First of all, you raise an important point: the short preparation time. I must admit, I made my presentation very quickly, in order to respect the time I was given.
What surprises me the most is that the two versions of the bill do not say the same thing. The concept of a fair and just ruling in the absence of a clear framework is very different from the concept of “ethics”, which means “to follow the rules”. It cannot be translated in that way, it is a false cognate in French. On one page, one reads “follow the rules”, and the rules are clearly set out. On another, one finds references that are unclear. I know that English has often prevailed over French in the interpretation of legislative texts, but in this case, there are inconsistencies.
The little exercise I carried out counting the terms earlier on was not a useless one: I found the word “éthique” six times, and the word “ethics” 291 times. It is not as though it was six and 15. In terms of philology, the meaning of words, this bill is rife with inconsistencies because of its complexity. I would either ask that it be divided into separate parts, or that more time be taken, but one thing is certain: in its current state, even though it obviously began with good intentions, it will be difficult to enforce. I do not believe that it will go much further than showing good intentions.