I will keep it brief, Mr. Chair.
First of all, I will respond to my Bloc Québécois colleague. The situation is this. Panama's people did not want a tax information exchange agreement because they favoured an agreement on double taxation, an agreement that includes article 26, which provides for the exchange of tax information.
Secondly, I would point out that the Panamanian officials were speaking to a very specific context.
With respect to the comments made by Mr. Julian, we will agree to disagree. I don't know that we really want to draw this out. We will just accept that we agree to disagree.
I think the fact that Panama has signed a large number of tax treaties, including with some G-8 countries, has shown they have a willingness to engage in these agreements. The fact that they also signed a tax information agreement with the United States only two weeks ago you can take one of two ways. You can take it as, for instance, this was wonderful for the Americans to use leverage; or you can take it, as I do, as an indication that Panama is not afraid to engage in these discussions and to sign on these agreements.
My impression is that neither government--Canada nor Panama--has really pushed on this, and now, I think, ratifying a free trade agreement benefits a large number of Canadians but also sets the stage for a greater push to in fact engage in those discussions.
I don't want to argue--we'll agree to disagree--but I just want to explain why we will be not supporting either the motion or the amendments.