Thank you. Obviously it would be hypocritical to vote for Bill C-300 and vote for Bill C-2 without the protections in place. One has to be consistent.
I'll turn things over to Mr. Moist. I appreciate your comments that “The connection between the government and paramilitaries and narco-traffickers has been documented and it paints a very disturbing picture of a failed state that is increasingly controlled by criminals”, and later on about the “involvement of illegal armed groups...including paramilitaries and drug traffickers, who benefit from campaign financing as well as determining outcomes”.
This has been an issue all along: President Uribe's links to the Medellín cartel, President Uribe's links to the drug cartels, and the fact that his regime has open corruption that is being investigated, as well as it can be, by what's left of the independent Colombian judiciary.
One has to ask how Canadians on the street react when they see a government that has a supposedly tough-on-crime agenda actually cozying up to a government that has obviously such clear links with criminal gangs.
I'm wondering, then, given your testimony, whether you are concerned about that aspect as well as the aspect around the forced dissolving of the labour movement. Do you think Canadians are becoming increasingly concerned about this regime and its human rights violations?
And my final question: in a word, how would you describe the Liberal amendment? We've had previous testimony saying that it lacks credibility and that damage from this non-credible process could be high. Would you agree with that statement?