Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Good afternoon; welcome, gentlemen and welcome, madam.
When we agreed to hear witnesses on the agreement that came into force last February 16 and is now being applied, my party's goal and my own was to find out whether it was a good or bad agreement. We wanted to know, if it was good, who was it good for, and, vice versa, if it was bad, who was it bad for. I have the growing feeling that it is far from a good agreement.
Mr. Hammoud and Mr. Grenier, your comments today were quite critical of the agreement. While still reserving judgment, at least, I tell myself that it does not seem to have a lot of positive elements.
Mr. Grenier, at the last two meetings, we have heard from officials from the Department of International Trade. But no one was able to tell us on what basis such an agreement could have been reached. We were given no figures to show how such an agreement was arrived at or to show who it would benefit. We have nothing, and that worries me.
Based on your analysis, could you tell us how this could have become a good agreement? I am guessing that it is not a good agreement in your eyes. This is the conclusion that you are coming to here. How could it have been good?
Earlier, the Liberal member talked about natural resources. Should they have been in it, or anything else? Do you have any experience with that? I would like to hear what you have to say.