Actually, I don't have very much to say about FACFOA, mostly because it's a fairly specific act. I think other witnesses spoke about its being a very particular piece of legislation.
It's not that I have hesitations necessarily about the government or Parliament deciding that it wants to add human rights violations to SEMA. I just feel that it's important to be clear about what it necessarily means, if the government decides to go down that route. What it must mean is that the legislation will become de-linked from the idea that an international crisis is imminent. It creates a new test for determining when Canada should or should not intervene in the actions of other sovereign states.
I don't want the moment to pass by without the committee or others stopping to take note of the seriousness of doing this. There are lots of ways by which, if the committee decides that Canada wants to stand up for human rights globally and wants to reach into other states—because that's what SEMA is basically trying to do—and take action against human rights abusers.... That's something that Parliament can by all means decide. It's just that at the same time, legislators need to also decide under what circumstances Canada would do so.
On the one hand, if Canada were to head down that road, there could be a lot of pressure from various groups for Canada to intervene in a whole series of human rights causes around the world. I think it's important to think about the circumstances under which Canada takes a position, via legislation anyway, that this is something the government wants to do.
I hope that's helpful.