The issue we see is that certain standards in this bill are internationally recognized and well established. For example, there are the IFC performance standards, and three of those do deal with some aspects of human rights. If I recall correctly, indigenous people and the right of the people to be living where they are, health and safety, and the behaviour of security forces--those three things we do measure. If those are involved in the project, we do measure against benchmarks and make them meet those standards.
The problem is that there are many international “kind of” obligations that people believe are human rights. The world is still trying to decide if that's a company's responsibility, a financial institution's responsibility, an export credit agency's responsibility, or the government of the host country's responsibility, or for example, Canada's, in saying we're going to extraterritorially require our companies to act in a certain way.
We don't think those standards are clear enough yet. We're working with people to try to develop them. I truly believe they are going to arrive, but there is a reason this bill is unique to Canada. The standards are not clear enough for other countries to have taken the same step as we're trying to take here. We think it's premature for Canada to do that in this way and force us to step back from it in a situation where we won't really be able to tell. We won't be able to be sure up front, or even during the process, whether or not these standards are met, because the standards aren't clear.