Thank you, Mr. Chair.
My question is open to all three witnesses. Any of you may respond.
My job as a Canadian legislator is predominantly to look after my Canadian constituents who will benefit from this trade deal, particularly in the agricultural sector, which is substantial in my region. We've heard very little testimony arguing against that.
The argument I'm hearing--and I hope I'm not putting too many words in the witnesses' mouths--is that this deal is bad for Panamanians. To my understanding, Panama is a democratic country that respects the rule of law, so I'm wondering why I should impose my judgment over and above what Panamanian voters have done by electing their representatives. It strikes me as somewhat paternalistic to do that, so my question is this: why should I interfere in the democratic process down there?
I'll give you a bit of background about who I am. I'm a Conservative and I come from a mining background, so I know how the environmental groups in Canada have distorted the mining companies' records in Canada. As a Conservative, my dad was blacklisted by a union once upon a time, so I know how unions can abuse workers in Canada, and as someone who strongly believes in private property, I am adamant that investor stake elements be included in there so that socialist regimes, be they local governments or national governments, do not take Canadian investors' private property.
With that as a background, why should I not vote in favour of something that helps my constituents?