Let me take your last two questions together, Mr. Julian.
As Mr. Rowlinson said earlier regarding the issue of improving labour standards, the problem hasn't really been the drafting of the legislation that countries in Central America have. There are a number of very good provisions in Central America and Mexico, and in South America, for that matter. It's been a matter of enforcement.
When you provide a mechanism, such as we're suggesting today, that would allow a trade union or an affected party to bring a claim forward, saying that these rights, which you countries have taken together—for instance, forced labour—have been violated in a particular circumstance, if the violation is in fact found, you'll see an increase in the labour standards of those particular workers in that circumstance. This will also exert pressure on similar employers in the same industry to comply with the higher standard or face sanctions from an arbitration panel, which would include damages, for instance. That order of damages should offset the financial incentive to engage in a systemic violation of the very core rights we're talking about.
I would be surprised, indeed ashamed, if people on this committee and in the House of Commons could not agree amongst themselves that in negotiating agreements with the CA4, forced labour is something that we will not tolerate in our trade relationships with these countries and hopefully with any other country. Whether you believe in a free market approach to society or a regulated market, everybody can agree that the free hand of the market doesn't work when you force people into contractual relationships to work. We can agree from a moral standpoint that it is objectionable. So by including the rights of trade unions to enforce these things, independent of states that might be reluctant to do so, you exert an upward pressure on labour rights.