Thank you, Chair.
We support the amendment.
In response to Mr. Jean's concerns, I don't understand where he's coming from. The clause that would be amended already recognizes that the cause of action comes from a foreign state committing an act or omission in Canada that would be punishable under various sections of the Criminal Code. That's the definition of terrorism.
What Mr. Cotler's amendment says is that it is not just a foreign state or a listed entity. It would also include a terrorist group that acts at the direction of or in association with such an entity. We're talking about the ability of the cause of action to exist if it's done by a terrorist group that's not listed but is actually acting in association with a listed entity or foreign state.
How this gives judges the power to decide whether a foreign state is a terrorist state is beyond me. I think your comments may have relevance to some other part of the legislation. But surely Mr. Cotler is saying that if we're going to be giving people a cause of action if they're victims of terrorism, and you have listed entities under the Criminal Code and foreign states, and you also have groups that may not be listed but are acting in concert or under the direction of one of these listed entities or foreign states, then they would also give rise to a cause of action.
There may be problems of proof. That goes back to our reservations about the efficacy of the legislation in terms of actually being effective. But in principle, if you're going to suggest that victims of terrorism in Canada have a cause of action within Canada based on these types of acts, then why would you not include non-listed terrorist groups that are acting in concert with or at the direction of the same bodies?
If the other side wants to object to that, I'd feel more comfortable with a reasoned objection rather than something that's misplaced or baseless. If they're not going to vote in favour of this, hopefully someone over there can tell us why.