I have two questions for Mr. Thomson and Ms. Coumans.
Thank you very much for your detailed work and your commitment to this issue. I'll ask them both at the same time.
Ms. Coumans, you've outlined a lot of the litigation that's already taken place. You have my legal brain thinking.
You also outlined that under a more rigorous due diligence standard, you would want an entrenched cause of action. If litigation has already been commenced many times, including against specific companies on repeated bases, are there already enough established causes of action, or is this forum non conveniens argument the one you're seeking to supersede with legislation?
That's the first question.
The second question is literally on a brainstorming lens.
Let's take Mr. Canning's point at face value, and I do, about indigenous communities. We've passed legislation that relates to UNDRIP in this country. UNDRIP is obviously a UN protocol that relates to indigenous people around the planet. The UNDRIP legislation that we passed calls for annual reporting. Could one interpretation of the annual reporting requirement be to compel reporting about what's happening with indigenous communities abroad that are being affected by Canadian companies?
I'm not sure if this has been thought about, or whether that even fits squarely with the legislation. I just put that out there for your thoughts.
That's for either Mr. Thomson or Ms. Coumans.