Thank you very much, Mr. Bergeron.
That's a good reminder of the work on William Sampson's case more than 20 years ago. I think it does remind us that there are times when publicity is not necessarily in the strategic interests of the prisoner concerned.
With respect to the Magnitsky act and I guess China, although I think your question is broader than that, the Magnitsky act obviously offers a fuller and much more targeted set of sanctions with a focus on the individuals who are responsible. The very specific tying of the sanction to concerns about international human rights violations I think is very important and very useful.
I think there is both actual impact and symbolic impact with sanctions. I think that's always the case with sanctions, but that is certainly so with the Magnitsky act provisions. Certainly, it may well have direct implications for the person concerned. We note, though, that in many instances that's probably not the case. They don't have any assets, travel plans or other measures that will be directly implicated, but it has sent a very strong message globally that Canada is watching and that Canada is concerned about that individual's conduct with respect to international human rights and is prepared to back that up with something beyond rhetoric and actually impose some consequences.
Of course, as I said in my opening remarks, the one thing that is still so woefully lacking when it comes to the international human rights system is enforcement and accountability. Those provisions take us in that direction, and they take us in that direction at a level that really can hit hard, and that is individual accountability and responsibility.