Thank you, Mr. Bouchard.
It says “ for...labour initiatives in the territory of the Party that was the object of the review.” The council members are named by both governments, and in a very real sense politically, you could understand that the incentive for the Canadian government not to be embarrassed about this agreement would make it highly unlikely that they would do anything in opposition to the Peruvian government's direction. So that money is taken out and put in an interest-bearing fund, but in a very real sense, the Peruvian government is paying itself funds that will be expended later.
Thank you for that.
In your presentation the words “social responsibility” were stressed. Article 6 says that “the Parties shall encourage voluntary best practices of corporate social responsibility”. So it's completely voluntary. It's the equivalent of the Conservative government telling folks they can pay taxes voluntarily, but if they decide not to, there are no sanctions. I don't think there's a single Conservative who would recommend voluntary compliance on income tax. We have voluntary best practices of corporate social responsibility. So in a sense it's pretty meaningless.
I would like to come back to the environmental agreement. It states that “each Party shall effectively enforce, through government action, its environmental laws”. Can you please explain what happens if the Peruvian government doesn't enforce its environmental laws? We've already seen that with chapter 8 there is a disincentive for the government to go any further on environmental laws or labour laws, because they can be sued. I'd like to see what happens in the event that they don't even enforce their existing environmental laws, as poor as they may be. What is the process?