Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Colleagues, thank you for this bill and for being with us today.
It's hard to be against motherhood and apple pie. From the outset, I believe that, on principle, there is little we can hold against this bill. The trickier part lies in its application, as you saw from the questions which have been asked until now, and in the fact that this bill tries to cover too much ground. As the saying goes, “you should not bite off more than you can chew”.
Therefore, beyond the bill's lofty principles and values, the issue is: What can realistically be achieved with the provisions contained in the bill?
For example, regarding the Sergei Magnitsky Law, you all know it's become a habit: you adopt a directive to prohibit the import of goods from Xinjiang involving forced labour, but you can't enforce the directive. You decide to apply sanctions, but you can't really follow up and make sure the sanctions are actually being enforced. You adopt a bill to seize assets and give them to Ukraine to rebuild the country, but you can't enforce the provisions. In short, we are adopting a bill which provides for sanctions, the Sergei Magnitsky Law, but it will never be enforced.
In your view, why do you think your bill has a better chance of enforcing the Sergei Magnitsky Law? What will prevent the thing officials were describing, namely that as we make our intentions clear, people will quickly move their assets to avoid sanctions?