Evidence of meeting #11 for Justice and Human Rights in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was terrorist.
A recording is available from Parliament.
10:15 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Dave MacKenzie
Okay, thank you.
So when we do vote, do you agree that we'll apply the vote to the three of them, Mr. Cotler?
10:15 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Dave MacKenzie
We need agreement that when we do vote, we're applying the vote to those three amendments.
November 15th, 2011 / 10:15 a.m.
Conservative
10:15 a.m.
A voice
Yes, because that's clause 5--
10:15 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Dave MacKenzie
Maybe I haven't shortened the time at all; maybe I've extended it.
10:15 a.m.
NDP
Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL
Chair, on a point of order, those amendments are to different clauses, so it's kind of confusing procedurally. I think his argument applies, but I'd prefer that we vote on the amendments separately and then when we finish the proposed amendment to clause 5, we have a vote on clause 5. Otherwise it's rather confusing, as we can see.
10:15 a.m.
Conservative
10:15 a.m.
Conservative
Robert Goguen Conservative Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB
Only a detail to Mr. Cotler's comment. He was talking about the witness, Mr. Comras, as being a government witness. He did testify, but in fact he was an opposition witness. It doesn't take away from his testimony.
10:15 a.m.
NDP
Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL
Mr. Cotler can clarify later, I'm sure.
I agree with the point that was made. I want to make a general statement about clause 5 and about the whole notion of lists. My comments might apply to some of these amendments as we get to different provisions. My comments are on clause 5. In the context of the amendment, I agree with Mr. Cotler that if we're going to go down this road and open up a new tort, an international tort, this is something new and we should do it properly. A tort is a civil remedy for a wrong committed against an individual. The legislation and the courts facilitate this by defining it and making it possible to bring these actions.
By creating a government-nominated list that's going to be changed every two years, or reviewed every two years, of certain states against whom this remedy may apply, we have an anomaly contrary to the whole notion of creating a legal remedy for victims of terrorism. The notion, the principle, we agree with. We agree that individual victims of terrorism ought to have a remedy, and Canada can be a leader in making this possible. There are not many other states that do it. The experience of the U.S. was described to us. Whether it was a government witness or an opposition witness is irrelevant. The experience of the U.S. is useful, in that the one glaring example of the government removing states from the list is the case of Libya. One of the cases that gave rise to this whole notion of having an internationally based tort for terrorist acts was the Lockerbie bombing. Clearly, the Libyan government under Colonel Gadhafi was engaged in that, and even paid reparations at some point. Here is a case where the government of the United States removed Libya from the list at a certain point.
We're considering establishing a tort that's designed to have an effect on individual claimants as well as a normative effect. Maybe Professor Cotler can put on his law professor hat and recall the days of tort law. One of the purposes of tort law is to change the behaviour of people. You can sue people for negligent driving, and that's to encourage them to drive properly, or at least to get insurance. So it changes behaviour.
We're considering making it possible for states who sponsor terror to be condemned internationally. There will be an opportunity, at least in Canada, for people to pursue civil remedies against a country, or assets in other countries. It would curtail the ability of terrorists to operate internationally. If we can do that, then I think we should. It shouldn't be interfered with by diplomatic niceties. We have our reservations about whether or not it will work. That's one of the reasons we proposed the motion at the beginning of this session. There should be a review in three years, a comprehensive review of the effectiveness of this legislation. We ought to say that this is a remedy available to Canadians who are victims of state-supported terrorism. This is open-ended and it should not be interfered with. I don't think we need to go much further than that.
We saw how previous governments of Canada had different types of relationships, with Libya, for example. Over the last couple of decades, there were times when they were shunned and times when they were frankly embraced, literally and figuratively, despite the fact that this country was engaged through its leadership in support for international acts of terrorism.
So if there's going to be a remedy here, I think the remedy ought to be against any states whose governments actively engage in the support of terrorism, and we shouldn't leave them immune. If this is going to be an exception to the State Immunity Act, then it should be an exception that's available in a broad way.
This amendment goes some way to ameliorating the lists, so we would support this amendment. But I will say, and I'll save myself a second speech, when it comes to the vote on clause number 5, we will oppose that clause and we will oppose the clauses that engage clauses 6 and 7, which also deal with the list issue.
We are opposed to this idea of having only lists that can be changed from time to time. We think that if we're going down the road of creating an international tort for terrorist acts committed by states or sponsored agencies, then that should be open-ended and not dependent upon the whims of Canada's foreign policy at any particular time. It seems to me that if victims of terrorism are to be given a remedy, then they ought to be given a remedy through our courts and through our legal system and we should ensure that's available to anyone who is unfortunately in that circumstance.
The aim here, obviously, is to not only provide a civil remedy, but also to deter states from engaging in that as part of one of the consequences of providing for civil suits. So we will support this amendment and the others, but we will not support clause 5 as a whole because clause 5 is the clause that sets up and supports and contains provisions that relate to the idea of only listed entities being allowed as defendants in actions.
10:25 a.m.
Conservative
Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I am not certain whether I heard Mr. Cotler suggest that decisions to list or not list an organization would be made arbitrarily or on the basis of unnecessary considerations. I hope I didn't hear him say that. But I just want to make it clear that if anyone did feel that our government or any Canadian government's decision to list or not list would be made arbitrarily or unnecessarily, I would take issue with that.
I also want to say that I am no expert in this. I acknowledge that. But it seems to me that decisions to list or not list an organization as terrorist may engage interests other than simply the interests of compensation to victims. I will give a negative example I am aware of, and that is a decision that may need to be addressed to delist the MeK, which is an Iranian terrorist group currently resident in Camp Ashraf in Iraq. I have constituents who very much would not want the government to delist that group until that group gave transparent access to the residents of Camp Ashraf. That may have nothing to do with compensation or indeed even with terrorism, but it is a valid interest that I would hope a government would be able to take into account in making such decisions.
I just want to make the point that I don't think listing or delisting decisions are made arbitrarily or unnecessarily but they may be made on the basis of other interests and not only the interests of compensating victims, which I recognize are important, but are not necessarily the only factor.
Thank you.
10:25 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Dave MacKenzie
Thank you.
Having no other intervenors on our list, I call the vote on Liberal amendment 6.
10:25 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Dave MacKenzie
We will have a recorded vote, please, Clerk.
(Amendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 5)
We're now at Liberal amendment 7.
Mr. Cotler, did you wish to speak to this?
10:30 a.m.
Liberal
Irwin Cotler Liberal Mount Royal, QC
Mr. Chairman, the reference here refers to clause 6 of this legislation, and the amendment seeks to replace lines 39 to 42 on page 6 of the legislation with the following—
10:30 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Dave MacKenzie
Mr. Cotler, if you will, just a second. We're at your amendment number 7. We had some confusion a few minutes ago, which I probably created, but if you don't wish to discuss it any further, we can vote on it now.
