Can you hear me better now?
I thank our guests for attending and providing testimony. And I apologize. I've only recently arrived. I'm not new to the committee, but I'm new to this meeting today. For all I know, you all support free trade with Colombia, which would be great. I say that insofar as I come from the government side, and we have some supporters around the table for this.
I want to take us back, if I can. Since this committee has been dealing with the issue of Colombia, we've had something like 125 witnesses discussing both sides of the issue, all with very strong and passionate views on one side or the other.
Some of the things that I have heard—and this is not intended to be selective hearing--from an economic standpoint.... And again, I will apologize if you are talking about the issues of human rights. We all respect that's important. We also understand that the economic issues are important. With economics you get into issues of agriculture and other things.
But the sense I have.... Probably the majority of testimony I've heard has suggested it's like that Beatles' song, Give Peace a Chance. It's like give this an opportunity, because there has been some remarkable progress, by whatever way we want to define it, since President Uribe has taken power. And he is soon to relinquish it, in a democratic forum actually, which I think speaks volumes on the man and the system.
We've heard from people from the agricultural side, both in Canada and in Colombia, who have talked about the importance of agriculture. Right now, and you may all know this, we do some $1.35 billion of two-way trade. So it isn't that we don't do trade.
It seems to me that if I had a choice of a much more formalized, rigid, rules-based system, versus one that is loose, that doesn't address the labour agreement in detail, the environmental issue there, perhaps even a human rights issue agreement that may well be there.... I mean, this is a country, in my sense, that is trying very hard.
I think that when we look at this, as we're trying to create this rules-based system, my question—and I'll pick one.... Mr. Harrison, what's wrong with having a rules-based system? I don't mean that in an accusatory fashion. Does it not make practical sense? You're a lawyer, I gather, from the school of law. Does it not make sense? You live by rules. We are in a country of rules. England is a country of rules. Does it not make sense that if we do trade anyway, that we provide a rules-based system for them?
Could I have your thoughts, sir, please?