Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I want to respond to what my colleague, Ms. Hall Findlay, just said. I am perplexed by her claim that Panama is looking for a double-taxation agreement that includes an exchange of tax information. Panamanian officials appeared and told the committee that signing a tax information exchange agreement was not in Panama's best interests.
The way I see it, something does not add up; there is a misunderstanding about what Panama wants versus what Canada wants. All of that to say that the Bloc Québécois supports Mr. Julian's motion. We have heard from a number of witnesses who have been pretty clear about the fact that Panama is a tax haven where money laundering is rampant, particularly drug money laundering.
Signing a free-trade agreement with Panama, without first having a very clear and well-defined tax information exchange agreement in place, is akin to sanctioning and, to some extent, supporting this kind of regime, in my view. One of the arguments in favour of the agreement is that it would greatly benefit farmers and businesses. But since it would open the door to tax avoidance, it would put many people at a disadvantage, namely all those who do not support tax avoidance or money laundering.
Ultimately, Panama's minister or deputy minister for international trade put it very succinctly; he told the committee that he saw no benefit to signing a tax information exchange agreement. I would say that contradicts the claims made by those who say that Canada will benefit from the agreement.
Consequently, we will support Mr. Julian's motion.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.