Eight years of advocacy, two State Sponsors of Terror designations, multi-party support, and $30 million in seized assets: The Legacy of the Justice for Victims of Terror Act
“I commend the C-CAT for encouraging a substantive dialogue on terrorism. You have provided a strong voice to victims of terror and galvanized divergent groups across the country to unite against those that seek to undermine the cohesiveness of Canadian society.” – Prime Minister Stephen Harper, 2009
The passage of the Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act (JVTA) was the result of an arduous eight-year campaign led by Secure Canada, formerly known as C-CAT, requiring eleven separate legislative attempts and the dedication of multiple lawmakers across party lines.
The Bill was endorsed by former Prime Minister Stephen Harper, former Liberal Party leader Michael Ignatieff, and the late former NDP Leader Jack Layton. In 2011, the government incorporated the JVTA provisions into Bill C-10, the omnibus Safe Streets and Communities Act, securing its passage in 2012. The legislation immediately allowed for the designation of Iran and Syria as State Supporters of Terrorism, allowing victims to pursue legal action against these regimes.
The law was later reaffirmed in 2017, leading to landmark victories, including a multi-billion-dollar judgment against Iran (2012-2018) and the seizure of $30 million in Iranian assets in Canada (2019). The JVTA’s success was a testament to perseverance, cross-party collaboration, and the unwavering commitment to holding terror sponsors accountable.
The Bill’s Journey
The effort began in 2004, with successive private member’s bills introduced by MP Stockwell Day (C-367, C-394), Senator David Tkachuk (S-35, S-218, S-225, S-233), MP Nina Grewal (C-346), and MPs Irwin Cotler and Bob Rae (C-408). A breakthrough came in 2009 when the government introduced Bill C-35, the first official legislation based on C-CAT’s proposal, spearheaded by Public Safety Minister Peter Van Loan. However, the bill died on the order paper when Parliament was prorogued. In 2010, Senator Tkachuk reintroduced it as Bill S-7, which passed the Senate but met the same fate in the House after being tabled by Minister Stockwell Day, before its final incorporation into Bill C-10, securing its passage in 2012.
The Advantages of Civil Suits in Pursuing Terror Sponsors
Holding Wrongdoers Accountable
Civil litigation operates under a lower burden of proof than criminal cases, increasing the chances of a successful outcome.
- The legal discovery process in civil suits allows plaintiffs to access critical financial and organizational records of terror sponsors. Unlike in criminal trials, courts can compel accused individuals and entities to testify and disclose their assets.
Impairing Terrorist Networks
Successful lawsuits can freeze terrorist assets, block access to financial systems, and expose those who provide material support.
- Since terror financiers often seek anonymity, the public scrutiny of civil litigation serves as a strong deterrent. By financially crippling sponsors, civil suits help disrupt the infrastructure that sustains terrorism.
Catalyzing New Investigations
Civil lawsuits can bring to light new evidence, prompting government agencies to launch further investigations.
- In past cases, legal actions against terror financiers have led to regulatory scrutiny and even criminal charges. Victims and legal experts play a crucial role in providing intelligence that governments may not otherwise access.
Cutting Through Propaganda
Civil suits establish a permanent and detailed record of the financial networks that sustain terrorism.
- Courts provide an important counterweight to misinformation and political propaganda used by terrorist organizations. By bringing these facts to light, legal proceedings help neutralize the influence of terrorism in the media and public discourse.
Beyond Compensation: Giving Victims a Voice
Unlike criminal prosecutions, which are controlled by the state, civil suits empower victims to take direct legal action against those responsible.
- These cases ensure that the suffering of victims is publicly acknowledged and that the true nature of terrorist crimes is documented. For state sponsors of terrorism, which are often beyond the reach of criminal law, civil litigation may be the only viable means of achieving accountability.
Consider these case studies on the effectiveness of civil suits: