I guess that means probably you haven't actually spoken to somebody on the ground.
One of my concerns about this particular role is that it seems to me like.... Why isn't it any different than under Harper? Why isn't it any different than “Harper light”, basically?
We had a position. We had an ability. We had an expectation. I'm sure the minister under Stephen Harper also expected Canadian companies to act appropriately. They don't act appropriately. We have facts about that. Your expectations that this will happen don't seem to be based in a historical, factual sort of climate.
I'm just wondering why you would say this is any different. Without the power to compel testimony and witnesses, how is this any different from what Harper put in place? We still had companies that were perpetrating human rights abuses. We still had somebody who couldn't compel documents and witnesses. It seems very similar to me. This seems like “Harper light”.
Show me why it's not.