Justice Committee on Oct. 25th, 2011

[Victor Comras]

I'm getting silence right now.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

That's okay. It's probably lost in translation anyway.

Mr. Comras, I understand the point you are making about the list and the fact that maybe we should leave it to the court. My question on that matter, though, is this. Aren't you afraid that it might just make matters more complicated for the court? It might just make the length of trials a bit longer, having to establish if they are a terrorist country, if they are harbouring terrorists and participating, and so on?

I understand that there is politics involved, and we try to remove politics as much as possible to help the victims, because that's basically what this bill should be about. How do you conciliate both the political aspect and at the same time the fact that leaving it to the court might just lengthen the trials on such matters?

[Victor Comras]

Ironically, I think that leaving it to the court would shorten the time for trial. Right now these issues are just as much involved, as every attempt is being made by attorneys to find a way to circumvent the restrictions caused by sovereign immunity.

These issues have all led up and down our court system for years with motions, with briefs, and with reconsiderations, so that the average time to deal with one of these cases now goes seven to ten years before we actually even get to any resolution.

I think the issue is straightforward. The focus on the issue of whether or not the state engaged in providing material support to terrorism contrary to international law—if that were the issue the court dealt with—would eliminate so many other collateral issues being used to get around the system. In the end it would be a much more economical use of our courts for resolving these issues.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Thank you for that answer.

My second question to you is this. We know in the United States victims can sue certain states—following on what my colleague Mr. Harris was asking. A lot of victims might sue, and they might sue successfully, but when the time comes for execution of the judgment, they come up on the short end of the stick.

I'm a lawyer myself, and I used to have clients in my office and I would tell them that we could win the case, but the person in front of us had zero and we would never be able to execute judgment.

So what can we do to make sure these judgments can be executed?

[Victor Comras]

I'm sorry, some of what you have asked was lost in the transmission, but if I get the point, yes, there is definitely a problem with respect to the collection of judgments against the states that enjoy sovereign immunity. This is an issue that needs to be addressed more clearly here and overseas.

In 2008 Congress passed new legislation trying to make it clear to the courts that these judgments should be able to be executed against those assets that are available. We still find one impediment after another. The attorneys dealing with these cases have become very active internationally trying to seek the ability to enforce those judgments here and overseas. One of the problems is that certain states, those limited number of states now enjoying sovereign immunity, have very few assets here. So when cases are brought against Iran, there are almost no assets in the United States that can be grabbed.

I still think we should move forward where we can now, and as we can deal with the issue of collection of judgments, we should do so. But that shouldn't inhibit us from moving ahead now with providing the foundation for such lawsuits.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

Thank you very much.

Our time has ended. I want to thank the panel. I want to thank Mr. Comras. We took you out of the sun for a little while this morning, sir, but we appreciate the evidence you provided, as we do with all of the panel.

We need to take a very short break. We will go in camera, so we need to clear the room.

[Proceedings continue in camera]