I think it's being studied, to answer your question directly. This is the field that I and others are starting to look at in terms of how we can make sure there is accountability. I'd refresh everyone's memory that in some of the original bills that came through and did not pass, it was a reporting mechanism directly to Parliament—disclosure and involvement. Sanctions will not work if all Canadians are not involved, and particularly all parliamentarians. The bill came in with all-parliamentary support, and I think there needs to be more transparency—the word we use often these days—and openness to share the experience.
We need to know how we can support the government better, how we reach for the information, whom we talk to, how we can ensure that those who talk to us are not then targeted, because that is another factor. You've hit the nail on the head—what we need is more information for the government. I'm going one step further in saying that the government should put in place certain aspects of sanction-dealing that would be generic, and that needs to be known by all of us.
My final point on that is that the evidence is easier I think in SEMA. I noticed that all of the Russian ones talk about violations of “international peace and security”. That's a phrase that needs to be defined more. Whereas in Magnitsky, we're reaching for internationally recognized human rights abuses. Corruption is more defined. In that sense, I would think it would have been easier for the government to deal with it, particularly if you're going into forfeitures, which is a whole different difficulty and has yet to be tested. If you go into forfeiture, where's the evidence, how is it applied, and are you only using your own skill as a foreign minister and your government, or are you really trying to build a coalition for those who want to abide by human rights?