Right.
I simply want to point out that, in some cases, some of these assets can be here, in Canada. Often, the government may feel a moral obligation in this regard.
I'll move on to another question, not about human rights sanctions, but general sanctions against a country, leaders or other aspects. It seems to me that there is an ambiguity between wanting to be very precise in our definitions and giving ourselves the flexibility needed to act. For example, in the last 20 or 30 years, the nature of what is a threat to peace and security has changed enormously, and we don't know what to expect in the next 10 to 20 years.
Isn't there an advantage to keeping a formulation that is not excessively precise, so that we aren't confined to a straitjacket?