International Trade committee  It's difficult, because it's a complicated chapter. It's one of the more complicated chapters of the agreement. Digital services are becoming much more important for our economies, but there are areas where there's a lot of surveillance. There's a lot of abuse of children, for example, in the algorithms we see when we're looking at TikTok and other systems.

International Trade committee  We can do better, and it's something that all three countries want to do better on. This is an area where we don't have to reopen the agreement. We don't have to renegotiate. Mexico, the United States and Canada are already thinking about how to tweak the rapid response labour mechanism to make it more effective.

International Trade committee  Keep going...? All right. As I said, we can confirm and expand the economic sectors that it covers beyond those of manufactured goods and expand the definition of denial of rights. I think this is important, and I should have mentioned it earlier. It's not just freedom of association and collective bargaining that we're upholding through the rapid response process.

International Trade committee  I would say absolutely, if the committee wants to do that, please do. Canada should make its policy in line with its position taken in the CUSMA, I believe.

International Trade committee  Thank you for the question. We have eight recommendations. I won't read them all out. Picking the top three would probably be difficult. One of them was mentioned already, which relates to making sure that the rapid response mechanism applies in Canada and the United States as well.

International Trade committee  Sure. I'm happy to. Very briefly, this is an idea coming out of the United States again. It's a climate peace clause. I think it might have come up at committee before. The idea would be to agree somehow, whether in the CUSMA review process or perhaps at the level of the free trade commission, to not bother each other about and to not dispute each other's measures that are intended to reduce emissions.

International Trade committee  That's correct. I suppose it's going to be largely up to Mexico whether it wants to get rid of it or not. I think Canada and the United States should try. It applies in limited sectors in Mexico, for government contracts in oil and gas, electricity and mining, for example. It applies in limited circumstances, but as it stands it creates a significant inequality in the agreement, where Mexico is still subject to these ISDS claims, and Canada and the United States are not.

International Trade committee  That's right. I'll just note that the labour chapter in this was written by Angelo DiCaro, from Unifor, who was on the screen earlier. I believe you're referring to the requirement that a certain percentage of auto jobs or auto trade comes from factories where they pay at least $16 U.S. an hour.

International Trade committee  Thank you very much for your question. With respect, I think the focus is on environmental enforcement. One thing our report recommends is that we take a look at the rapid response labour mechanism and the success of that process. As we've heard, there were 23 uses of that so far in total.

International Trade committee  I'm happy to. Thank you for the question. My comments were in relation to.... We have team Canada, which obviously I think we have to do. I think most people recognize that. So far it seems to be pushing toward this kind of a smooth or smoother rollover approach. We put the report out today, and what we're hoping to discuss with our American and Mexican counterparts—if you can call them that—in civil society organizations in those two countries is thinking bigger than that.

International Trade committee  Thank you very much to the chair and the committee for the chance to be here. As we've been talking about this afternoon, we're still two years away from a mandatory six-year review of the Canada-U.S.-Mexico agreement, but I think it's a good thing for this committee to be thinking about it and preparing for that process right now.

International Trade committee  Yes, I meant CUSMA.

International Trade committee  I'm sorry. Could you please repeat the last part? Are you saying that in some of the new language we have...?

International Trade committee  Okay. I think I understand. Thank you for the question. To me, the question is that the language is still not restrictive enough. It leaves way too much room for arbitrators to continue to decide on cases based on their own standards with respect to what have become the customary international law norms with respect to investment protections.

International Trade committee  I can answer that. I think it's possibly because Ecuador asked them to. This may be a bit on the pull side for them. There may be political or ideological reasons in Ecuador for that, within the current government. I think you're right when you say there is not a lot in this for Canada in terms of new export access.