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

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

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should applaud what our government is doing. The Government of Canada is committed to fighting terrorism and to holding the perpetrators and supporters of terrorism accountable for their actions.

With this bill we are showing leadership against terrorism and we are providing the means for victims to seek justice against the individuals, organizations and foreign states that support terrorism.

This proposed legislation is one of several initiatives undertaken to recognize the victims of terrorism. We have also established June 23 as a National Day of Remembrance for Victims of Terrorism. The date was chosen to honour the victims of Air India flight 182, the worst terrorist attack in Canadian history and the largest in North America prior to September 11, 2001.

The Government of Canada also established a full public judicial inquiry into the bombing of flight 182 in order to investigate unresolved questions. The families of the victims of the Air India bombing have been calling for a public inquiry since the day of this disaster, but for over a decade the previous Liberal government turned a deaf ear to requests for an inquiry into this tragedy. It took a Conservative government to do the right thing and call an inquiry.

The Government of Canada is determined to take decisive steps to protect Canadians from the threat of terrorism. By tabling this legislation, the Government of Canada is sending a very clear message that perpetrators of terrorism and their supporters will be held accountable for their actions.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am a little confused and I would like my hon. colleague to stop reading the paper and answer a simple question.

I asked her a question about torture. This has been an incredibly important part of the debate surrounding terrorism. I asked her why torture was not included and all she could do was read her PMO prepared notes. I also asked her a question about the International Criminal Court and if her government supports such efforts while the United States has turned its back on it. I asked two simple questions and she went off to some other place.

Simply and calmly stated for the member, I ask her to put the paper aside and tell me what she thinks. Why was torture not included in this piece of legislation, obviously a component that is connected to international terrorism? This is not a complex question. This is a straightforward, simple question. I do not need PMO script. I need her thoughts on this.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to tell the hon. member to please get behind this bill, support it, give it a speedy passage, and stand united in sending a message to those who would threaten our homes, our families and even our lives. This is very important. It is not only important for my constituents but for his constituents as well.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we have a situation where the Conservative government has tried to reward the Colombian administration, the government of Colombia, by giving it privileged trading access to Canada and yet the Colombian government has ties to paramilitary organizations.

As the member well knows, the story broke just a few weeks ago that on Colombian government property Colombian paramilitary members were being recruited to support the Honduran coup leaders. The result of the paramilitary transfer from Colombia to Honduras was the death of a number of individuals in Honduras. The Honduran coup overthrew a legitimate democratic government. The Colombian paramilitaries, tied to the Colombian government, are involved.

In her opinion, is that the kind of thing that this bill should tackle, the abuse of government property to ensure that paramilitary thugs can be transferred from Colombia to Honduras to overthrow a democratic government? And does she not believe, if that is the case, that the government should withdraw its shameful privileged trading relationship with President Uribe?

[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.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately the member did not respond to the question.

I know Conservatives have difficulty going beyond their PMO notes which they are issued every morning, but they should be representing their constituents and should be able to speak from the heart.

So I will ask the member again. We have Colombian paramilitary thugs that apparently receive the full support of the Conservative government, seeing as the Conservatives want to enact a privileged trading relationship with the regime that is tied to these paramilitary thugs. These paramilitary thugs were involved in the killings of innocent people in Honduras, people who were protesting the coup, the overthrow of legitimate government. Does the member believe that is the kind of action that the Conservative government should be condemning?

Does the member believe that the Conservative government should be speaking out against these kinds of human rights abuses?

[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.

[Bob Rae, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will speak very briefly in the debate. I appreciate the opportunity to do so.

The subject matter of the bill before us is important. It reflects important developments in our political and legal life that deserve to be debated and better understood and certainly discussed widely in committee after second reading. I look forward to that discussion.

I want to echo the comments made by my friend, the hon. member for Ottawa Centre with respect to the importance of having a real discussion about some of the issues that have been raised with respect to the legislation.

I appreciated particularly the comments made by the member for Fleetwood—Port Kells. She made some important statements about the significance within Canada of our recognizing the impact that terrorism has had in Canada.

I had the privilege of being asked by the former government to review the circumstances underlying the bombing of Flight 182 and recommended a further inquiry. I had a chance to spend some time in her community as well as in a number of other constituencies across the country, meeting with members of the communities that had been touched and so devastated by that act of terrorist bombing.

As I said in my report, which called for a further inquiry and called for a recognition of June 23 as a date on which Canada should recognize the loss of life not only in the Air India bombing but also resulting from acts of terrorism around the world that have touched Canadians, in many respects we have failed as a country to take account of what took place on that tragic day. We have also failed to come to terms with the impact that this kind of terrorism has had on us and has had on a number of other countries around the world.

Since 1985 we have seen how tragic these issues are and how deeply they are shared by communities, peoples, cities and countries. It is precisely because governments have not always been able, for a variety of reasons, to respond effectively to the impact that these terrible bombings, these terrible attacks, these terrible events have on people that I was a very strong supporter of the Senate private member's bill that dealt with the question that is now before the House.

Because I was not a member of the House at the time it was being considered, I had a chance to appear before the Senate committee and give my support to the principles in the Senate bill.

The bill that is before us represents a step forward in the sense that it recognizes that there is a right that pertains to an individual to pursue a civil claim against a group and against a government that is sustaining that group which has in fact caused the loss of life or caused the impact or the damages of a terrorist act.

Terrorist acts are of course criminal. We know that. We also know that states and their ministries are very jealous of their own particular jurisdiction. I think it is fair to say that up until the present time, with very few exceptions, the issue of terrorism has been seen as an exclusively political issue that can be managed and dealt with only by states, by armies and by lawyers working for national governments and that citizens themselves, whose rights have been impacted and affected and whose lives in many cases have been devastated by the impact of a terrorist act, are effectively marginalized.

The bill represents a partial step forward. On one hand it recognizes that citizens have rights, but on the other hand, and my colleague from Mount Royal has already discussed this but I just wanted to add my thoughts to it, it creates this notion of a political list which would be crafted essentially by departments of foreign affairs and departments of justice. Effectively it takes away with one hand what it gives with the other.

I am very familiar with the kind of legal and political advice governments would be getting with respect to this, and I think we all understand why the government has decided to adopt the civil remedy portions of the private member's bill but to insist on the notion of a political list. I think that decision is mistaken, because its net effect will be to not give in substance the rights that people are being given in theory.

Second, regarding the comments made by several members on the other side about why this provision is in the bill, in my view it will have the opposite effect. Precisely because it will politicize the whole process, it will make the achievement of justice that much more difficult.

I want to turn my attention briefly to the comments made by other members with respect to the question of torture. I know my colleague from Mount Royal is going to be producing a private member's bill, which he has discussed with all of us on our side, aimed at applying clearer civil remedies with respect to torture and removing state immunity in that regard, something we see as an entirely positive and healthy extension of a rule of law and the rights of citizens. It has traditionally been in our national interest as a country to extend the rule of law as far as we can and to make sure that the notion of human rights is made real not only in international courts but in our own courts.

I hope the committee discussion will give us a chance to discuss whether there is a way of amending this legislation to meet those criteria or whether we should simply do so in a parallel process with a separate piece of legislation. I am certainly very open to a discussion with colleagues from all sides of the House with respect to this question. I cannot imagine a member of the House not believing that someone who is a victim of torture should have civil rights and civil remedies or that any government should be able to hide behind state immunity when it comes to the use of torture any more than they should be able to hide behind state immunity with respect to the sponsorship of terrorist organizations.

We are in agreement with the principles of the bill introduced by the government, but we still see a problem in the politicization of the proposed list of states that could be sued. We hope to be able to convince the government in a consensual manner of the importance of finding other solutions in order to reach a conclusion. I hope that will be the case.

As far as torture is concerned, we share the point of view that the concept of immunity for a state should not be used to give immunity to states that use torture against their citizens or Canadian citizens. We want to live in a world that respects human rights and we want human rights to be real.

I think that is how we will reach the best conclusions.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I actually do not find any disagreement in the comments of the member for Toronto Centre with my concerns about the bill.

Does he believe that if the concerns with the bill he has enumerated are not changed, it will really be possible to support the bill? I am talking about the list. There are some other things that need to be addressed, but I am of the opinion that the list has to go, and that is obviously at the front and centre of the concerns many have mentioned. However, if we cannot change it, is he of the opinion, as I am, that this is something that we probably could not support unless amendments were made to take that out of the bill?

[Bob Rae, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, after 30-plus years in politics, I have never heard a hypothetical question answered successfully, so I do not intend to start now. I would say to the hon. member that I have much more confidence, perhaps, than he does in his question with respect to our ability to persuade the government, perhaps even through something as simple as the force of numbers, that amendments are necessary.

It is my sense, too, from discussions with a number of groups that have been very actively involved, the survivors of 9/11 and the families of the victims of Air India, that there is a powerful sense that we want to ensure we get our legislation right in Canada.

I do want to say to members that I appreciate the leadership the government has shown in at least bringing the legislation forward. I am sorry, however, that it was not done in the way it was proposed by my colleague from Mount Royal, who has been a real leader on this issue, not only in this chamber but, indeed, internationally. However, I do think we can pass legislation that will set a standard, not only for Canada but for the rest of the world.

As we learn to take terrorism far more seriously as a country, we also need to learn to understand that the real impact of these acts of violence is felt by real people whose rights should not be eliminated for political reasons.

[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—

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but as he knows the time for debate on government orders today has come to an end. I assure him that he will have 12.5 minutes left in the time remaining for his remarks when this matter comes before the House the next time.

It being 1:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.