Mr. Cotler can clarify later, I'm sure.
I agree with the point that was made. I want to make a general statement about clause 5 and about the whole notion of lists. My comments might apply to some of these amendments as we get to different provisions. My comments are on clause 5. In the context of the amendment, I agree with Mr. Cotler that if we're going to go down this road and open up a new tort, an international tort, this is something new and we should do it properly. A tort is a civil remedy for a wrong committed against an individual. The legislation and the courts facilitate this by defining it and making it possible to bring these actions.
By creating a government-nominated list that's going to be changed every two years, or reviewed every two years, of certain states against whom this remedy may apply, we have an anomaly contrary to the whole notion of creating a legal remedy for victims of terrorism. The notion, the principle, we agree with. We agree that individual victims of terrorism ought to have a remedy, and Canada can be a leader in making this possible. There are not many other states that do it. The experience of the U.S. was described to us. Whether it was a government witness or an opposition witness is irrelevant. The experience of the U.S. is useful, in that the one glaring example of the government removing states from the list is the case of Libya. One of the cases that gave rise to this whole notion of having an internationally based tort for terrorist acts was the Lockerbie bombing. Clearly, the Libyan government under Colonel Gadhafi was engaged in that, and even paid reparations at some point. Here is a case where the government of the United States removed Libya from the list at a certain point.
We're considering establishing a tort that's designed to have an effect on individual claimants as well as a normative effect. Maybe Professor Cotler can put on his law professor hat and recall the days of tort law. One of the purposes of tort law is to change the behaviour of people. You can sue people for negligent driving, and that's to encourage them to drive properly, or at least to get insurance. So it changes behaviour.
We're considering making it possible for states who sponsor terror to be condemned internationally. There will be an opportunity, at least in Canada, for people to pursue civil remedies against a country, or assets in other countries. It would curtail the ability of terrorists to operate internationally. If we can do that, then I think we should. It shouldn't be interfered with by diplomatic niceties. We have our reservations about whether or not it will work. That's one of the reasons we proposed the motion at the beginning of this session. There should be a review in three years, a comprehensive review of the effectiveness of this legislation. We ought to say that this is a remedy available to Canadians who are victims of state-supported terrorism. This is open-ended and it should not be interfered with. I don't think we need to go much further than that.
We saw how previous governments of Canada had different types of relationships, with Libya, for example. Over the last couple of decades, there were times when they were shunned and times when they were frankly embraced, literally and figuratively, despite the fact that this country was engaged through its leadership in support for international acts of terrorism.
So if there's going to be a remedy here, I think the remedy ought to be against any states whose governments actively engage in the support of terrorism, and we shouldn't leave them immune. If this is going to be an exception to the State Immunity Act, then it should be an exception that's available in a broad way.
This amendment goes some way to ameliorating the lists, so we would support this amendment. But I will say, and I'll save myself a second speech, when it comes to the vote on clause number 5, we will oppose that clause and we will oppose the clauses that engage clauses 6 and 7, which also deal with the list issue.
We are opposed to this idea of having only lists that can be changed from time to time. We think that if we're going down the road of creating an international tort for terrorist acts committed by states or sponsored agencies, then that should be open-ended and not dependent upon the whims of Canada's foreign policy at any particular time. It seems to me that if victims of terrorism are to be given a remedy, then they ought to be given a remedy through our courts and through our legal system and we should ensure that's available to anyone who is unfortunately in that circumstance.
The aim here, obviously, is to not only provide a civil remedy, but also to deter states from engaging in that as part of one of the consequences of providing for civil suits. So we will support this amendment and the others, but we will not support clause 5 as a whole because clause 5 is the clause that sets up and supports and contains provisions that relate to the idea of only listed entities being allowed as defendants in actions.