Thank you. I'm sorry to cut you off, but I have only two minutes left.
I want to go to this other issue, concerning what the U.S. State Department has called Panama, which is:
a major logistics control and trans-shipments country for illegal drugs.... Major Colombian and Mexican drug cartels as well as Colombian illegal armed groups use Panama for drug trafficking and money laundering purposes....
The funds generated from illegal activity are susceptible to being laundered through...Panamanian [banks], real estate projects and [more].
We've had, most recently, OECD criticisms of Panama, stating that it is even worse than the infamous Cayman Islands tax haven. There has also been testimony around the actual Panama trade pact, article 9.10 of which says:
Each party shall permit transfers relating to a covered investment to be made freely and without delay, into and out of its territory.
That would mean that the Government of Panama or any investor registered there could challenge Canadian anti–tax haven measures as a violation of those transfer guarantees under the trade deal.
I'm wondering--and this is for both organizations--are you saying to us today, “Full-speed ahead”, regardless of what the problems are with this deal and the fact that Panama hasn't met its obligations internationally? Or are you saying, “Hold on, there needs to be a tax information exchange agreement”? That is very important. That's certainly where most Canadians are, where Canadians' values are. They want to see companies and individuals paying their fair share of taxes. I think the vast majority of Canadians believe that. So are you saying to go full-speed ahead, or are you saying to hold on, that due diligence has to be done first, and let's have that tax information exchange agreement that's been promised, certainly for eight years in the United States, and that has been promised for some time in Canada?