I'm not sure how much better we'll do in terms of transparency than other countries. However, I do know that even if we want to achieve a very high level of transparency, it will be very difficult in practice to get assurance that the monitoring will actually be done on the ground.
As I was saying earlier, if we want to ensure that children aren't involved in the manufacture of particular products, we need to gain the trust of the local community to prove it. Personally, I've been there, and that's how it works. Otherwise, it's very easy to hide child labour. To gain that trust, we have to target the worst forms of child labour. Otherwise, we won't have access to barriers that are sometimes even guarded by armed men. So to overcome the difficulty of obtaining this evidence, there has to be a local consensus on what forms of child labour are unacceptable.
If we're looking at a definition of child labour that is too broad, we're demonstrating a certain western paternalism. That's what should be avoided. We must avoid having a form of transparency that would be overly paternalistic. I would caution the committee on that.
For the more administrative aspects, the same reasoning must be followed. If we want to improve the effectiveness of our monitoring and transparency, we must first ensure that the forms of child labour we are targeting are the worst. That is how we will improve our model in all areas, both administratively and in terms of effective monitoring afterwards.
Otherwise, I think it's a bit of a smoke and mirrors game.