The distinction here is that we're asking that those who commit torture, and ideally a few other categories of the most serious crimes of international concern--war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide--cannot be protected by the State Immunity Act. I think it's a separate debate, one that I wouldn't comment on in terms of there being any utility for the State Immunity Act as a whole. But certainly the intention behind having the State Immunity Act was to ensure, for example, that when a Canadian ambassador travels to another country, he simply can't be brought before the courts of that country, or vice versa when somebody is travelling here.
There was an idea of normalizing diplomatic relations and ensuring some protection for state officials, but it was never intended.... As I said in my opening statement, the idea is related to sovereign acts, acts of a state that are essential in the normal course of its business as a government. Torture, although the practice may not suggest this, is not supposed to be part of the normal practice of a government in its day-to-day activities.