Sure.
I agree wholeheartedly that travel bans place the responsibility on the federal government of Canada to implement them and to absorb the associated costs. I would just make the general comment that sanctions gained popularity as an alternative to war. I think we should bear in mind that sanctions are a serious instrument. They're quite a big stick, frankly, and they should be used sparingly. That's part of the reason I suggest that economic sanctions should be done multilaterally, not unilaterally.
When we want to use them for signalling purposes, there are a variety of non-sanctions instruments that we can also use that have less of a cost on business, that are very straightforward for Canada to implement, but at the same time don't necessarily have the same kind of impact. Travel bans require the use of the IRPA legislation. All kinds of diplomatic things can be done, including boycotting events and participation in sporting games. All these kinds of things are part of the bigger foreign policy tool kit that can be used.
I think it's important to highlight that economic sanctions largely require Canadian business and banks to co-operate. That's a good point.