Thank you, Chair.
Thank you to our guest for his intervention.
I want to start off with the notion that this bill will somehow disadvantage Canada. I want to just put on the table and on the record something that I trust you know, but just in case you don't: that the limitations of a private member's initiative don't allow a private member to bring forward legislation that has money implications.
I think if you were to ask Mr. McKay or people who support the bill—and in fact, we've had this discussion at committee with people who were involved in the round table—we all would like to see this not being with the minister, but in fact with the ombudsperson, which was suggested by the round table.
In fact, what we have seen with the government bringing forward the counsellor is something that is a half measure, and for many of us, it's a measure that is unfortunate. It undermines the whole momentum of having what I think you're putting forward, that is, a consensus, a consensus that says when Canadian mining companies or extractive industries are abroad we want them to be up to the same standard they would have in Canada. I think it's a fair thing to ask.
So I just want to get from you...would you not support a process that was contemplated in the round table where we would have an ombudsperson who would not be seen as biased, who would have resources, and who would be able to look into matters to investigate? We could talk about how the investigations would be done and based on what would prompt them. Would it not be, as a macro policy, something that you would see as the way to go and thus support that? In fact, that's what the round table was talking about.