Lawsuits Against Abusive States, IRGC Listed

Summary#

This bill, the Combatting Torture and Terrorism Act, changes three federal laws. It limits state immunity for certain human rights abuses, updates terrorism listing rules and process, and adjusts immigration rules for people who served in organizations under mandatory service. It also names the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) as a listed terrorist entity.

• Foreign states that supported terrorism, torture, or extrajudicial killing since January 1, 1985 can be sued in Canadian courts if placed on a government list (State Immunity Act s.6.1(1)-(2) as amended).
• Canadian courts can allow seizure of certain assets of listed foreign states to enforce judgments, excluding cultural or historical property (State Immunity Act s.12(1)(b),(d) as amended).
• The IRGC is designated a listed entity; its property can be seized, restrained, or forfeited under anti‑terrorism laws (Criminal Code Schedule to Part II.1; s.83.01, s.83.08).
• Ministers must respond within 40 days to parliamentary committee reports that recommend adding a foreign state or entity to a list, with reasons, and post the response online (State Immunity Act “Response to recommendation of committee”; Criminal Code s.83.071).
• People who served only a mandatory period in certain organizations and committed no listed wrongdoing are not inadmissible to Canada on security grounds based only on that membership (IRPA s.34(2)).

What it means for you#

• Households and victims

  • You may sue a listed foreign state in Canadian courts for that state’s support of terrorism, torture, or extrajudicial killing occurring on or after January 1, 1985 (State Immunity Act s.6.1(1)).
  • If a foreign state is removed from the list later, your ongoing case keeps going; immunity is not restored for that case or related appeals and enforcement (State Immunity Act s.6.1(10)).
  • If you win, courts may allow seizure of the foreign state’s property used for commercial activity or used to support terrorism, torture, or extrajudicial killing, but not cultural or historical property (State Immunity Act s.12(1)(b),(d) as amended).

• Newcomers, applicants, and permanent residents

  • If you served in an organization only because service was mandatory, did not stay longer than required, and did not take part in listed harmful acts, you are deemed not to be a “member” for security inadmissibility purposes (IRPA s.34(2)).
  • This change can affect assessments for visas, permanent residence, and status reviews that rely on IRPA s.34(1)(f).

• Individuals and organizations with ties to the IRGC

  • The IRGC is now a listed entity. Its property can be subject to seizure, restraint, or forfeiture under Criminal Code anti‑terrorism powers (Criminal Code Schedule to Part II.1; s.83.01).
  • If your name is the same as or similar to a listed entity, you can apply for a certificate stating you are not that listed entity (Criminal Code s.83.07).

• Businesses and financial institutions

  • You may receive or need to act on Canadian court orders to freeze or seize property of a listed foreign state to enforce judgments, subject to the cultural/historical property exception (State Immunity Act s.12(1)(b),(d) as amended).
  • Alias management matters: the government can add or remove alternate names for listed entities in both the list and the new schedule (Criminal Code s.83.05(1.2)).

• Parliament and transparency

  • When a parliamentary committee recommends listing a foreign state (under the State Immunity Act) or an entity (under the Criminal Code), the responsible minister must respond within 40 days with reasons and post the response online. If Parliament is prorogued or dissolved, the response must still be posted online on time (State Immunity Act “Response to recommendation of committee”; Criminal Code s.83.071).

Expenses#

Estimated net cost: Data unavailable.

• No direct appropriations or funding authorizations appear in the bill text. Data unavailable (Bill throughout).
• Administrative duties created:
  • 40‑day ministerial responses and public posting for committee recommendations (State Immunity Act “Response to recommendation of committee”; Criminal Code s.83.071).
  • Five‑year reviews for entities placed in the new Criminal Code schedule and publication in the Canada Gazette (Criminal Code s.83.05(8.2),(10)).
• Possible impacts on courts, enforcement agencies, and departments (case volume, listings management, asset seizure administration): Data unavailable.
• Potential forfeiture proceeds from property of listed entities or enforcement against foreign states: Data unavailable.

Proponents' View#

• Improves access to justice for victims by letting Canadian courts hear cases against listed foreign states that supported terrorism, torture, or extrajudicial killing since 1985 (State Immunity Act s.6.1(1)).
• Strengthens accountability: removal from the list does not block ongoing cases, preventing tactics that delay justice (State Immunity Act s.6.1(10)).
• Enhances transparency and oversight: ministers must answer committee recommendations within 40 days and give reasons, with online posting (State Immunity Act “Response to recommendation of committee”; Criminal Code s.83.071).
• Targets a specific threat by naming the IRGC as a listed entity, enabling seizure and forfeiture of its property under existing anti‑terrorism powers (Criminal Code Schedule to Part II.1; s.83.01).
• Keeps listings current: requires five‑year reviews of entities in the new schedule and public notice of review results (Criminal Code s.83.05(8.2),(10)).
• Adds fairness in immigration: protects people compelled into service who did not participate in harmful acts from being found inadmissible only due to compulsory membership (IRPA s.34(2)).

Opponents' View#

• Expands litigation against foreign states beyond terrorism to include torture and extrajudicial killing, which could increase complex, resource‑intensive cases in Canadian courts (State Immunity Act s.6.1(1) as amended). Data unavailable on system capacity.
• Centralizes discretion in the executive: listing a foreign state or entity depends on Governor in Council decisions; committee recommendations trigger only a response, not action (State Immunity Act s.6.1(2); “Response to recommendation of committee”; Criminal Code s.83.05(1.01); s.83.071).
• Retroactive reach to conduct since January 1, 1985 may raise evidentiary challenges and prolong disputes (State Immunity Act s.6.1(1)). Data unavailable on impact.
• Enforcement limits may reduce practical recovery for victims, since cultural or historical property is excluded and only certain property can be attached (State Immunity Act s.12(1)(b),(d) as amended).
• The IRPA carve‑out could be misused if verification of “mandatory service only” and “no harmful acts” is difficult; assessing proof may burden immigration screening (IRPA s.34(2)). Data unavailable on screening workload.
• Listing mechanics add alias management and review duties; errors in names can affect non‑listed parties despite the mistaken‑identity certificate process (Criminal Code s.83.05(1.2); s.83.07). Data unavailable on error rates.