I understand the concern, and I think it's appropriate to do due diligence on legislation of this kind. But with all respect, I don't think that's the character of the legislation.
We have reason to say that it's not the character of the legislation because there are parallel processes. For example, under the International Finance Corporation there is an ombudsman process, and we know what it looks like. When the national round table came up with its recommendation for an ombudsman process, it wasn't to produce something litigious; it was to produce something quite different, which was the ability to canvass complaints and to have a back-and-forth. This is not about going to court; it is not about getting fines or imprisonment. It is about the ability to air concerns. If the minister, and perhaps it could be the counsellor who takes on this function, is doing the job in a sophisticated way, it provides an opportunity for the company to explain itself, to adjust its practices. That's what an ombudsman-like function involves.
Of course, this legislation can't create an ombudsman, we know, for reasons concerning the limits on private members' bills. But this is a close approximation of that kind of process, placed within a ministry.