I'll take the opportunity to build on what Professor Larocque said.
This bill could help litigants because it removes the automatic arguments of immunity which allow states to invoke impunity in disregarding Canadian courts.
With respect to the Hachemi and Kazemi case, we have a judgment from the Superior Court of Quebec. I agree with the decision of the Superior Court insofar as it allows the personal case of Stephan Hachemi to proceed. There is currently an appeal on this case and it will decide the issue of Mr. Hachemi as well as that of the estate.
The facts of this case allow us to argue that the current wording of the State Immunity Act makes it possible for Iran to have a suit launched against it without immunity being triggered in Canada. However, we are still awaiting judgment on that. We haven't even gone before the Court of Appeal. And the facts of the Kazemi case certainly help that out.
What I think we have much broader support from, through Bill C-483, is the concept that we can undermine this impunity argument from foreign states right from the start without needing to go through all these debates. In the Haiti instance, to the extent that any such claim would be raised, the bill would undercut it. I think it's the undercutting of that claim that speaks to the specific points of impunity, not just immunity, but impunity of foreign states.