Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I would also like to thank our three witnesses for being here today.
Since I have only five minutes, I would like to move immediately to my questions.
Since the start, the problem with Panama has been money laundering and criminal activity. As you know, the United States Internal Revenue Service has clearly shown that Panama is one of the biggest problems in the world when it comes to criminal activity and tax havens. The government has always implied that there would eventually be an agreement, an agreement to exchange tax information, with the Panamanian government. The government sent a letter last year, but today, just before you arrived, we heard from three representatives from the Panamanian government who clearly opposed a rejection of these requests. They said that—
A tax information exchange agreement isn't in Panama's economic interests.
We're not talking about something that is going to happen eventually. They said that they aren't going to sign it. My Liberal colleague is not talking about agreements on double taxation, which is completely different and avoids all issues relating to criminal activity and money laundering. We certainly need a tax information exchange agreement.
My question is for Mr. Deneault and Ms. Alepin. Given that the Panamanian government refuses to sign this agreement—all that it is offering is an agreement making it possible to avoid fiscal double taxation—should we suspend discussions on implementing this agreement by waiting for the Panamanian government to change its mind?