I think we know what the problem is: essentially, if there's a move by the government this summer to sign a Canada–Colombia trade agreement, this committee has to complete its work on Canada–Colombia. As far as the regulatory regime is concerned, this doesn't in any way stop the government from doing all the preparatory work.
To Mr. Keddy--through you, Mr. Chair--you are well aware of that.
So this artificial deadline that all of a sudden we've got to get something done in the next 72 hours or things will collapse simply is not true. What this would allow us to do, if we finish Canada–Colombia before the break, is we could come back and have the hearings that need to be held around EFTA. If you're saying that amendments won't be accepted by the government, then it doesn't matter in terms of the regulatory regime. You'll simply impose the work we've already done. So you can come back to it in September and this committee can take two or three sessions and we'll see how we feel about EFTA after hearing from witnesses.
But we have an obligation to hear those witnesses. We have witnesses on Colombia set up on Monday next week, from the Canadian Labour Congress, for example. They were already reserved and ready to go, so we should proceed as we had planned and do that next week and provide some guidance on Colombia to the government before the end of the session.