Thank you for that question. It's a very complex one. I hope I have enough time to answer it.
I don't think the bill offers the minister anything he or she doesn't already have.
When it comes to cases of arbitrary detention and state-to-state relations, those are matters of international peace and security because they amount to diplomatic coercion. That's where the security aspect comes in. If a minister were to decide that economic sanctions are the answer, they can already apply them under the Special Economic Measures Act.
Frankly, in a diplomatic coercion scenario, the best response is one where Canada does not stand alone. The current initiative on arbitrary detention and state-to-state relations is not the answer. It is an incremental step towards an answer. The government has created an international panel of experts that will hopefully make recommendations as to how state recourse can be more formalized. What can states do to respond comprehensively and meaningfully to another state seeking to coerce it into action through threats to its nationals? The tools are not legislative tools. The tools are diplomatic tools and multilateral tools, because frankly—I think Ambassador Fowler already said this—if Canada stands up and says or does something, it doesn't mean very much in the grand scheme of things.
Economic sanctions unilaterally imposed by Canada alone are not going to be effective. The solution has to be broader.