Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I just want to respond to Dr. McQuade's reference to Milton Friedman and Milton Friedman's observation that the sole ethical responsibility of a member of a board of directors or the professional management of a company is to maximize the return to shareholders. That's a partial statement of what Friedman said, and I agree with Friedman on this, by the way. The rest is that it is to do so within the confines of the law and the rules with which that company operates, and it is the obligation of society to change those rules to ensure that the ethical rules are also moral rules. That is to say, it's not up to the company to do that as much as it is up to us to do it, we who design policy.
With that in mind, I want to say that it seems to me that in some sectors—and I point to mining as an example—the rules that have been adopted by our stock exchanges in Canada ensure that you cannot issue a new bond issue, for example, if you aren't following certain standards. You have to replant a certain number of trees; it's five for every one you remove in your mining operation. You must keep tailing ponds environmentally safe beyond the lifetime of the mine, and there are spot checks by international agencies to enforce this sort of thing.
It is easier to do that with tailing ponds and reforestation efforts than it is with child labour rules, but this strikes me as being one of the most effective ways of ensuring compliance, and I wanted to ask if you had any thoughts as to how the same kind of oversight mechanism could work in the realm of child labour and other forms of forced labour.
I'm not sure who to throw that open to. I guess I want to start with you, Ms. Becker. Anyway, maybe I can do that this round, as well.