Mr. Speaker, can you give me another 20 minutes? That question cannot be answered properly in such a short period of time. Also, I think it would likely involve repeating things that I mentioned and elaborated on in my speech.
In committee, I tried to make what I thought were moderate amendments. It is unfortunate that my Liberal and Conservative colleagues did not accept them. For example, I voted against the investor-state dispute settlement, or ISDS. I knew it would pass anyway, but I moved an amendment requesting a report on the costs of ISDS, including the costs of litigation. It was really quite straightforward; I just wanted a report. If everyone is so sure that everything is fine with ISDS, then they should not object to an annual report. Both parties voted against it. Unfortunately, the two parties that are friendly with multinational corporations voted against the amendment. That is what happened. If we could at least have a simple report, a bit of information, a bit more transparency, so that things could be documented and proven, that would already be a great start.
However, the next step is to offer recourse. We cannot amend the bill to include it, but we could have modified the agreement. I am talking about recourse for victims, binding recourse, and not just for multinationals that feel their profits have been harmed. I am talking about victims who are being abused by companies abroad or by governments. We need to be able to offer something to address that. There are other things as well that could be included in the legislative framework, such as legislation on the importation of goods produced by forced labour or legislation requiring greater transparency with parliamentarians.