Yes. First of all, I think the fact that you're discussing due diligence as opposed to simply transparency is an extremely important step, because that will encourage and compel businesses to think about these issues much more broadly.
I'm somewhat skeptical that the issue of child labour can be dealt with by criminalizing it. I think the due diligence approach is an important one, but then the key question is how you encourage businesses to take approaches that are fundamentally community development approaches if we wish them to address the issues of child labour. These types of approaches are much more in the sphere of the not-for-profit sector. That's a more subtle challenge that requires this question of how we may coordinate it with aid also.
The other element that Jo highlighted, which I very strongly endorse, is the idea of refusing access to Canadian markets of goods that are tainted with child or forced labour, as the United States has done. This is a very important step, because a lot of countries across the world are developing a competitive advantage for their economies based on low-cost labour, which includes child labour, forced labour, and other forms of labour exploitation. Until there is a compelling reason for them to change that economic model, they will carry on doing as they have been doing.
A lot of the issues across the world that are causing child labour and child slavery and other labour abuses exist because governments are not implementing the laws they have passed. India has much fine anti-slavery law on its books; it simply doesn't implement it, and there's no compulsion from outside in international trade that it should do so, because it and other countries in Southeast Asia have access to markets while carrying on these practices. I think it's important to think about what the influence of Canadian law can be internationally in trade and the international political economy as well as how it's going to affect specific Canadian companies.