Far be it from me to suggest that I'm an expert on international trade agreements. But I know labour, and it's not about formatting. The reason we don't have letters outside the agreement is that external documents carry less weight. If you talk to the ILO, the CLC, and the major labour unions, they'll tell you the same thing. That's why they've been lobbying to get it placed inside the agreement. That's the reality they live in, and I think that's the difference.
It may be true that we've been doing this for the past 15 years, but perhaps we ought not to be. Perhaps we ought to be thinking more about getting these considerations in the agreement. But we'll leave this for now.
We still have a lack of capacity when it comes to inspectors of labour standards and health and safety in the country. Yet we want to rush to sign the agreement. I understand what Ms. Nelder-Corvari said about capacity-building and the study out of Columbia University that emphasizes the role of agreements in building capacity. That's one report. There are others on the other side that suggest the opposite. It becomes a bit of a faith-based thing.
That's why a lot of us are still concerned that this matter will stall the development of human rights, labour standards, and environment standards. When it comes to capacity-building for labour standards, inspections, and health and safety, which, by Colombia's own account, are now lacking, why wouldn't we specify the capacity they need to demonstrate in these areas? Then we could check the boxes off: now we've done this, now we've done that, now we've done the other. What I'm hearing from all of you is that the administration in Colombia wants to do this. Let's see them do it. It's all well and good to say they're on their way. Let's see it completed. Has this approach been suggested to Colombia? Have we suggested a system under which we would establish a standard, have it verified in the field, and study the results?