Yes, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
Let me explain the amendment, because we support the objective of this legislation. The purpose of this legislation is to provide, for the first time, a civil remedy for victims of terror against their terrorist perpetrators. Those terrorist perpetrators can be either the state sponsor of terrorism--that is to say, it could, for example in the case of Libya, be not only an agent that is a listed entity in Canada that carries out the terrorist act--or it could be the state itself that perpetrates it. Or let us say, in the case of Iran, the terrorist act may not only be carried out by a listed entity in Canada that is its proxy--for example, Hamas or Hezbollah--but it could be carried out directly by the state itself—Iran.
As I say, in terms of its overall objective, we support this legislation because it amends the State Immunity Act, which thus far has shielded states or their agents from any civil liability such that no Canadian victim of such an act of terror could initiate a remedy in a Canadian court. In effect, we had this anomalous, if not legally and morally absurd, situation where by reason of the State Immunity Act shielding the foreign perpetrator of terrorism, it prefers the foreign perpetrator of terrorism--as it were, in its consequences--over the Canadian victim who is seeking a remedy. So the purpose of this legislation--to effectively give a remedy to Canadian victims--is something we support.
I might add, Mr. Chairman, that we have also the anomalous situation where if there is a breach of contract by that foreign state, then a remedy lies, but if it's a terrorist act that causes damages, a remedy does not lie. Surely a victim of terror is deserving of a remedy no less than a person who suffers damages by reason of a breach of contract.
The purpose of this specific amendment, Mr. Chairman, is because the legislation as now drafted, with which we agree, does not catch the foreign state that directly commits the act of terror; it will catch only the agent or proxy that carries out that act of terrorism on its behalf. So the purpose here is that clause 2 of the bill be amended by replacing line 26 on page 3 with the following:
a foreign state, listed entity or other person that
Again, the objective is to catch or to provide a civil remedy against the foreign state, which otherwise will remain immune if we go only after the act of terrorism committed by a listed entity in Canadian law. We agree that there should be a civil remedy with respect to an act of terrorism committed by that listed entity--i.e., Hamas, Hezbollah, etc.--but we believe that the state sponsor of that listed entity, which may commit it not through its proxy, but by itself, should be held liable as well. Otherwise you're going to have a situation, Mr. Chairman, whereby the objective of this legislation can be defeated simply by the state carrying out the act of terrorism itself and not through its proxy or agent. Certainly that could not have been the intent of the legislator in this regard.