Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Strike point one of the motion and keep the second part. If we claim to be concerned and to want to know about the situation and how human rights and the environment are affected, exactly what objective are we pursuing? Negotiations are currently under way and I cannot see ourselves making a monumental error by doing business with a country where serious human rights abuses are occurring.
If we strike point one, it would mean that while the committee conducts an impact study to uncover the truth—the second component—the government can continue to negotiate and move toward ratification. If we want to have time to do an impact study and shed light on the actual situation, and then decide, in view of our findings, to go ahead with this, there needs to be a break of sorts. I can understand that the first part of the motion recommending an end to the trade negotiations—a reference that Mr. Pallister wants to delete—provides an out of sorts. It is not calling for an end to the negotiations per se, but to a suspension of the talks to prevent things from moving ahead to quickly and from going wrong before an impact study is done. I do not see the point of striking this critical part of the motion which, to all intents and purposes, authorizes us to go forward with the second part of the motion.
There is no way that I can support Mr. Pallister's amendment.