I apologize, I will have to answer in English. My French is not up to par and I have a Scarborough accent. My anglophone colleagues understand my French, but my francophone colleagues do not.
First of all, this committee's report was in 2005, the Liberal government ended in 2006, and the round table report was in 2007 under the Conservative government.
As to consultations with others, there are pretty serious limitations on what a private member can do. I didn't conduct round tables of my own, or cross-country hearings; I basically relied on the findings that were made in 2007 and 2008. I can give you a list of people who have been in my office during the last couple of months, and I've become very popular for some reason or another. There have been a lot of representations, and I'm absolutely awestruck by the number of people who want this bill to pass. The Development and Peace organization has sent 500,000 postcards to members of Parliament and the Prime Minister, which tends to make people think something's not quite right here.
Bill C-300 is not so much a response to the round tables as an independent bill in and of itself, but it does give consequences to findings. Our problem in this country is that we talk a good game, but when it comes to putting even modest sanctions behind findings, we are somewhat more reluctant.
Mr. Rae rightly points out that there are sanctions in this bill and they're not merely reputational ones. It's not unreasonable to say to companies found to be in breach of CSR guidelines that they can carry on business as they see fit, but just don't ask for the taxpayers' credit cards while they're doing so--EDC, CPP, and promotional activities.
The core problem here is that companies act however companies act. But it's not only reputational damage to the companies; it's also reputational damage to our nation, and that's not always factored into the equation.