There are a couple of things in there. To your direct question about what needs to be in any labour chapter of any trade agreement, I think it starts off with a fundamentally different approach from what we've done in the past. I think we're seeing the outcomes of that with respect to a lot of social unrest and a lot of concern around the rights of working people not “growing”, for lack of a better phrase, in tandem with the areas of productivity, profits, and other measures. I think a clear example of that is using these trade agreements as facilitators of this process of globalization but having simply aspirational goals with regard to labour and other social conditions—conditions that get whipsawed, in a lot of ways, by the workings of trade and the machinations of trade.
One thing we've called for consistently, which now appears to have gotten some support from Global Affairs and Canada, is creating more binding and enforceable provisions. We would take that a step further and say that a lot of the social conditions of trade have to be met before trade can occur, as opposed to creating long-drawn-out processes of trying to fix problems once they've already been created. This is something we're eager to see developed in all forms of free trade negotiation. I think there's some progress being made in NAFTA—we don't know where that's going to land—and the Pacific Alliance, to our understanding. There's an eagerness to look at things in these terms.
That's really the crux of the criticism that we know from our allies in South America around that 1998 declaration and Mercosur more broadly. It's one thing to have aspiration, but the rubber is hitting the road on this. I think it's imperative that we start treating the enforceability of these social conditions on the same par as we would treat market access provisions.