I just want to add something briefly with respect to the utopian comment, because that stood out for me as well.
There was a time when property rights were a utopian idea, and they have obviously since developed in the western world a much greater importance and enforceability. When we take a look at the commercial rights that are now part of the NAFTA, even in the early 1960s or the early 1970s if we were to suggest that individual corporations had the right to sue governments independent of their own government's decision, that was viewed as being an idea very much at the margins.
But with the development of trade policy in the United States, in its provisions in some agreements with the Americans, and now in this agreement with Canada and Mexico, those rights have taken on a whole new meaning and are now being discovered by international trade lawyers in the three countries and vigorously pursued in some cases.
So given what was once a utopian idea in the 1960s and 1970s of commercial entities having these rights to enforce within international trade agreements, we see 30 or 40 years later a much more robust regime for the enforcement of property rights. We are at the point of beginning to enforce fundamental rights, and those rights, such as labour rights, have already attained some acknowledgement in trade agreements in the parallel agreements that we have criticized here today. We suggest to you that by inserting them in an agreement like this, we then begin to develop the institutional capacity to enforce labour rights internationally in accordance with these agreements.