That's the whole point of free trade agreements, mining laws, and charter cities. As I said earlier, if you read Foreign Affairs and International Trade's assessment of these laws, the language that's used is to lock in market access. The language they use is transparency and predictability, which on the surface sounds like it's something neutral politically and economically, but when you consider the asymmetrical relationship between countries of the global north and global south, the poverty of people in mining-affected communities, and in general in countries like Honduras, predictability and locking in market access are not neutral things. That's not the goal.
The goal is to ensure that as little as possible can interfere with the profit-making of Canadian multinationals and maquila companies, and the ability to repatriate that profit back here, with as limited low taxes as possible, as low environmental regulations as possible, and as weak labour rights as possible. If governments aren't seen to be fulfilling their obligations under these agreements, they can be sued for that.
I can give you a number of examples of that just down the isthmus from Honduras in Costa Rica, El Salvador, and so on, where human rights tragedies.... Despite that, a Canadian company is suing a very impoverished El Salvador for millions and millions of dollars, and a Canadian company is suing Costa Rica for a billion dollars over a mine—Las Crucitas—that is very widely opposed by the Costa Rican population. The idea is to limit the ability of the people, as much as it is the government of these countries, to actually challenge the power and domination of multinational corporations in these countries. That's the goal: free markets above social issues.