Thank you, Mr. Chair. If I don't hog the time, I will end up sharing it with my colleague, the parliamentary secretary.
I have to say, this has been one of the most bizarre and odd legislation or treaty study things I've ever worked on, in that, by and large, the debate is not what is best for Canada, which is normally what we tend to do. We have some of our agriculture groups here, and it seems to be generally accepted that this trade deal is good for Canada economically. But what we seem to have had is a bit of a debate between the witnesses, pro and against, about whether this is a good trade deal for Colombians.
If I can summarize—and correct me if I'm way off base here—the essence of the argument I'm hearing from the two witnesses today and otherwise is that this is a bad deal for Colombians because ultimately it will legitimize the current regime, its allies or its perceived allies, depending on who you're talking to, and their behaviour in abusing elections, human rights, etc. Am I accurately summing up the core of the argument? Everyone has details about what has been done and whatnot, but essentially you're saying this is a bad deal for Colombians. It's bad to have this free trade deal agreement because it will legitimize an illegitimate regime. Is that close to what the core is?
Please be fairly brief in your answers. Is that the core of your argument?