Evidence of meeting #15 for Subcommittee on International Human Rights in the 40th Parliament, 2nd session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was iran.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Lawyer, Irving Mitchell Kalichman, As an Individual
No, that's not what we're saying. We're saying that but for the State Immunity Act, there is no question that the case could and should proceed before the Quebec courts.
Conservative
Lawyer, Irving Mitchell Kalichman, As an Individual
And because there is no issue there, we face the same hurdle that Mr. Bouzari did in terms of the application of the State Immunity Act. We are raising arguments that were not addressed by the court in Mr. Bouzari's case. So there is an open window that we will be flying through or throwing ourselves through. I think that's another distinguishing feature of the case.
Conservative
Russ Hiebert Conservative South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC
Okay.
I think it was you, Mr. Larocque, who mentioned that Syria, Iran, Cuba, and one other country are currently exempted from the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act in the U.S. What was the fourth country?
Associate Professor and Director, National Program, Faculty of Law, Common Law Section, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
They are Cuba, Iran, Syria, and Sudan.
Conservative
Russ Hiebert Conservative South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC
And Sudan.
How many successful lawsuits have there been through these exemptions?
Associate Professor and Director, National Program, Faculty of Law, Common Law Section, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
In the States?
Conservative
Lawyer, Gardiner Miller Arnold, As an Individual
I don't know the numbers, but I can tell you there are many. I'm consulting on two right now. I'm aware of four or five others, if not more, where there are actual U.S. court judgments against Iran in the United States.
Conservative
Russ Hiebert Conservative South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC
Okay, so there clearly have been many people who have been successful against Iran.
Associate Professor and Director, National Program, Faculty of Law, Common Law Section, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
That's quite right. There's an annual report to Congress on this exact question--that is, on the amount of money damages that have been awarded against the state sponsors of terrorism. Against Cuba and Iran, which have been the two most popular targets of these lawsuits, over $10 billion in judgments have been awarded against these countries as of 2007—although there were also some awards against Syria and Sudan.
Conservative
Russ Hiebert Conservative South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC
How do you think these countries were selected? Why were these four exempted?
Associate Professor and Director, National Program, Faculty of Law, Common Law Section, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
Why are they exempted from immunity?
Conservative
Russ Hiebert Conservative South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC
Yes, as opposed to all the other countries of the world.
Associate Professor and Director, National Program, Faculty of Law, Common Law Section, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
I have my own view on that. The list used to include North Korea, Libya, and Iraq as of three years ago, but as the United States has moved to normalize its relations with these countries.... Great strides were made, for example, with respect to Libya. And after the regime change in Iraq, the point became moot. North Korea I think is the most surprising removal from that list; nevertheless, it occurred.
When a state is removed from that list, it's seen, I think, more as a political overture or attempt to normalize trade and diplomatic relations.
Conservative
Russ Hiebert Conservative South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC
Sure.
Now, in the statements you've made, some of you have suggested that there's no need for us to follow the U.S. lead by simply providing exemptions in the State Immunity Act. We have a sample text here from the University of Toronto international human rights program.
Would there be a case to make that Canada would identify a select number of countries to allow to be exempt from the State Immunity Act?
Executive Director, Canadian Centre for International Justice
I would say no. I would be quite dismayed to see a list of countries that would be exempt. In part, it relates to the answer to your previous question about why those countries, those four in particular, in the U.S.... My understanding is that the amendment to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act in the U.S. was in connection with the new anti-terrorism legislation after September 11. Those countries were on the list of state sponsors of terror. That was the particular interest of the U.S. in creating this exemption.
It would be very unfortunate to politicize the process in the same way, to decide ahead of time, for example, which countries would be most likely to commit atrocities. That, of course, changes, depending on changes of governments and developments.
Conservative
Russ Hiebert Conservative South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC
If we wouldn't be specific about which countries would be selectively chosen to have this apply, why wouldn't we simply eliminate the State Immunity Act? If the whole purpose here is to provide some diplomatic sensitivity to our international relations, why would we open up the act to everyone, as opposed to a select few?
Executive Director, Canadian Centre for International Justice
The distinction here is that we're asking that those who commit torture, and ideally a few other categories of the most serious crimes of international concern--war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide--cannot be protected by the State Immunity Act. I think it's a separate debate, one that I wouldn't comment on in terms of there being any utility for the State Immunity Act as a whole. But certainly the intention behind having the State Immunity Act was to ensure, for example, that when a Canadian ambassador travels to another country, he simply can't be brought before the courts of that country, or vice versa when somebody is travelling here.
There was an idea of normalizing diplomatic relations and ensuring some protection for state officials, but it was never intended.... As I said in my opening statement, the idea is related to sovereign acts, acts of a state that are essential in the normal course of its business as a government. Torture, although the practice may not suggest this, is not supposed to be part of the normal practice of a government in its day-to-day activities.
Conservative
Russ Hiebert Conservative South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC
It might be difficult to put your head to the other side of the issue here, but what are some arguments against opening up the act, against making these amendments?
Executive Director, Canadian Centre for International Justice
Perhaps I'll throw out one and then see if anyone else.... Of course I'll respond to it, but perhaps others would like to raise this.
In thinking this through, one of the things we assumed would get raised, which I addressed to some extent in my opening statement, is whether this would affect Canada's trade relations with other countries. If we bring a country like China to account for committing a human rights abuse, does that affect our trade relations? Our response to that is that it is being done elsewhere--in the U.S., for example--and in other countries. Certainly there's no indication that it has had any effect on the normal course of business relations. And we have to remember that we're talking about the most serious violations of international law, which are widely recognized and internationally condemned. So Canada taking a position that countries such as Iran or China or other countries need to uphold those obligations and pressing on that is not something that should interfere, in that sense.
The other important distinction here is that we're not actually talking, again, as has been said, about criminal cases, which the Government of Canada is actually bringing. We're talking about people like Mr. Kazemi being able to bring a case for crimes that have affected their own families, their own loved ones, or they themselves, if they have actually survived. And that is a very different scenario from the Government of Canada attempting to prosecute someone else.
The final point I'll make on that is, again, this does not mean that western European countries and the U.S. government and others are going to start to be brought before Canadian courts. Any government in the world that has a judicial system that's willing to look at these kinds of cases would obviously be a better forum. And as I said, there's a two-part test: it has to have a real and substantial connection to Canada, and in fact this has to be the best forum in which to bring the case.
Conservative
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Scott Reid
No. Actually, Mr. Hiebert, you're well over your time.
We'll move to Mr. Oliphant. We do actually have enough time that I think the last two questioners can have seven minutes, as opposed to the usual five.
Mr. Oliphant, please.
Liberal
Rob Oliphant Liberal Don Valley West, ON
Thank you.
I want to thank all of you for being here today and for all of your testimonies.
Mr. Marston has made my first comments redundant. Thank you, Mr. Marston for those sentiments.
I do want to say to Mr. Kazemi, or Mr. Hachemi--I'm not sure which name you prefer--that while we are reflecting on your mother's death, I'm hoping that we are more captured by her life in the work that we're doing. I am a fan of her work in the Palestinian territories, in Iraq, in Afghanistan, in Africa, the Caribbean, Latin America, where she talked about life. She presented those issues of life and drew attention to poverty and oppression, in her whole life. My motivation in this is more her life. I think that's how we will honour her.
The second thing I would say is that she chose Canada. I don't want Canada to let her down, because I suspect she chose Canada because of who Canada is, what Canada is. So we have to honour that. That will be our work.
Thank you for your testimony.
As an Individual
Thank you very much for acknowledging what a beautiful and brave woman she was and the legacy she left behind her. That's exactly true.
She chose Canada. We were in France in a fine situation. She chose Canada. She could have applied anywhere in the world. My mother studied at the Sorbonne. She had passed a masters in film with Éric Rohmer. She had a PhD in art and literature. So when she applied at the embassy of Canada, she was very well received. We went there gratefully. I appreciate that you acknowledged that.
I wanted to say that I regret a bit today--I'm sorry to say--the case of Mr. Houshang Bouzari. I think it makes the situation a bit more complicated. Unlike Houshang Bouzari, my mother wasn't working with the government of Tehran. She was just a woman who was dedicated to make a change in the world with what she had available to her: her camera, her eyes, her sensitivity. She paid a very hard price because she chose to have integrity and to live by what was right for her.
I hope that Canada will finally honour her integrity.