Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Welcome, Mrs. Wood and Mrs. Pickard.
It seems to me that Mr. Brison's questions were misleading in the sense that the issue is to know what comes first, the chicken or the egg. It is quite clear that if the government of Colombia were to set up a judicial system able to put an end to the drug trade, people would not be involved in that activity. That is what it should do first, I believe. Before claiming that a free trade agreement will make people want to grow something else than the components of cocaine, it should think about protecting those people. As a first step, cultivating plants for the production of cocaine should be forbidden. Steps should be taken for that. Then, and only then, might it be possible to have a free-trade agreement.
Last year, the Standing Committee on International Trade gave unanimous consent to an independent study that would be carried out before accepting this agreement. Unfortunately, Mr. Brison moved an amendment stating that the assessment would be done by Canada and Colombia one year after the agreement coming into force. This is totally unacceptable to us, to say the least, because it would mean that no pressure could be exerted on the government of Colombia to make it improve the human rights situation. Furthermore, I do not agree with Mr. Brison telling Mrs. Wood that she is prejudiced. I believe that parliamentarians, before deciding if they are for or against such an agreement, should make sure that they have as much information as possible.
Unlike you, I have never been to n Colombia. So, I would ask you to tell us how you assess the pre-electoral situation and the human rights situation. Also, Mrs. Wood and Mrs. Pickard, I do not think you are prejudiced. You have reported to us your observations, which will allow us to make an informed decision. I would like to know if you believe that the proposed amendment would really force the government of Colombia to take steps to eradicate human rights violations in that country.