Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you all for coming and for the information.
I would like to start with the labour side of things. In a previous life, I sat around a negotiating table and hammered out collective agreements. So I have intimate knowledge about the difference between including letters in the agreement and having them outside the agreement. They can be seen as either part of the whole or separate, and this can pose problems over time, regardless of what you put in as a dispute resolution or a penalty. You can end up arguing about these pieces. You end up trying to figure out what something is, and you get into the argument of whether it's separate or part of something larger.
Nearly every major international labour organization, whether in this country, in Colombia, or elsewhere, has suggested that these sorts of agreements, specifically the labour piece, should be included in the body of the text. Environmentalists would probably say something similar. The suggestion was that the United States had the bigger stick, in the sense that they could use punitive damages against Colombia and force things to happen. Why didn't we do the same?