Thank you, Mr. Chair.
A number of people have told us that the government is complicit, not only because it does nothing, but because some members of Parliament are corrupt and have links with the paramilitary. Against that background, it is naive to claim that a free trade agreement is going to help in the development of rights. Furthermore, 20 experts at the international conference called “Humaniser le commerce” assured us that no free trade agreement had yet succeeded in changing behaviour in a number of countries or in moving human rights forward.
If it is true that the government is complicit—and we have to think that it is—can we legitimately commit to a relationship like that and support it? Some companies, of course, already invest in Colombia on an individual basis. Mr. Cruess' company almost seems like a community association. To hear him talk, he is there just as much to look after the welfare of the people as to make money. But you still enjoy a degree of protection for your assets.
Should we put an end to the free trade negotiations with Colombia or should we sign an agreement? If we sign an agreement, should we sign unconditionally? What conditions would there be and what impact would they have? For example, companies want their investments in Colombia to be protected. That could be done with a kind of chapter 11, under which they would even have the right to sue the government if they did not make money as a result of its actions. Could the opposite be true? Could the government sue Canadian companies overseas, if, in whatever way, they did not uphold human rights or workers' rights?
Mr. Torres, Mr. Cruess, Mr. Falconer, M. Pagé, can we sign an unconditional free trade agreement with Colombia? If not, what conditions could we attach, and how would they be applied?