Evidence of meeting #49 for Subcommittee on International Human Rights in the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was c-483.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Bloc
Johanne Deschamps Bloc Laurentides—Labelle, QC
To avoid confusion over legal and constitutional considerations, so to speak, would citizens of other countries, for instance, then be able to proceed with claims against Canada from their own country?
Legal Coordinator, Canadian Centre for International Justice
Lawsuits against the Canadian government are governed by an entirely different set of rules. This law is really looking outside of the country, and the amendment that we're talking about here would apply to foreign governments.
NDP
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.
Executive Director, Canadian Centre for International Justice
Let me first of all say thank you so much for those expressions of support.
We know there's a lot of election talk right now and that people are likely starting to have an eye to that potential. But we felt it was really important to have the opportunity to come. We know this committee has heard about this issue before and that you have looked at and provided some statements in support of Bill C-483. We hope we don't lose momentum for longer than that potential election period, and that if you are all back in your seats afterwards you will work with us still across parties to champion us.
That was really our hope today, to bring it to you knowing that you have provided some endorsement of the bill, to really ask you to think about working actively on this and championing it and making it a priority, as you've said. So I appreciate that very much.
In terms of retaliation against Canadians abroad, I think the most important point to remember is that we are talking here about removing immunity for torture, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide. So if another country were to look at what Canada did and say “Well, you've carved out this exception to your state immunity act for those issues and we are going to do the same”, we're still talking about Canadians implicated in those most serious crimes of international concern. Of course Canada would have an obligation itself, then, to investigate those allegations and to bring people to justice if there were serious allegations. That obligation exists already under many other treaties.
NDP
Wayne Marston NDP Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON
My concern is that if you take a state like Iran, right now, following their elections and the leadership of the uprising--as they call it--they're using the drug laws to destroy those young people now. They're hanging one every eight hours. So the language of who is doing what in our courts is wonderful and truly important, but on the ground there's a huge risk factor when you're dealing with people such as these who are prepared to do anything and everything.
Libya today is an example, when you watch the airplanes on television bombing and strafing their own citizens. You realize you're dealing with a leader--I don't even want to call him a leader--of people in control of a country that will destroy their own citizenry. So again these are the kinds of major players around the world that cause that kind of concern. Your own point was about getting rid of the victims so there's no evidence. Those things are very concerning.
I agree with you that we have to bring this and continue, because the momentum has already started. This country was reluctant to sign on to the torture agreement ourselves. It took us an embarrassingly long time to do that. But the momentum is there, and I agree we have to do it.
I have no further questions, Mr. Chair.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Scott Reid
Thank you very much, Mr. Marston.
I think we're going to Mr. Hiebert next.
Conservative
Russ Hiebert Conservative South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC
Thank you for a very thorough presentation. I took lots of notes. I honestly don't have a lot of questions, because you've done a good job of answering most of them.
What are the arguments against the changes proposed in Bill C-483? I'm getting the sense that there's support around the table, and perhaps broader than that. But what could somebody say against the idea of extending the State Immunity Act to these officials who have permitted or instructed these atrocities to occur?
Legal Coordinator, Canadian Centre for International Justice
I don't want to simply repeat myself, but the two points I made toward the end of my presentation are really the ones that have been the most discussed. The first one is whether it would open the floodgates and result in a lot of cases. I really think experience shows that will simply not happen.
The other, as Mr. Cotler also brought up, is the issue of diplomatic and trade relations and the impacts that might be there. I really think the experience of countries like Italy and the United States shows that's not a likely possibility. There may have been complaints about individual cases here and there, but there have not been major repercussions from these types of cases.
In addition, if we're worried about our allies being dragged into court here in Canada, there are many tools at the disposal of courts that they are certainly not shy about using if they think a case should be sent somewhere else, or would be in a better forum in another country. They are very well equipped to deal with that.
I don't know if you had a more specific question on that, or if that answers your question.
Conservative
Russ Hiebert Conservative South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC
I caught those two points you made at the end of your presentation. I was just wondering if there was anything in addition to those arguments. You're basically telling me there is no other reasonable reason to oppose the amendments.
Executive Director, Canadian Centre for International Justice
As Mr. Marston raised, I think there is sometimes this concern about what will happen to Canadians elsewhere, and what is already happening in Iran and Libya, and so on. I think the response is almost the flip side of the way it was presented. Right now we are seeing the commission of these abuses. Exactly what Zahra Kazemi faced in Evin prison has gone on many times since. This is happening in Libya and elsewhere, with the kinds of indiscriminate and widespread human rights abuses we're seeing.
We really have the potential to send a strong message that this is not going to be tolerated any more. This is all very new. It's really only in the last 10 or 15 years, at the criminal level internationally, that we started to have institutions to enforce these laws. We have the ICC and some national-level criminal cases on these issues. The idea of civil cases provides another opportunity, particularly when criminal cases don't always have the necessary resources because they're government-funded. Civil cases give yet another mechanism to try to bring people to court, provide some measure of accountability, and send that clear message.
So I think that's really the most important response. We have an opportunity to save money in our budgets by not having to respond too little and too late to international atrocities. We have the possibility to save lives through this kind of deterrence.
Conservative
Russ Hiebert Conservative South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC
Before I pass the balance of my time to Mr. Sweet, I have one brief question.
Do you think there were would be any difficulty with enforcement of these civil lawsuits if they were successful?
Legal Coordinator, Canadian Centre for International Justice
Certainly enforcement and collection are always challenges, there's no doubt about that. But there are a few different aspects to these cases that are important, even if that isn't a possibility. A deterrent effect is given simply by a country or an official having to go into court to be confronted with the allegations against it. There is even further deterrence if damages can be collected and countries can be hit in the pocketbook.
On looking at the importance of this for the survivors of these abuses, I have worked with many survivors who tell me that even if they somehow didn't win in court, just the ability to get to court and have their story told is a critical victory and step forward in their own rehabilitation. So the chance to get to court, have a story told, and have a fair court in a country like Canada pronounce judgment about what happened is the most important thing.
Beyond that, on the enforcement of the judgment, you can look at any other countries around the world where these countries might have assets. Most counties have assets in places like Canada, the United States, and western Europe, so enforcement would be possible. Even if you were not able to do it in the actual country itself, there should still be other assets and other ways to enforce that judgment and get some compensation for the survivors.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Scott Reid
We've just hit six minutes exactly, which uses up the time that was available for the Conservative Party. So Mr. Sweet won't be able to ask any questions.
I want to thank our witnesses for coming in today. You've been very thorough. We are grateful to you for attending, and we give you our thanks.
[Proceedings continue in camera]