People frequently mention side agreements.
Let's take an example. If a complaint arose under a side agreement, a departmental committee would be set up to ensure that the commitment in question was being respected. But the last resort, under a process that need only be initiated by one of the parties, cannot be used except in the case of a trade violation. I want to point that out. The party who is at fault would be required to put money in a fund.
Sanctions set out under environmental and labour agreements may seem weak, especially to the extent that it is up to each party to protect its own investors and that human rights violations cannot be likened to unlawful comparative advantages. Consequently, this tips the balance of power between the two states against environmental and labour interests.
We know that Canada's trade relationship with Colombia is complementary, not competitive. As a result, agreements that do not give rise to cooperative advantages do not hold any water as far as labour and the environment go, and cannot be used to improve working conditions or the environment.
How do you see the issue?