontario Court of Appeal found that Canada's State Immunity Act barred a claim against Iran for the torture of an Iranian man, Houshang Bouzari, who is now a citizen of Canada, in a case we described during our last appearance. In other words, this UN committee was indicating that Canada should not grant immunity in torture cases. The committee has reinforced with several other countries in recent years this position that all victims of torture must be provided access to justice according to the torture convention.

The trend away from immunity in civil cases follows the elimination of immunity in most criminal cases concerning human rights atrocities, both internationally and in Canada. The Statute of the International Criminal Court and the legislation in Canada and around the world that allows for war crimes trials in criminal courts explicitly prohibits anyone in any rank of government from claiming immunity. Ensuring that immunity does not bar access to justice in civil cases for the same acts is a natural extension.

A second point in favour of Bill C-483 is that Canadian parliamentarians have already recognized the need to create exceptions to the State Immunity Act, with several exceptions already written into the act and a new one under consideration.

One of the exceptions in the State Immunity Act is for commercial activities. A second, the one that we have been discussing, which was used by the Quebec Superior Court to give Stephan Kazemi the opportunity for a remedy, is for involvement in injuries and property damage that occur inside Canada.

In recent years several proposed legislative amendments have also attempted to create an exception to the state immunity doctrine for terrorism, the most recent including Bill C-35, Bill S-7, and Bill C-408.

In June 2009, then Minister of Public Safety Peter Van Loan introduced to Parliament Bill C-35, an act to deter terrorism and to amend the State Immunity Act. One of the primary goals of this bill was to create a new exception to Canada's state immunity law so that it cannot prevent lawsuits in Canada against foreign governments for certain acts of terrorism.

Bill S-7 is an identical bill introduced after the prorogation of Parliament. It was introduced in the Senate in April 2010 by Senator Marjory LeBreton and was recently passed by the Senate and has had first reading in the House of Commons. This bill will allow lawsuits for alleged acts of terrorism that occurred on or after January 1, 1985, the year of the Air India bombing, in which 280 Canadians died.

Again, Bill C-483 is a natural extension. If foreign governments can be sued for commercial activities and for injuries and death they cause inside Canada, why would we not permit them to be sued for the torture and murder of Canadians outside Canada? If a new exception for terrorism proceeds, it should go hand in hand with an exception for torture and other violations of international law of this magnitude.

A third point in favour of the bill is its strong potential for the deterrence of torture, war crimes, and other atrocities. Throughout history these horrendous crimes have been committed with no accountability. But that has begun to change in recent years with the creation of the International Criminal Court and the launching of both criminal and civil cases around the world.

If governments and their officials know they will face justice in a court of law, they will be less likely to commit abuses. Not all of these international crimes will be completely prevented, in the same way that our domestic laws do not prevent all crimes. By the same token, one can only imagine how much more crime there would be if there were no police or judges to enforce domestic law. The same logic applies at the international level. If there is even the smallest possibility that increasing international enforcement measures could help prevent a future Darfur, Congo, or Burma, we must do all we can to provide justice.

Finally, it is important to note that Bill C-483 would remove immunity and thus allow civil claims for four types of acts that have already been criminalized in Canada. The bill would remove immunity in cases alleging acts of torture, genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes. Parliament has already criminalized these four human rights violations in the Criminal Code and the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act passed in 2000 when it ratified the International Criminal Court Treaty. By amending the State Immunity Act, Bill C-483 would merely permit survivors to seek compensation and redress from the states that commit these criminal acts.

Those are some of the key points that can be raised to make a compelling case for the passage of Bill C-483. Bill C-483 was also carefully crafted to address potential challenges, and I will briefly review two key points in this regard.

First, it is possible that someone will ask whether the amendment will throw open the metaphorical floodgates and swamp Canadian courts with lawsuits about human rights abuses that occurred overseas. The answer is no. The number of lawsuits will be limited. As with all civil cases in Canada, judges will have to be assured that a lawsuit has a connection to Canada and the province in which the case is brought. Even if a connection exists with the Canadian province, a lawsuit will proceed only if Canada is the best forum. If another country is in a better position to hear a case, perhaps owing to the location of witnesses and evidence, and if that country protects due process rights, a Canadian court can dismiss the lawsuit. As a result, Canadian courts will take on only those cases in which Canada is both the best forum and the last resort.

The language of Bill C-483 explicitly confirms that lawsuits for torture and other serious international crimes will only be permitted once all remedies have been invoked and exhausted in the country where the abuse has happened. Any civil litigation lawyer in Canada will advise a potential client about these limitations.

The number of lawsuits will also be limited by the fact that the evidence necessary to bring this kind of lawsuit is often challenging because of the obvious lack of cooperation by authorities in the affected country. It is also difficult to find witnesses and ensure their protection. The psychological trauma suffered by most torture survivors is an additional barrier, and many people lack the necessary financial resources.

The number of cases to proceed in other countries in which civil litigation for torture and other atrocities is permitted has been limited, likely due to a combination of these factors. At the same time, many survivors with whom we work talk about the importance of knowing that Canadian courts are open to these kinds of claims, even if they themselves will not be proceeding with a lawsuit.

A second potential critique of attempts to amend the State Immunity Act is the perceived impact on Canada's diplomatic and trade relations if Parliament signals its willingness to take foreign governments and individual officials to court. In response, one can point out, as I have described, that most countries of the world do not have legislation comparable to the State Immunity Act to provide protection from litigation, and that when the issue has been litigated, some courts have refused to apply immunity to civil claims for the most grievous violations of human rights. Clearly, these countries do not view their commercial and diplomatic interests as being at risk because of the possibility that someone in their country might sue Iran or other human rights abusers.

The U.S. and Italian models show that although some countries have protested lawsuits targeting them or their officials, there is little evidence that lawsuits have led to major diplomatic retaliation. In addition, there should not be an explosion of cases against Canadian allies that provide proper redress through their own courts. As I mentioned, Canadian courts can dismiss those cases. With countries that are not close allies and do not respect the rights of their citizens, civil lawsuits provide another effective tool to convince them to change their ways.

If the goal of deterring future abuses is in fact achieved by these cases, the United Nations and foreign affairs departments around the world will have fewer situations of human rights violations raising sticky diplomatic issues.

You may also wish to point out to colleagues that with the State Immunity Act, as it currently reads, a very embarrassing and frankly outrageous situation arises for the Government of Canada. This committee heard Stephan Kazemi, a Canadian, describe how the torture and death of his Canadian mother has resulted in so many years of pain and suffering in the prime of his life. In the same year, he was in court to seek some measure of justice at great emotional cost, with CCIJ and Amnesty International as Canadian charities using scarce resources to support him. There was the Canadian government using Canadian taxpayers' money to stand on the opposite side of the courtroom to argue against Stephan's right to proceed with his case for his mother's torture and murder, because it needed to defend its law, the State Immunity Act.

Great pains were taken to express that Canada was not condoning the human rights record of the Government of Iran, but the practical result is that it contributes to the commission of human rights abuses. There are people being raped, beaten, and killed in the same Iranian prison right now as we sit here. Rather than seeking dismissal of these worthy cases, Canada has the power and obligation to help bring these abuses to an end.

We hope the image of what Bill C-483 means in terms of human lives is what will stay with you, and we hope that you will act quickly across parties to ensure its prompt passage. We have background materials and copies of our statements to leave with you to help you do that.

Thank you so much for the opportunity to discuss this very important issue with you today.

Business of the House

[Jay Hill, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, today we will continue with Bill C-57, Canada-Jordan Free Trade Act.

If we were to complete that, I would intend to call Bill C-23, Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act. I would point out to my colleagues that this bill has already received more than 30 hours of debate in the House and yet the NDP and the Bloc continue to delay the proceedings and hold up this agreement that would create new business opportunities for Canadians from coast to coast.

As I indicated this morning, tomorrow will be an allotted day.

Next week we will once again focus on our justice agenda beginning with the report and third reading stage of Bill C-36, An Act to amend the Criminal Code followed by Bill C-31, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act and the Identification of Criminals Act and to make a consequential amendment to another Act. Then we will have Bill C-54, Protecting Canadians by Ending Sentence Discounts for Multiple Murders Act; Bill C-55, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the response to the Supreme Court of Canada Decision in R. v. Shoker act; Bill C-19, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (investigative hearing and recognizance with conditions); Bill C-53, Protecting Canadians by Ending Early Release for Criminals Act and finally, Bill C-35, Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act. All of these bills are at second reading.

On the issue of a NAFO debate, I would remind the hon. House leader for the Liberal Party that is what opposition days are for.

Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today to Bill C-35, An Act to deter terrorism, and to amend the State Immunity Act.

As members of the House know, the bill was introduced on June 2 by the Minister of Public Safety. The bill would create a cause of action that would allow victims of terrorism to sue individuals, organizations and terrorist entities for loss or damage suffered as a result of acts or omissions punishable under part II.1 of the Criminal Code, which is the part of the code that deals with terrorism offences that have been committed by individuals, organizations or entities.

The bill would also allow victims of terrorism to sue foreign states that have supported terrorists who have committed such acts in certain circumstances. The victim's loss or damage can have occurred inside or outside Canada but must have occurred on or after January 1, 1985. If the loss or damage occurred outside Canada, there must be a real and substantial connection to this country.

Bill C-35 would also amend the State Immunity Act to create a new exception to state immunity, the general rule that prevents states from being sued in Canada's domestic courts.

However, the new exception serves to remove state immunity only when the state in question has been placed on a list established by cabinet on the basis that there is reasonable grounds to believe that it has supported or currently supports terrorism.

As we heard this morning through most of the debate, a lot of the dissension surrounds the whole question of whether or not it is proper to have this list included.

We know, through experience, that the Americans have had similar legislation in effect for at least 10 years. Critics of that legislation point to the fact that it is the list that causes the problems and makes the bill difficult to deal with.

On the basis of the conversations I have heard this morning, the excellent comments from at least two and maybe more Liberal speakers, it seems to me that at the end of the day there could develop a consensus on this bill surrounding this particular list. It seems to me that if we were to remove the list, then it would remove the impediments to supporting the bill at committee stage.

Another important component that we would look at adding at committee stage is the issue of torture.

The new exemption serves to remove cabinet immunity only when the state in question has been placed on the list established by cabinet and there must be reasonable grounds to believe that the state has supported or currently supports terrorism.

Bill C-35 is similar to a number of private member bills and Senate public bills that have been introduced in Parliament since 2005. The primary difference between the previous bills and Bill C-35 is that the other bills sought to include the cause of action in the Criminal Code, whereas Bill C-35 would create a free-standing civil cause of action.

In terms of the background and context of the bill, one of the most significant features of Bill C-35 is the fact that it would give victims of terrorist acts the ability to sue in Canada's domestic courts foreign states that support terrorism. Most states do not recognize sponsoring or supporting terrorism as the exception to the general state immunity principle. Customary international law historically gave states, their agents and instrumentalities complete immunity from being sued in the domestic courts of other states. This principle arose out of another international law, the sovereign equality of states.

I do know that we are getting a little bit short on time today and that I will have more time to continue with the debate on this bill when we resume, but I do want to specifically deal with the whole issue of the bill as it exists in the United States.

Once again, I really feel that the government should be looking at best practices. It should go anywhere in the world to find examples of where best practices exist. Where there is a piece of legislation that has shown to be effective and we can isolate and determine the reasons for it being effective, then we should simply use that case to improve our own.

As I indicated, in the United States, similar legislation has been in place for more than a decade and only listed countries can be sued, which is what this bill contemplates, with currently listed countries being Cuba, Iran, Syria, Sudan and North Korea. Iraq and Libya were originally listed but have since been delisted.

The common problem identified by the Congressional Research Service, and this can be documented, has been the refusal of defendants to recognize the jurisdiction of the American courts. Well, there is no surprise there. As such, the defendants do not appear and default judgments are rendered, which the debtor countries then ignore and refuse to pay.

So there is feel-good legislation where people in good faith launch lawsuits thinking they will get results but only get a default judgment against the rogue state that is on the list which then ignores the judgment or refuses to pay. They go on to say that even if people do get the judgment and the country refuses to pay, they cannot recover money anyway because there are very limited assets of the listed countries being held in the United States, and Canada would have far less percentage of assets to be looked at. Regardless of the limitation of assets—

[Nina Grewal, Conservative, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Mr. Speaker, again I would like to give the hon. member the very same answer that I gave earlier.

Specifically, Bill C-35 will allow victims of terrorism to seek redress of any loss or damages that have occurred or occur as a result of terrorist attacks committed anywhere in the world on or after January 1, 1985.

[Nina Grewal, Conservative, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to tell the member that Bill C-35 will specifically allow victims of terrorism to seek redress for any loss or damages that occur as a result of terrorist attacks committed anywhere in the world on or after January 1, 1985 in cases where they can demonstrate a real and substantial connection between their cause and Canada.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the hon. member could explain to the House how a victim of terrorism would proceed to sue perpetrators or supporters of terrorism under Bill C-35.

[Nina Grewal, Conservative, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today on behalf of the constituents of Fleetwood—Port Kells to address Bill C-35. It is a pleasure to have this opportunity at second reading to speak about how this government is delivering on its commitment to protect the safety and security of Canadians, both at home and abroad, from terrorist activities, while giving those who do fall victim to heinous acts of terrorism an ability to fight back.

Over the last few years, we have all been witness to the horrible carnage that terrorism can, and does, leave in its wake. We have witnessed the broken lives, the broken communities, and the constant state of fear and panic which innocent bystanders, as well as victims and their families, are forced to endure.

Canada is not immune from this threat. Hundreds of Canadians died in the bombing of Air-India flight 182, the worst terrorist attack in Canadian history and the largest in North America prior to September 11, 2001. Canada has been singled out for possible future attacks by organizations such as al-Qaeda.

We have also seen the successful prosecution of homegrown terrorists before they had a chance to carry out their plans.

We, therefore, cannot afford to bury out heads in the sand and pretend that our country has no stake in the global fight to put terrorists out of business. We need to continue to take firm and decisive action. That is the primary reason behind Bill C-35, An Act to deter terrorism, and to amend the State Immunity Act.

Today, we know that terrorist groups seldom act alone. The scale and sophistication of terrorist operations in recent years often required vast amounts of financial and organizational support. That support can come from other entities, and even other states. Indeed, many observers have often described the relationship between terrorist groups and certain governments as one of a state operating within a state.

The present reality is that money is the lifeblood of terrorism. One of the most effective ways to deter terrorism and put terrorists out of business is, therefore, to hit them where it can hurt the most: their pocketbooks.

The bill before us today, An Act to deter terrorism, and to amend the State Immunity Act, would do just that, by allowing victims of terrorism to sue perpetrators and supporters of terrorism, including those states that support terrorism while respecting the important international relations we have.

Specifically, Bill C-35 would allow victims of terrorism to seek redress for any loss or damage that occurred as a result of terrorist acts committed anywhere in the world on or after January 1, 1985, and in cases where they can demonstrate a real and substantial connection between the action and Canada. The target of these suits would be perpetrators of terrorist acts, as well as their supporters, including certain states known to support terrorism.

In the case of the latter, Bill C-35 proposes to lift state immunity under certain conditions so that governments that do support terrorism would no longer be able to hide behind the cloak of international rules and agreements between civilized and law-abiding countries.

The amendments before us today would allow the governor in council to designate those states to which state immunity would no longer apply, provided there are reasonable grounds to believe that they support terrorism.

The bottom line is that states and organizations that bankroll terrorists seek to operate in the shadows. In most cases, they do not want their actions held up to the eyes of the world so that everyone can see who they are.

Creating a cause of action so that they can be held to account through the courts would do just that, while also giving victims the opportunity to seek justice, something that they have sought for some time and what this government is now delivering on.

Bill C-35 would do more than just create a cause of action for victims and terrorists in civil courts.

It also proposes to give the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Minister of Finance the discretion to assist, within their mandates and to the extent reasonably practical, in identifying and locating in Canada the property of a foreign state against which a judgment has been rendered, provided it is in Canada's best interests to do so. The Government of Canada is committed to helping victims and this is what these provisions will allow it to do.

They will allow us to help ensure that justice is served in ways that do not jeopardize our standing in the international community. They will help ensure that states that support terrorism face the consequences of their actions in real and tangible ways while also ensuring that cultural property, such as museum collections in Canada, is not suspect to seizure. This bill is balanced, effective and fair.

Several years have now passed since that terrible day in 2001 when Canadians and people from around the world became aware of just how much they were at risk and how committed terrorists were to causing untold and indiscriminate carnage. Since then, together with our allies, Canada has stood up to say that we are not going to be afraid. We are not going to back down from terrorists or give in to fear.

We are going to meet the threats they pose head on and take the necessary steps to protect this country, protect our fellow citizens, and help ensure that terrorists do not succeed in reigning havoc among our friends, neighbours and allies overseas.

That is the commitment that all of us as Canadians made in 2001. It is the commitment that all of us as Canadians still believe in upholding today. The bill presently before us gives this country another important tool in our efforts to both deter terrorism and help ensure that victims get the justice they so rightly deserve.

I, therefore, urge all hon. members to give speedy passage to Bill C-35 and stand united in sending a message to those who would threaten our homes, our families and even our lives. Together, we will stop them and win the fight against terrorism.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to Bill C-35.

We have heard interventions from the government, the Liberal Party and the Bloc. There seems to be consensus on some of the concerns that many of us have when it comes to Bill C-35, which I will get to.

There is a consensus also on the need to deal with the issue and the objective that the government has laid out and that we need to do something to address the grievances of victims due to terrorism. The question is not whether we should deal with that objective. It is how we deal with that objective.

The principle behind the bill is important. I think all parties want to find ways of addressing the concerns of victims, of what is political violence often.

New Democrats have always taken a strong stand against perpetrators of terror, torture and human rights abuses. For that reason, we will support sending the bill to committee for further study, and I will explain some of the rationale behind that.

At this point, we are not convinced the bill will achieve its stated purpose of preventing, and was mentioned by the Minister of State of Foreign Affairs for Americas when he tabled the bill, and deterring terrorism.

What will the proposed bill do? Bill C-35 has three primary components. First, it creates a cause of action that allows victims of terrorism to sue individuals, organizations and terrorist entities in Canadian courts for loss or damage suffered as a result of terrorist acts as defined in the Criminal Code. Second, it amends the State Immunity Act to remove state immunity for states on the list of countries established by cabinet and that have supported or currently support terrorism. Finally, it allows victims to sue foreign states that are on the list.

The bill takes significant steps, but we need to take a measured look at it. That is why it is important for it to be examined at committee.

I will enumerate some of our concerns.

First, will the amending of the State Immunity Act cause retaliation against Canadians and within that what are the risks?

Second, why is the government limiting the cause of action to a certain list of states, not leaving the matter open to courts decisions? That was echoed by my colleagues on this side of the House.

Third, is there merit in extending the cause of action created by the bill to victims of other forms of state violations of human rights such as torture and if not in this bill, what are the plans of the government to deal with that?

I do not have to enumerate the numbers of cases of Canadians who have suffered torture through other state actors. We believe that should be dealt with immediately.

Let us begin with the first point. There are serious concerns with the concept of amending the State Immunity Act. Would it open the door to frivolous suits launched in questionable jurisdictions that would adversely impact Canadians? It is simply a question and one that needs to be answered. Within diplomatic circles, this has been questioned.

I will reference Fen Hampson, the director of the Norman Paterson School of International Affairs Carleton University, in Ottawa, which is one of the most pre-eminent schools of diplomacy. In reference to the bill, when asked, “Does it interfere with possible foreign policy goals?“, he said:

Absolutely...Securing the release of a journalist or someone else who has been thrown into jail, something like this can complicate relations. It doesn't ease them....In effect, you are putting your diplomacy in a straight jacket.

Another commentary on the bill has said a similar thing. René Pronovost, an international law expert at McGill University in Montreal, echoed Mr. Hampson when he said, “The bill invites retaliation by other governments”.

We need to take these comments and points of view seriously. We cannot just brush them aside.

It is important to note, when we look at the world, particularly after 1989 with the fall of the Berlin Wall, that we live in a much more multilateral, multi-polar world. Therefore, our good intentions at home should not limit our abilities for seeking resolutions to problems abroad. That is why these comments have been made.

In the area of unintended consequences, a bill that we pass, which might suit our needs domestically for very good reasons and for lofty goals, could actually harm us when we look at dealing with other actors, multilaterally. We should be sure that whatever do at home with the intention of deterring terrorism actually helps us deter terrorism.

I think it is strange that the only exception to state immunity as it exists now, and the government is certainly aware of this, is in financial cases. There are provisions. It is important the committee and Parliament be seized with a study and debate on whether we should end immunity against violence in its different forms. Notwithstanding the scope of the bill and the opportunities to go further, this is a time to open up that issue.

In other words, when it comes to the act itself, where there are state immunity exceptions in financial cases and the government proposes we change it to address terrorism, it would also be an opportunity, if we are unable to amend and extend this bill, to at least open up some opportunities for debate and proposition to follow up with other exemptions from state immunity. I am certain many of us would like to see that for those who are victims of torture. We can do this in committee. We can look at the problems in the bill. It is a discussion to which that I look forward.

The second concern I have is the list. I made a point of it in my intervention when I was questioning the minister of state. We heard from the Liberal intervenor on this, which is a concern shared by the Bloc as well. With the contemplation of this list, the bill would create a cause for court action, and the Criminal Code defines what the action is. Why would the cause of action as contemplated in the bill and amending the state immunity provisions only be subject to certain states and not others? This is core to the concerns the NDP has with the bill.

We have heard from others in the debate today that with the government confining the court actions to a list of countries, it is undermining the intent and objectives we all want. When we put that tool in the hands of the executive, the cabinet, to deal with it exclusively, we run into what I call a faulty flaw in legislation, a faulty flaw that strangely undermines the whole idea of what we want to deal with. Legislation is put forward and contemplated to deal with problems. One must look at the full scope of what the legislation does and not in isolation.

When a list is put together, one has to be very careful as to who it will affect. By design, there is a group of countries that are not being included. The government says that we should not worry, that it has a review on a bi-annual basis. Things happen quickly in this multi-polar world. This does not allow for a quick response. The government says that if there is an emergency, it can change that. The point is not only who is on the list, it is the fact that the list exists.

We have heard from those who have had experience with this in the United States. They have said that this is a problem. They have advised us not to go down that path. I find it strange that we would take on the worst aspect of that policy framework from the U.S., after it has been tried, critiqued and suggestions made not to do it, and put it in our legislation.

When I asked the Minister of State for his feedback on that, he believed this was the way to go. He did not provide a rationale and he certainly did not provide a response to the question put forward that if this did not work in the states, why do it here.

It is really important therefore that we are non-supportive of politicizing our courts or giving cabinet the authority to say which cases the courts must take on and which ones they must refuse. The government is doing that with the list. If the actions of one state are cause for legal action, the equivalent actions of another state should be cause for similar action. There should be no preferential treatment for any state if we are to be genuine about it. It is up to the legal system, really, to look at the merits of every case and decide whether action can be taken. It is a really important tenet of our system, that the courts are able to do this. As my colleagues from other parties have stated, and the member for Mount Royal said it best, the list is a tool of politicization, which undermines the stated goal of the bill.

Finally, if through the studies at committee it became clear that the approach in the bill did not deter state violence in the form of terrorism, then we wish to examine whether similar action should be expanded to include other forms of illegal state violence, such as torture or gross violations of human rights. If we were able to open that up, we would hope that, if not in this bill, the government would come forward with opportunities to have legislation that would amend the State Immunity Act to deal with those areas.

We just celebrated the 60th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The Canadian Centre for International Justice has said on numerous occasions that the declaration was an amazing achievement and that we should all be proud of the Canadian content of that declaration. However, there is an ongoing need for a greater commitment to the prevention of mass atrocities such as genocide and crimes against humanity, torture and war crimes. We need to have a goal in the 21st century that the enormous advances in international justice will be ones that prove to be strong deterrents to the commission of such atrocities and contribute to the prevention of conflict more broadly.

The ICC is at the forefront of this system. It is the first permanent criminal court able to try individuals for serious violations of international law. It has its challenges, no question, but Canada was a party to the treaty establishing that court, and we have agreed to try alleged war crimes and human rights abusers in Canada. We just had evidence of that recently in Montreal.

Torture treatment experts estimate that 25% to 30% of refugees and immigrants living in countries like Canada have experienced torture with war trauma. The Government of Canada figures suggest that there are hundreds of alleged war criminals and human rights abusers currently in Canada, and often survivors of atrocities express their desire to seek justice served for the harm they have suffered. Justice can play an important role, no question, in the healing process, helping to address some of the emotional and psychological challenges faced by survivors.

With regard to the stated purpose of the bill, we agree with exploring the option at the committee level and deciding whether it should apply to victims of terrorism as well as other forms of state violation of human rights and international law. If we are to accept the amendments to the State Immunity Act and we want to do the whole thing, we need to open it up to other facets.

We should ensure that foreign government officials and their agents implicated in torture and other atrocities are tried in Canadian courts. Canada's State Immunity Act has created a barrier to such cases in Canada, leading to a statement of the UN committee against torture that this is an improper interpretation of obligations under the torture convention. Cases in civil courts are an important complement to a strong criminal law system, providing an alternative forum for cases, and allowing for the possibility of compensation and other forms of redress.

We support the initiatives that would redress the harm done to victims and would deter the future state sponsorship of violations of human rights, but we are not convinced that the bill in its present form is really the way to go or that all the unintended implications that I have mentioned have been thought through thoroughly.

We have serious concerns about cabinet's interference with justice in the form of creating a list of states which would face court action in Canada to the exclusion of other states.

We also wish to explore whether or not these measures would deter other forms of illegal state violence and violations of human rights, and if not in this bill, as I said, that is fine if that is the committee's conclusion in dealing with the area of torture. If it is not included in this bill, then we would like to see some commitment by this Parliament to legislation that would amend the State Immunity Act to deal with that. It is far too important to wait another year or two.

Notwithstanding these concerns about the bill, and given our commitment to giving victims of human rights violations an opportunity to seek justice and to make sure that justice is done, we will join with others and support sending this bill to committee where we will take a look at it and hear from others.

The government does not really understand the unintended consequences when it comes to our diplomacy abroad. We need to hear from experts, from people in the field. We need to hear from those in the United States who have pleaded with us to stay away from the list in this bill.

I started off my comments by saying that I think there is a shared objective here and that is to deal with those who have been victimized by terrorism. Everyone agrees that is something to address and redress. If we do not do it properly, then certain members of Parliament will have a difficult time supporting it, and I would align myself with them. If we do not get it right, we could be in the unfortunate position of having brought forward a law that undermines the actual objective we are trying to achieve.

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I began my speech just before oral question period. I will not repeat everything I said, but I will come back to the Bloc Québécois' position on Bill C-35, which seeks to lift the immunity of states that support terrorism and expose them to private civil actions.

As I was saying before question period, the Bloc Québécois would like to examine Bill C-35 in committee. We have many questions about the bill, which contains several points that bother us. Nevertheless, like the rest of my party, I believe that it would only be right to examine it in committee to learn all its ins and outs.

When my speech was interrupted, I was saying that, practically speaking, the recourse offered by the government through Bill C-35 could never lead to true justice and redress for victims. It should not be surprising that a terrorist state that is prosecuted would be very unlikely to pay. Furthermore, any goods it might have in Canada—not everyone has an embassy here or goods of any significant monetary value—would not even cover the costs awarded by the court.

As for suing terrorists themselves, I ask the government whether it really believes it is possible and realistic to sue a bin Laden or any other such terrorist, in the hope of obtaining redress and compensation. The answer is self-evident.

Will such a measure really have a deterrent effect on terrorists? It will now be possible in Canada to sue terrorists and the governments that support them, but I am not sure that this will prevent them from committing acts of terrorism.

The government will establish the list of countries that can be sued by victims. Victims of a country on the list will be able to obtain compensation under this bill, while victims of a country not on the list will not. As I said, I believe that this will be academic. The bill will create a double standard, because victims of countries that are not on the government's list will have no remedy. The government has created an injustice by making this distinction.

Moreover, the very idea of a list is questionable. Where do we draw the line? That is a question that the committee will have to consider.

And why limit lawsuits to terrorism? Not that terrorism is not truly reprehensible—of course it is—but we should also think about all those countries where there are war crimes and crimes against humanity. I am thinking of torture and genocide. Earlier, during questions and comments, an NDP member asked questions about countries where torture is practised.

Not long ago, a free trade agreement with Colombia was discussed here in the House. We know that torture is practised in that country and that journalists and opponents of the regime are kidnapped, tortured and assassinated. Not only should we not sign a free trade agreement with this sort of country, but we should add it to the list. We could make it possible for victims of these countries to sue them.

To add to the Bloc Québécois' reservations about this bill, it is possible that it may interfere, yet again, in Quebec's jurisdiction on civil law. Civil law is within the jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces. Through this bill, the government is casting a very wide net and could interfere in our jurisdictions. Obviously, we will pay particular attention to that aspect in committee.

I do not know whether this has come up since we started discussing Bill C-35, but, according to my research, the only similar measure exists in the United States. It is an example of foreign legislation that is quite similar to the policy the government wants to implement.

The only country that has legislation related to Bill C-35, is the United States. They adopted their antiterrorism and effective death penalty act of 1996 and amended their foreign states immunities act in order to provide an exception like the one proposed in Bill C-35.

Has the effectiveness of the U.S. legislation been measured before implementing exactly the same type of legislation here in Canada? I doubt it, otherwise a different bill would have been introduced. I still have a few minutes to explain the type of problems the U.S. is experiencing with this legislation. The U.S. experience is not at all conclusive. In the United States, the legislation has been in place for more than a decade. Only listed countries can be sued, as would be the case here, with currently listed countries being Cuba, Iran, Syria, Sudan and North Korea. Iraq and Libya were originally listed but have since been delisted.

A common problem identified by the Congressional Research Service, or CRS, has been the refusal of defendants to recognize the jurisdiction of the American courts. As I mentioned earlier, we can very well sue an offending country, but that country will say that it does not recognize the courts under which it was sentenced; it will refuse to pay and, obviously, to compensate the victims. So we end up caught in a process where, no matter what we do, the defendents will always be able to refuse to accept the sentence they receive. Defendants do not even appear, and default judgments are rendered, which the debtor countries then ignore and refuse to pay damages and interest.

Now, let us look at what happens when it comes to recovering damages and interest, if a country is successfully convicted. As I said, if the country does not appear and refuses to pay, we have ways to try to recover what is owed to the victims. This also causes a major problem given the limited assets of listed countries being held in the United States and the executive branch’s resistance to allowing frozen assets to be used for this purpose. As Congress attempted to create avenues for recovery, the executive—the politicians—would resist such efforts over concerns about retaliatory measures, losing leverage over the countries concerned, and potentially violating international law on state immunity.

For example, the 1981 Algiers Accord that resulted in the release of American embassy staff who were held hostage by Iran—Canada played a very important role in this crisis— barred the hostages from initiating civil suits. However, Congress sought to provide a right of action to those hostages through various proposed laws, which the executive resisted, because of the international implications if such an accord were to be violated.

Changing circumstances in Iraq also created a difficult situation for the Bush administration. Under Saddam Hussein, Iraq was a listed state that could be sued. A number of such suits were successful and the plaintiffs sought recovery by seizing certain Iraqi assets. However, after the invasion of Iraq, according to the CRS, the American government no longer had an interest in allowing such assets to be taken, as they wanted them to be used for the benefit of the Iraqi people in rebuilding the country. In fact, we invade a country saying that we have come to save it, to help, and to get rid of the dictator. But at the same time, we say that court orders have been issued against it and that we will take what we can and give it to the victims. The situation there was already very explosive. The Iraqi people would probably have been even more outraged by the American intervention.

Despite the legislation, the American government decided to take a step back and not seize these assets and send them to the United States. The United States decided to retroactively delist Iraq. Many plaintiffs were unable to recover the money granted them in judgments.

With limited seizable assets in Canada, victims will find themselves competing for the few, if any, assets available for recovery.

If there are multiple victims, which is often the case in terrorist attacks, the few assets belonging to the state that helped the terrorist group carry out the attack will have to be seized to recover a minimal amount of money from the forced liquidation of the assets by the courts.

Moreover, the Americans' concerns about retaliation, as described earlier, seem well founded. Cuba and Iran, for example, took similar action in response to American measures. There has been retaliation.

I would now like to discuss the inclusion of terrorism and the exclusion of torture and other crimes. One of the most common criticisms of the bill is that it includes terrorism offences but ignores torture. Lawyers and commentators, such as the Canadian Centre for International Justice, find that there is no justification or rational basis to allow suits for one but not the other.

Why would torture carried out directly by a state and recognized internationally as an action not covered by state immunity not be covered, while terrorism, typically carried out by small cells that are impossible to catch, is? How are we supposed to take bin Laden to court and get a ruling against him for compensation when we still do not know where he is? How can anyone think that this kind of bill can resolve that situation when it does not even address torture and other abuses, such as genocide?

The United States’ legislation lifts immunity for an act of torture, extrajudicial killing, aircraft sabotage, hostage taking, or the provision of material support or resources, thus including both terrorist acts and torture. Some countries in Europe are also lifting immunity for torture, such as Italy, which has permitted suits against Germany for its actions during World War II. Private members’ bills addressing torture, but not terrorism, are currently before the House of Lords and the House of Commons in the United Kingdom.

I would like to talk about diplomatic relations. We will also encounter problems in that regard, which must be discussed with important witnesses in committee. Various diplomatic challenges may be created by this bill, according to commentators. One newspaper article described the proposed legislation as a “diplomatic minefield”. Listing countries may be problematic for Canada’s foreign relations. Similarly, the proposed role of the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Foreign Affairs—the two ministers who could add countries to the list of those that can be sued—in enforcing judgments through such actions as identifying and locating assets for seizure, may negatively affect diplomatic efforts. For example, Afghanistan and Pakistan are commonly seen as “incubators” of terrorism, but their listing could be problematic from a diplomatic perspective as the Canadian government seeks to support the governments of those countries. Others question whether courts are equipped to deal with the foreign policy and international relations, considerations that will inevitably be attached to such cases.

I also found articles in Quebec newspapers, for example, in Le Devoir and Le Soleil, which refer to this bill's grand illusion. It is a fine illusion. Jean-Marc Salvet, the editorial writer for Le Soleil, wrote that the bill will have almost no effect, for what could it possibly offer? Clearly, he says, the threat of a future claim for damages is not going to stop a terrorist from committing a crime. So no one should look for any kind of advantage from that perspective. There are other examples like this one.

I invite the members of this House to refer the bill to committee so we may discuss it further.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-35, An Act to deter terrorism, and to amend the State Immunity Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, given that oral question period is imminent, this major 20-minute speech that I am about to give will unfortunately be interrupted. But no one will miss anything, for I will be back to finish my speech on Bill C-35.

The purpose of this bill is to lift the immunity of states that support terrorism and expose them to private civil actions. The Bloc Québécois has already pointed out its many reservations about this bill, but we are prepared to examine it in committee. As I have always said, all legislation deserves to be examined in committee, unless it is completely absurd or goes against our values. We can study it to determine if this kind of bill can be improved in any way. I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, we have many questions. There are a number of irritants in this bill that will definitely have to be eliminated in order to obtain the Bloc Québécois' support.

Right now, the State Immunity Act prevents victims from suing states. The act gives foreign states jurisdictional immunity before Canadian courts and prevents anyone from suing foreign states in Canada, even for crimes recognized under international law. This jurisdictional immunity also applies in cases where the victim is Canadian, as in the cases of Zahra Kazemi, William Sampson and Maher Arar.

In criminal cases, the law currently permits legal action against foreign officials. Legal action may also be taken against agents of a foreign government for abuses perpetrated outside of Canada. However, both the victim and the perpetrator must hold Canadian citizenship when the crime is committed, or the perpetrator of the abuse or crime must be in Canada. Even so, criminal law does not provide for compensation for the victim. That is the current situation in Canada.

I will now turn to the government's proposed changes. In creating the Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act and amending the State Immunity Act, the federal government is lifting that immunity and authorizing Canadian citizens to sue individuals who participated in acts of terrorism and organizations and states that financed or protected terrorists in Canadian courts. At first glance, it seems like a very good way to ensure that justice is done for victims of terrorism.

Right now, state immunity prevents anyone from taking any action whatsoever to obtain redress. Some damage can never be repaired, and people tell themselves that that is what the law says, so it must be all right. But we can obtain redress and punish the guilty parties to ensure that justice is done and that the people who were hurt, the victims, have a chance to confront the ones who victimized them. However, several of the parties in this House have detected significant oversights in this bill. Because of these oversights, there will not really be any victims who succeed in obtaining compensation. The intention is good, but we have to take a closer look at how it will play out. As legislators, we have to ensure that a law will truly be effective, and that is not the case with Bill C-35.

Under the bill, foreign states and terrorist organizations can only be sued if they are on the government's list. We do not know yet which countries will be listed. Foreign states can be sued only if they did something for the benefit of the listed terrorist group that actually caused the harm in question. It appears that the cause of action does not cover situations where a state was involved directly. This refers to whether they committed one or more of the following acts: providing property for terrorist activities, providing property or services for terrorist activities, possessing property for the purpose of carrying out terrorist activities, participating in the activity of a terrorist group, facilitating a terrorist activity, committing an indictable offence for the benefit of a terrorist group, instructing a person to carry out an activity for the benefit of a terrorist group, instructing a person to carry out a terrorist activity, and, harbouring a person whom he or she knows has carried out or is likely to carry out a terrorist activity.

The courts may hear the cause of action only if the action has a real and substantial connection to Canada, in other words, if the victim is Canadian, the defendant is Canadian, the harm occurred in Canada or on a vessel or aircraft in Canada. That sums up what Bill C-35 is all about.

As I was saying, the Bloc Québécois has a number of questions. There are a number of irritants in this bill, but we would nonetheless like to refer it to committee in order to discuss all aspects of it.

In practice, and I was saying this a few moments ago, the recourse offered by the government through Bill C-35 could never provide justice or redress to the victims. The state being sued could quite simply refuse to compensate the victims, despite any ruling.

I will continue immediately after question period with all my concerns about this bill.

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Minister of State of Foreign Affairs (Americas)]

Mr. Speaker, I am indeed reassured that both the private member's bill and the government Bill C-35 have a common objective.

My colleague is absolutely correct in characterizing the only significant difference as being between the listing of states. This list will be created by the government and it will be created to recognize the 41 terrorist entities, which are now listed pursuant to the Canadian Criminal Code.

The words of Mr. Comras are indeed correct. Mr. Comras has said many things. It is quite reasonable for a government or an individual to accept some of his opinions, statements and conclusions as worthy of inclusion and consideration in Canadian law, but not necessarily, holus bolus, everything that he said.

Canada recognizes that lifting of immunity of all states may in fact have a significant effect on Canada's international relations, interests and foreign policies, particularly on democratic allies, which have little or no likelihood of ever being listed as supporters or sponsors of state terrorism.

The ability to amend and to add to the list as time changes, and there is provision for a review every two years after all, is that not a pragmatic way of moving forward?

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it has been said that the world changed on September 11. I do not know whether the world changed or whether a darker side of our universe was somehow exposed. However, what is clear is that September 11 was a transformative event, impacting on our psyches as well as on our politics, on our priorities as well as on our purposes.

Eight years ago, the reach of global terrorism was illustrated, tragically, more vividly, viscerally and violently to Canadians than ever before. Twenty-four Canadian families lost loved ones in the 9/11 attacks, reminding us also of the horror of Air India years earlier.

Amid the horror and outrage, our government reacted and enacted legislation in the form of Bill C-36. Accordingly, while the threat of terrorism or any legislative response to it was not even on the parliamentary or political radar screen before September 11, it dominated the discourse thereafter and since the enactment of the Anti-terrorism Act some three months after 9/11 itself.

Another measure is now before Parliament, the government's Bill C-35, which has the potential to alter Canada's approach to terrorism as well. However, I want to suggest that the private member's bill that I introduced on behalf of my party is a more dramatic and correct approach in order to provide justice and redress by way of civil remedy to victims of terror while at the same time effectively deterring the states, perpetrators and sponsors of terrorism.

What we have to understand, and this applies both to the government legislation and our own, and here I agree with the generic premise of the government legislation respecting the need to amend the State Immunity Act, for while acts of terrorism are clearly illegal under international law, customary international law has historically given states immunity from suit in domestic courts.

Therefore, we have the situation where Canada's State Immunity Act, in accordance with this basic principle of customary international law, affirmed the principle that a foreign state is immune from jurisdiction in any court in Canada with certain specific exceptions.

Ironically, there is an exception for commercial activity but there is not an exception for terrorist activity. We have a situation where, simply put, our State Immunity Act unconscionably favours foreign states that aid and abet terrorists over Canadians who are harmed by that terror. It removes impugnity with respect to commercial transactions but it retains immunity with respect to terrorist actions. It is in that context that I introduced a private member's bill to rectify this inversion of rights and remedy, this inversion of law and morality.

Under this legislation, when a state engages in the sponsorship of terrorism, it deserves no protection from our federal government. When a state supports a terrorist group that targets Canadians, our Canadian tax dollars should not be spent on defending that state's immunity from liability.

The private member's bill that I introduced sets forth in its preamble the raison d'être for this legislation. I would acknowledge that this raison d'être may well be the objective of the government's legislation and, indeed, features of its preamble in its legislation very much resemble the features in my private member's bill.

What I will seek to show is, while we both may have the same objectives in mind, regrettably, the Conservative legislation does not secure at the end of the day redress for victims of terror, nor does it deter the state perpetrators of terror because the listing framework set forth in the government's legislation undermines the very objectives in the legislation itself, as I will show.

However, let me turn now to our preamble in Bill C-408, which sets for the raison d'être for the legislation. It speaks clearly to the United Nations Security Council resolution 1373, enacted in the aftermath of 2001, and subsequent UN Security Council resolutions thereafter. It states:

—reaffirms that acts of international terrorism constitute a threat to international peace and security, and reaffirms the need to combat by all means—

As our preamble has put it. It continues:

—in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, threats to international peace and security caused by terrorist acts;

It states that:

—the prohibition against terrorism, as well as the prevention, repression and elimination of terrorism, are peremptory norms of international law—

That is what I refer to as jus cogens.

—accepted and recognized by the international community of States as a whole as norms from which no derogation is possible;

—the support and financing of terrorism...are criminal acts under international law, not sovereign acts for which a state is entitled to immunity;

—the victims of terrorist acts include the individuals who are physically, emotionally or psychologically injured by the terrorist acts, as well as their family members;

—hundreds of Canadians have been murdered or injured in terrorist attacks;

—the Government of Canada reported to the Security Council that fighting terrorism is...the highest priority for the Government of Canada;

I close, with respect to our preamble, and I acknowledge that many of these same principles are set forth in the preamble of the government legislation. As to objective, there may well be a shared objective, but as to the achievement of that objective, the legislations then diverge, and I will show in a few moments exactly how that divergence undermines the very purpose of the legislation of the government, but I will suggest that this purpose is secured by our private member's legislation.

Finally the preamble states that:

—it is in the public interest to enable plaintiffs to bring civil lawsuits against terrorists and their sponsors, which will have the effect of impairing the [function] of terrorist groups, thereby deterring and preventing future [terrorist] attacks;

Admittedly, and this needs to be said, prior to the introduction of Bill C-35, or the introduction of my private member's bill, victims of terrorist acts, arguably, had the capacity to sue individual terrorists, or terrorist entities, or groups, for loss or damage suffered, using Canadian civil responsibility or tort principles in that regard. In fact, if one looked into the situation, there indeed have been civil suits previously in this regard that in fact address the sponsors themselves.

Also, in that regard, at first blush, there may be some concern therefore that while the existing legislation has allowed, under civil law, delictual law in Quebec or the common law of tort, remedies to be taken, this legislation, either that proposed by the government or that proposed by us, raises some constitutional concerns because it attaches civil remedies to federal legislation when such civil remedies are normally thought to be matters within a provincial jurisdiction.

However, as the constitutional law will show, Parliament can establish provisions related to civil redress if they are established within the context of broader regulatory or administrative schemes, which are themselves within Parliament's legislative jurisdiction under the constitution act or, more specific, if they are under the federal jurisdiction in matters related to criminal law, and certainly anti-terrorism law, in its pith and substance, is not only matters related to criminal law but matters of national concern, matters that the courts have held are within the peace order and good government clause and that the civil remedies are, in that sense, ancillary to a power that already exists within a federal jurisdiction.

Other concerns have been raised, which I will very quickly refer to because they have risen in debate this morning and they will arise in discussions before the committee. It might be useful to address them very quickly.

Apart from the constitutional issue, a reference has been made by my hon. colleague from the New Democratic Party on the matter that this legislation gives a right of civil remedy to victims of terrorism, but does not give a right of civil remedy to victims of torture.

That is correct, but the reason for this is not that victims of torture do not have a right to civil remedy. They do. I could even give notice now that I will be introducing legislation that will also provide a civil remedy for victims of torture in the same way that my private member's bill purports to give a civil remedy to victims of terror. However, the issues from a legal point of view, as I will point out at the time of the introduction of my private member's bill, are different in terms of the characterization of the issues, the nature of the remedy, the character of the perpetrator and the like and one could not comingle the two in this legislation because one would do a disservice to both.

Another concern that has been raised is the fact that diplomatic concerns may arise with respect to this legislation and this leads to the final concern and that is the matter of listing of legislation. Here we come to the core of the differences between our legislation.

Simply put, the Conservative legislation takes as its basic premise that state immunity should still operate. In other words, and this is crucial, victims of terrorism under the government legislation will be unable to sue a country that should be held responsible unless the Canadian government decides it should be held responsible. Therefore, whether a foreign state is listed will always be the subject of political negotiations between government. It will always be an issue of executive discretion. It will always have an element of arbitrariness about it. It will take away the basic right of civil remedy from the victims themselves.

In other words, after studying the government's proposed legislation and while I may share its purpose, and I am not questioning the intention, I regard it as necessary in terms of justice for victims of terrorism to put before the House a bill that properly addresses the evil of transnational terrorism, that properly targets the impunity of those states that perpetrate, sponsor or finance acts of terrorism and that properly allows Canadian victims of terrorism to seek justice.

We have an opportunity to provide redress for Canadian victims anchored in principles of domestic and international law. Regrettably, the government's bill handcuffs the victims of terrorism by subjecting them to a political list of countries that the government chooses to target. In this the government bill fails victims of terrorism and places politics above justice.

Simply put, the government's bill takes as its basic premise that state immunity should still operate, which undermines its own purpose in the legislation even when a state is charged with supporting terrorism. Only those states that the government chooses to single out will be held accountable. The government's legislation politicizes the legislation as victims of terrorism have themselves noticed.

Our legislation, my private member's bill's premise on the foundational principle that sponsors of terrorism do not deserve to be shielded by Canadian law and thus state immunity should not continue to operate for such perpetrators of terrorism as it will continue to operate under the government bill.

I move to a close, referring to the words of Victor Comras, which were invoked by the government in order to support its legislation, a former senior official in the U.S. state department who testified before a Senate Standing Committee for Legal and Constitutional Affairs, he explained how maintaining a list of designated countries ended up undermining the U.S. legislation. Therefore, the authority that the Conservatives rely on is Mr. Victor Comras, who came before our standing committee in the Senate and said, “don't go there, don't enact that legislation”. His exact words were, “If we had to do it over again, I have no doubt we would have done it without a list”.

Then he concluded in his testimony here in Canada, “Please learn from our lesson...do not make the same mistake”.

The government, which is invoking Mr. Victor Comras as authority for its legislation, is making the exact mistake that Mr. Comras warned against. I invite the government to in fact respond to Mr. Comras, whom itself has quoted.

While we share the basic principle with the government that victims of terror must have a civil remedy with respect to deterring acts of terror, with respect to providing justice for victims of terror, with respect to giving them standing before the courts to confront the terrorist perpetrators and the like and with respect to removing any immunity from civil liability before Canadian courts, that will only be accomplished if we adopt the private member's bill or if the government is responsive and amends its legislation so as to include the basic principled approach to providing civil remedies for victims of terror that is contained in our private member's bill.

Then we can go forward in common cause, the government and the opposition, to provide victims of terror with a civil remedy that will effectively deter terrorism, that will effectively hold terrorists liable, that will effectively remove immunity from such terrorists, their sponsors, their agents and their like and that will give and secure justice as it must be done for victims of terror.

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for raising valid concerns. The short answer is, no. This particular bill is aimed at terrorists and the sponsors of terrorists in the interest of victims and their families. I think that any other legislation would merely distract from the central purpose of this particular law.

Bill C-35 certainly deserves due consideration and debate but it is what it is and we believe it is a law that should pass expeditiously through the House.