Thank you.
I don't know why they were not consulted. That may be a question for Mr. McKay. The explanation I've heard from time to time is that this is simply following from the round table process. But there's a fundamental difference between what the round table advisory group recommended and what this bill does. The advisory group report recommended a non-governmental body that may facilitate the resolution of disputes triggered either by NGOs or by companies that have issues with NGOs. To some extent, the CSR counsellor is very much along the lines of that recommendation. This is a very different approach. As you've heard from Mr. McKay's comments, it is a type of criminal approach that attempts to punish people rather than bring them together. That's my first comment in terms of the consultation.
In terms of international law, I'm not aware of any country in the world that has any legislation similar to this. I have gone through the report of Professor Janda, who tried to come up with some examples in his report. I don't find that any of those examples are anything similar to what this bill does.
Today Mr. Dewar mentioned Norway, for example, but as it's been described, the Norwegian legislation only sets conditions on government assistance or investment. This bill goes much beyond that. It's not just setting conditions on government assistance; it's passing laws that apply in other countries to non-Canadian companies. No country in the world does that without protest from Canada.
The closest thing is when the U.S. passed the Helms-Burton amendment saying that Canadian subsidiaries of U.S. companies can't trade with Cuba. That's widely recognized as something that was illegitimate, that we protested was not in accordance with international law.