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.

Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the government's bill regrettably will introduce a standing politicization. The government will be engaged in negotiating which governments should be on the list or should be removed from the list, and the victims of terror will be denied their effective redress. Remove the list, give the victims of terror an effective redress. and deter acts of terrorism at the same time.

[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.

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, 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.

[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.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development and to the Minister of Labour]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member spoke about having a provision for bringing a course of action against states and noted this may cause countries to retaliate against Canada. Would the member tell us which countries he thinks could or would retaliate against Canada?

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

That is the whole problem, Mr. Speaker. It is not about creating concerns about countries that do or do not exist on a list. It is the whole idea of the list. The member can conjure up in his own mind the kind of retaliatory action. I am not identifying countries; I am identifying problems in policy.

I am not alone in this. The jurisdiction south of the border that has had concerns about this has said this is a problem and that we do not want to go there. Canadian experts from the Norman Paterson School of International Affairs here in Ottawa have said that this is not the way to go because it could affect our diplomatic affairs and undermine our objectives in diplomacy and multilateral relations in a multipolar world.

This is not about which country and what response. This is about the policy itself undermining the objectives that we are all trying to achieve.

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

Mr. Speaker, certainly it seems that in the United States it has been a big problem. Once again I have suggested the government look at experiences that actually work or instances where certain types of legislation can be proven to work. Once again the government has embarked on legislation here where we have evidence that it has not worked that well in the United States.

In the United States' experience, similar legislation has been in place for a decade. Only listed countries can be sued, which currently are Cuba, Iran, Syria, Sudan and North Korea. Iraq and Libya were originally on the list but they were taken off.

The common problem being found has been a refusal of defendants to recognize the jurisdiction of the American courts. As such, the defendants do not appear and default judgments are rendered which the debtor countries then ignore and refuse to pay. They go through this process and at the end of the day, they come out empty-handed. That is not what we want to do here.

We want to get legislation that works in the first place. My colleague and a member of the Liberal caucus got to the point this morning when they said that we do not need a list of countries. As a matter of fact, a list is the wrong way to go. An injustice is an injustice no matter what country perpetrates it and people should have the right to sue on the basis of the injustice, regardless of the country.

I would ask the member to elaborate a little more on that experience in the United States.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for pointing out in some detail the concerns of the list. I still have concerns about what the consequences of the list would be, but more profoundly, I have grave concerns about the intent of this bill as it was put together by the government.

The Conservatives have the full capacity of government to study legislation, to make sure the legislation works. For instance, there are constitutional questions that can be raised with this bill in terms of jurisdiction, and the responsibilities and roles of the executive branch, the courts, et cetera. I find it strange that the government would bring forward a bill with lofty objectives, and I think 100% of the House agrees with the objectives, in such a manner that it is restrictive and could actually undermine the objectives. The evidence is south of the border. They basically have said, “Do not go there. Do not put the list together because you will corner yourselves”.

In terms of natural, fair justice, if we are going to limit citizens as to where they can bring forward their grievances, then we are not being fully democratic in the application of law. When we get to choose from a list of countries, what happens when citizens have been affected by countries that are not on the list? What will happen with that? What challenges will go to our Supreme Court?

We should think of the resources as well. When these things are done, they come with costs with respect to time and money. At the end of the day, if we put forward legislation that ends up having no efficacy and no redress yet uses a lot of resources, we will undermine the whole principle.

As my colleague and I said, it is an experience the Americans have had in the United States, not just for one, two or three years, but for a decade, and they have said to stay away from that part, and do not list because it will undermine our objectives.

I say to the government to listen carefully to everyone. We will see that at committee. The government should not be stubborn about this. This is too important. If the government is stubborn and ideological about it, then I do not think this bill will pass and the whole idea, concept and principle will be put aside, which would be a shame.

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

Mr. Speaker, to continue on with this line of questioning, we ended by saying that it looks as though the best we could get is default judgments in the United States which the debtor countries ignore and refuse to pay, so where does that leave the victim? The next problem is recovery. They say that recovery is the problem given the limited assets of listed countries being held in the U.S. and the executive branch's resistance to allow frozen assets to be used for that purpose. Even if we are trying to hunt down the assets, we are not going to be getting the help of the government in this regard. The executive would resist such efforts over concerns about retaliatory measures, losing leverage over the countries concerned and potentially violating international law on state immunity. They go on to talk about the Algiers court as an example.

This is very complicated. In addition, countries such as Cuba and Iran have simply retaliated by bringing in their own equivalent measures introduced in their own countries.

I would ask the member if he would like to comment further on that aspect.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the point my colleague is making is that this is not a one dimensional process. When we involve other actors by design, we bring in other possibilities and responses. As an executive in cabinet writing a list comes with some expense. We could say that is no problem, that we are principled and we are going to ensure that we follow our principles. However, what is the objective? If the objective is to address and redress victims of terrorism and by listing countries we actually cut off the victims' ability to have that redress, then we need to acknowledge that. I think that is what has been experienced in the United States and we would be wise to learn that lesson.

When we look at international law, at what is happening with the ICC and we look at the ability for grievances to be dealt with in a multilateral world, a lot of emphasis should be put on not listing countries for purposes that we see here by cabinet. If we really want to get at grievances at an international level and have our government play there and push international justice, then we need to strengthen support for institutions like the ICC. We need to ensure that we not only deal with terrorism and torture and other crimes against humanity, but that we are also in the business of preventing them. I could give longer than a two-hour speech on that subject, but I will not do that. Many would like to see some support for prevention of these things before they happen and we have not seen enough of that from the government, quite frankly.

[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.

[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, under this bill, any victim of terrorism could file an action in Canada to seek redress for loss or damage resulting from a terrorist act committed by a terrorist entity listed under the Criminal Code or other persons or organizations that carried out a terrorist attack.

Such suits could also be brought against individuals, entities or listed states that provided support to an entity listed pursuant to the Criminal Code. The Criminal Code would then determine whether it can hear the case by determining whether there is a real and substantial connection between the action and Canada.

If a favourable judgment is issued to a plaintiff, the defendant, including a listed state, would have an obligation to comply with the Criminal Code's decision or its assets and property could be seized. In matters where a listed state could be found liable, the plaintiff could request assistance from the Minister of Foreign Affairs or the Minister of Finance to identify and locate that state's assets under Canadian jurisdiction.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am wondering what my colleague's opinions are about the apparent omission of any charges of torture, that may be perpetrated by another state, in this piece of legislation. We recognize that in the field of antiterrorism, one of the components that is used is torture, and sometimes state-sanctioned torture, in other parts of the world.

In allowing the Canadian government to pursue these types of cases in court, there are two things. One is the piece about torture, which seems to be glaringly absent. I am curious as to why she thinks that is and why she thinks that the government, in constructing this entire piece of legislation, made no mention of the International Court of Justice in the Hague. It is set up to do many of the things that she mentioned were important to her in her speech.

There is no component of a court that actually already exists to pursue some of the very cases that our government seems so interested in. Will she not endorse the work done in the Hague and other places that try to keep the international rule of law in mind when countries are facing each other in conflict?