Thank you, Mr. Chair, and merci, monsieur Laforest.
I just want to come back to the two points that Madam Hall Findlay raised.
The first, of course, is the sense that we should push forward because the U.S. Congress has concerns about money laundering and drug trafficking in Panama. The reason why the legislation has never been ratified, of course, in the U.S. Congress is precisely because of the concerns that Mr. Laforest has raised and that I have raised--that the IRS sees Panama as the leading money laundering capital for drug traffickers in the western hemisphere. The U.S. Congress has said--quite rightly--that, no, unless there is real action on tax evasion and money laundering, we're not going to ratify this agreement.
I get the sense—perhaps I've misunderstood--that the Liberal Party position is that we should run in and endorse this lack of action by the Panamanian government because the U.S. Congress is saying very clearly that unless there is a tax information exchange agreement in place and implemented, they're not going to ratify the agreement.
I don't understand this position. If something is wrong, and if the Panamanian government has to change its practices, it seems to me that we have a responsibility as parliamentarians to then say, “Well, no. We're not going to give you a blank cheque. We're not going to ratify this agreement until a tax information exchange agreement is put into place.”
So that is the position we're in now. We've had a number of witnesses recommend for that. We've had very clear evidence and testimony that has suggested that putting the agreement in place, that does not allow for the exchange of information, actually helps to fuel money laundering and drug trafficking. There is nothing...and the government recognized that by requesting a tax information exchange agreement, that not having that in place means there's no backup.
What we would be doing would be irresponsible. Certainly we would be providing succour to drug traffickers and money launderers. What we need to do is to take our responsibility and ensure that there is leverage put on the Panamanian government so that they put in place the measures that have already been requested by the government and that the Panamanian government has very clearly said they are not going to put into place.
The last point I want to raise is around the issue of whether we implement because of the enormous opportunities in Panama. Well, we certainly heard the same thing that the committee around Costa Rica did ten years ago. If you look at the testimony at the time, many of the same players came before the committee and said there were enormous opportunities and we needed to ratify the agreement.
At the time, prior to ratification, we exported $77 million worth of products to Costa Rica. Almost ten years later, we've gone from $77 million to $73 million. So it's actually gone down over the last ten years, not up. Exports have declined.
So even though I know there will always be testimony to the merits of free trade in a vacuum without the fundamentals being covered, the reality is that in Central America we have an existing trade agreement that has actually gone backwards for us. I think that is what, as the trade committee, we should be looking at correcting before endorsing Panamanian government practices that very clearly have earned international reprobation and very clearly need to change.
It's our own government, the Conservative government, saying so, that they need to change their practices. We don't do that by ratifying this agreement and saying it's okay to have those money-laundering practices, it's okay to money-launder drug trafficking money.