Refine by MP, party, committee, province, or result type.

Results 1-6 of 6
Sorted by relevance | Sort by date: newest first / oldest first

Subcommittee on International Human Rights committee  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.

March 8th, 2011Committee meeting

Matthew Eisenbrandt

Subcommittee on International Human Rights committee  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.

March 8th, 2011Committee meeting

Matthew Eisenbrandt

Subcommittee on International Human Rights committee  I think Jayne has phrased the issue quite well in terms of the hope that these cases could provide to even those people who themselves will not actually bring lawsuits. As we're saying, the number of cases that we'll move forward, based on the experience of other countries, will be relatively small, but the impact for other survivors and the impact on the actions of other countries would be quite important.

March 8th, 2011Committee meeting

Matthew Eisenbrandt

Subcommittee on International Human Rights committee  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.

March 8th, 2011Committee meeting

Matthew Eisenbrandt

Subcommittee on International Human Rights committee  There are many legal issues in these types of cases. The key barrier in all of them is immunity. That is something that Bill C-483 would immediately remove, and then we could move on to the other legal issues. Take the U.S. Supreme Court case. That's a situation where the court was able to look at a long history of civil litigation in the United States against human rights abusers and to feel comfortable in making its pronouncement that there is no immunity under their Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, that there has not been disruption of diplomatic relationships, and that there has not been a flood of lawsuits in the United States.

March 8th, 2011Committee meeting

Matthew Eisenbrandt

Subcommittee on International Human Rights committee  Thank you. Distinguished members of this committee, I also want to express my sincere thanks for the leadership you have shown on the need to ensure that there is access to Canadian civil courts to sue governments such as that of Iran for their torture when there is no other justice option available.

March 8th, 2011Committee meeting

Matthew Eisenbrandt