Okay.
To Mr. Walsh, actually, the substance of my questioning will focus on this.
Traditionally, sanctions have been imposed when there are violations of international peace and security, which can, depending on how one defines that concept, encompass human rights violations. However, now there is an emerging view among some—at least in Canada, and certainly in the United States—that urges policy-makers to put in place sanctions that are clearly in response to human rights violations. It's gone this way in terms of the Magnitsky Act. Certainly, there have been discussions in this committee, in part, because of what we've seen in the United States.
I wonder, with all your expertise in the realm of sanctions—and I'll put the question to Professor Hanham, too—could you speak to this? Could you offer any advice to the committee? Should we be looking at putting in place a change to the existing legislation, so that sanctions are imposed whenever there are violations of human rights? What's the threshold? What kinds of human rights violations ought to qualify? If you could also mention intended and unintended outcomes in your answer, that would be very useful.