Thank you for that question.
Actually, the Canadian chamber was not invited to be part of that consultation, so we were not involved in that process. There were others that were involved, and there were some recommendations made to the government, which the government reviewed, and it put the vast majority in place.
You asked how I define the problem. Of course there is much more work to be done on improving human rights around the world. There's no argument on that. The argument is whether this is the right process. Our position, very clearly, is that it is not the right process. This is a process where anybody can come forward with an allegation and the company's reputation is damaged immediately, before there's any opportunity for it to respond, before there's any opportunity for these claims to be put aside. This is unlike the counsellor process—which you think has no teeth, and we would disagree—where there is a discussion and an annual report and companies that are found to have done wrong are reported publicly and will pay the price. This is for those that have done wrong, not for those that are just alleged to have done wrong. That is where the fundamental difference is.