Bill C-23 (Historical)

Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act

An Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the Republic of Colombia, the Agreement on the Environment between Canada and the Republic of Colombia and the Agreement on Labour Cooperation between Canada and the Republic of Colombia

This enactment implements the Free Trade Agreement and the related agreements on the environment and labour cooperation entered into between Canada and the Republic of Colombia and signed at Lima, Peru on November 21, 2008.
The general provisions of the enactment specify that no recourse may be taken on the basis of the provisions of Part 1 of the enactment or any order made under that Part, or the provisions of the Free Trade Agreement or the related agreements themselves, without the consent of the Attorney General of Canada.
Part 1 of the enactment approves the Free Trade Agreement and the related agreements and provides for the payment by Canada of its share of the expenditures associated with the operation of the institutional aspects of the Free Trade Agreement and the power of the Governor in Council to make orders for carrying out the provisions of the enactment.
Part 2 of the enactment amends existing laws in order to bring them into conformity with Canada’s obligations under the Free Trade Agreement and the related agreement on labour cooperation.

Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member has convinced the House many times over that for every complex problem there is a simple solution, and that is wrong. There has to be a comprehensive solution.

His private member's bill on corporate responsibility and saying that a company is going to qualify for aid and support from its own government if it is an ethical investor and does the rights things are really about rewarding good behaviour. I guess that is what we are always talking about.

This bill is troubling to me in a greater sense from the standpoint that we seem to be moving toward having one party saying that we have an opportunity for a trade deal that is going to be beneficial to Canadian business, and it is pretty convinced that the human rights things are going to improve, but they are not there yet. The arguments are not there. The evidence appears to be mounting that the human rights situation is not getting better, and that is what we have to deal with.

[Dick Harris, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak in the House today to the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement.

I would like to clear the air. The member for Burnaby—New Westminster has again been quite vocal with his wild accusations about President Uribe of Colombia. He has oft accused the president of being involved in the drug trade and of encouraging paramilitary action throughout Colombia. He accused him of murder and many other human rights violations.

In a very precedent-setting event, President Uribe of Colombia came to the international trade committee where he spent almost two hours answering questions from members of that committee. In particular, the member for Burnaby—New Westminster had a whole armoury of questions to ask the president and he asked them sometimes in a very rude and obnoxious manner. He accused the president of using drug money to get elected and he accused him of murder and other atrocities. Every time the President of Colombia answered him in a very direct and factual manner and refuted whatever the member for Burnaby—New Westminster had said.

What type of audience did the member for Burnaby—New Westminster give the President of Colombia when he was answering the questions that were posed to him? He ignored him and talked to his colleagues on the same side of the committee. He did not want to hear the responses from the President of Colombia because they were in opposition to his thoughts, his opinion and his philosophy. The fact is that it is probably more about a socialist in our Parliament having a diabolical philosophical direct opposite with the President of Colombia and his government. It is more about that than this free trade agreement which would help commerce between Colombia and Canada.

We need to remember one important thing. Those folks in the New Democratic Party should be ashamed of themselves for some of the things they have said. In the last election in Colombia, President Uribe, then candidate Uribe for president, and his party ran on a campaign that included free trade with Canada and other countries. They ran on a free trade policy and received a huge majority in their win.

Is that good enough for the NDP? No. A democratic event that takes place and elects a government is not good enough for the NDP members because they simply do not agree with that.

A question needs to be asked. Why are the NDP members so afraid of democracy? I say shame on them for trying to undermine a democratic event that took place in Colombia and which elected a president by due process, simply because they do not agree with the philosophy of that government. That is what it is all about.

The wild accusations by the member for Burnaby—New Westminster that go on and on forever, notwithstanding any responses, which he obviously does not hear at any time, are simply because of the NDP's fundamental opposition to the government and its philosophy.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

They're drug lords.

[Dick Harris, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Now he is calling the president a drug lord. Now is that not the most disrespectful thing we could ever hear? I congratulate the member for Burnaby—New Westminster for once again showing his complete lack of respect for the office of the President of Colombia.

I want to talk about this agreement. The previous government speaker outlined the various benefits of this agreement to a number of key Canadian sectors, from agriculture, to paper, to machinery.

I would like to take the opportunity to look at our relationship with Colombia through two different lenses, the lens of trade and services and the lens of investment. I will begin with the benefit of the free trade agreement to Canadian service providers.

As we know, our services sector plays a huge part in the engine that runs our economy: financial services, legal services, engineering, architecture, high technology, and the list goes on and on. In total it is responsible for 69% of our GDP and three in four Canadian jobs, something for which the NDP seems to think it is the champion. However, when we want to create Canadian jobs through free trade agreements, it is opposed to it. The NDP would shut down the softwood lumber agreement tomorrow if it had a chance.

One can imagine the rejoicing that would go on in the southeastern U.S. softwood lumber mills to not have a softwood lumber agreement. We can imagine the kind of tariffs, duties, penalties and fees that would be added on to Canadian lumber going into the States. That is what the NDP want. It wants to shut down free trade agreements, Canadian business and Canadian jobs, the same way it is threatening to shut down the economic stimulus package by voting against the government and calling for an election.

Where does the NDP stand? It is not the champion of Canadian workers. It is the champion of continuing the recession we are in. That is what the NDP is championing.

I am pleased to see that our free trade agreement with Colombia opens up many new doors for the Canadian services sector. Canadian service providers already have a substantial presence in the Colombia market, something the NDP does not recognize or would possibly like to shut down, which would mean the loss of more Canadian jobs. Our services export is in the area of about $40 million to $50 million a year. It is not small change. It is not our biggest export but it is part of our economy.

Driving these numbers are Canadian financial, mining, engineering and petroleum extraction sectors. Sectors like these stand to benefit greatly from the new free trade agreement and we will expand it. Our Canadian companies will do better. They will expand and create more jobs for this country and will help our economy. It is things like that that do not seem to be important to the NDP.

The agreement stands to give our Canadian companies greater access to the Colombian marketplace than ever before, creating jobs, expanding our Canadian businesses and growing our economy, things that are important to most Canadians but not the NDP. It also would give Canadian service providers an added measure of confidence. Under this agreement, they will enjoy a secure, predictable, transparent and rules-based trading environment.

Moreover, our two countries have agreed to begin discussions on mutual recognition agreements, starting with engineering, that would allow for standards and qualifications to be recognized in each other's countries. It would be pretty effective to have something like that brought in. This would save service providers in both nations time and money and would let them get to work more quickly in each other's markets, creating jobs, helping the Colombian economy and helping the Canadian economy. Does that matter to the NDP? I do not think so. The NDP is not happy when things are good and when the economy is buoyant.

The NDP cannot go and tickle the ears of those who are having a tough time in a poor economy and make them all kinds of promises that it cannot ever fulfill. It cannot do that when things are good. Therefore, it does not like buoyant economies, good economies and surpluses. It does not like business.

This free trade agreement with Colombia is one of many that we want to develop with South American countries. We are working with Peru, Brazil and Colombia. We will search out new opportunities with countries with which we can have free trade agreements because it is good for the Canadian economy and it is good for the Canadian workers. It is good for the economy of the countries with which we sign free trade agreements because it helps their country. It brings Canadian technology into a country that was maybe lacking that. Without a free trade agreement that technology would never go to Colombia, Peru or Brazil.

This is a good thing. I wish the NDP would get onboard like the members of the Liberal Party who sit on the international trade committee have gotten onboard.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, since the member for Cariboo—Prince George took my name in vain throughout his entire speech, it is only fair that I get a rebuttal. That was from a member who never bothered to read the softwood sellout before he voted for it in the House that has cost hundreds of jobs in his riding, thousands of jobs across British Columbia and tens of thousands of jobs across the country. He says that is okay despite the fact that we now need to pay $68 million in additional penalties. The penalties are imposed because of the softwood sellout, not because we might change or get rid of the softwood sellout. The penalties are in now and taxpayers are paying now.

However, I will come back to Canada-Colombia because that is the most important thing. The BBC reports that Diego Murillo, the successor to Pablo Escobar, said very clearly just four months ago that he contributed large sums of money to the campaign of President Uribe in 2002. This is someone who has also been connected with paramilitary organizations.

My question is very simple. The people of Cariboo—Prince George are honest, hard-working people who oppose the drug trade. Why does the member betray his constituents by endorsing an administration that was elected with drug lord money? This was reported by the British Broadcasting Corporation, the most respected news gathering organization in the world. How can he possibly justify links to drug lords that are tied to the administration and the ties to paramilitary organizations that have massacred 100,000 Colombians? Those are very simple questions.

[Dick Harris, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am afraid that I do not turn to the BBC every time I want to find something out or be informed of some information. The member for Burnaby—New Westminster posed that question directly to the President of Colombia when he was here. The President of Colombia answered it very clearly. Would that member accept that? Of course not. He would not accept that because he does not like the President of Colombia in the first place nor does he like the government. Therefore, no response that would show that the so-called BBC report was in error or that it did not have the information correct would satisfy him because he fundamentally does not like the government of Colombia nor the President of Colombia. That is my response to that question.

Just because he has gathered something from the BBC, which I do not know much about, maybe it is like the CBC, I do not know--

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Washington Post, tons of stuff.

[Dick Harris, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Mr. Speaker, he knows very well that the people of Cariboo—Prince George have been well-served by their member of Parliament for the last 16 years and 6 elections. They put a lot of trust in the things that I do in the House and the things that I say. I have thanked them in every election that they voted for me. The last time was a record number. The people of Prince George know where I stand on crime and punishment and the nonsense that the member for Burnaby—New Westminster has spoken about.

I must say that lot of people in Prince George and the central interior are working in the forest industry because of the softwood lumber agreement. If the NDP members had their way, every softwood lumber mill in the province would be shut down. No one would be working and there would not be a stick of lumber going south of the line at any price because the softwood lumber companies in southeastern U.S. would see to it that there were duties, tariffs and penalties imposed on every stick of lumber that went there. That would shut the industry down. Is that what they want? The industry supports the softwood lumber agreement. He does not. We are right. He is wrong.

[Johanne Deschamps, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join my Bloc Québécois colleagues in saying that I do not support Bill C-23, An Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the Republic of Colombia, the Agreement on the Environment between Canada and the Republic of Colombia and the Agreement on Labour Cooperation between Canada and the Republic of Colombia.

Knowing Colombia's current social situation in terms of human rights and politics, one can understand why the Bloc Québécois does not support the Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the Republic of Colombia. It is crucial that we analyze the impact and repercussions that the terms of this agreement will have on the people of Colombia, for there will be many. We must ensure that the rights of Colombians are respected and that their opinions will be taken into account before we ratify this agreement.

Civil society and the people of Colombia are opposed to a free trade agreement that enhances the rights of foreign investors and exporters, but does nothing to take into account local issues in terms of development and human rights. Yes, trade can support development and the realization of human rights, if it brings benefits to vulnerable populations and allows those states that are willing to promote development and protect the environment as well. At present, the uproar against this free trade agreement between Canada and Colombia is only growing in strength, in Canada and in Colombia.

According to the Canadian Council for International Cooperation, the Canadian Association of Labour Lawyers, the Canadian Labour Congress and the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement and the two side agreements—one on labour rights and the other on the environment—will only exacerbate the problem of human rights violations, and the legislative provisions meant to guarantee those rights and protect the environment will not work.

We cannot enter into a free trade agreement with Colombia without looking at the human rights situation in that country. Under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, everyone has the right to life, security of the person, freedom of expression and freedom of association. It is therefore incomprehensible that the Canadian government should ratify a free trade agreement, given the Colombian government's deplorable record of violating human and workers' rights and the thousands of assassinations of union delegates for which it is responsible.

I wonder whether the Canadian people, who consider themselves a democratic society and stand up for workers' rights, can sanction a free trade agreement with a country where people put their lives at risk just by demonstrating or wanting to join a union. It is regrettable that the Canadian government is supporting a regime that is heavily involved in human rights violations and mired in a huge political scandal because of its ties to paramilitary groups.

There seems to have been a major governance problem in Colombia and a questioning of the government's legitimacy since the parapolitics scandal broke in 2006. I am not here to judge Colombia's domestic politics, but we have to be honest. A number of politicians were arrested for having ties with the paramilitary forces responsible for carrying out thousands of assassinations, imposing a regime of terror and expropriating land. In addition, those responsible for the crimes against union officials and civilians are very seldom found guilty in court. Impunity remains in Colombia. Only 3% of the crimes committed led to a conviction.

In the meantime, the paramilitaries are reasserting control over the territory, and the government is doing nothing to stop them. Anti-union culture prevails in Colombia, and human rights violations and violence towards unionized workers are common. This is a serious problem. It is very risky to be unionized in Colombia. Union members are terrorized, as are activists who are trying to form a union, to join one, or to engage in collective bargaining, taking part in labour disputes or fighting privatization. Since 1986, 2,690 union members have been killed in Colombia. This number increased by 18% in one year, going from 39 homicides in 2007 to 46 in 2008, not counting the activists who are threatened or kidnapped. Most assassinations are carried out by paramilitaries. Anti-union laws, along with the violence and terror, have helped keep the rate of unionization below 5%.

The serious human and labour rights violations are not the only problem in Colombia. The effects of the introduction of the extractive industry are damaging the way of life of Colombians and often forcing them to leave their land.

The free trade agreement has a chapter on investment. It tends to give greater protection to Canadian companies that invest in the mining sector and exploit resources. The Bloc Québécois worries that these investment protection measures give far more protection to Canadian investors than to the local population and the environment.

According to the CCIC, this chapter is nothing more than wishful thinking when it comes to corporate social responsibility. In fact, the provisions simply require companies to give it their best shot. They are purely voluntary and are absolutely impossible to enforce.

Extraction companies have a social responsibility toward the people of Colombia. Canadian investments in Colombia, which are primarily in the oil, gas and mining sectors, total $3 billion, and will probably reach $5 billion within two years.

Canadian mining companies have to be careful not to become complicit in human rights violations or cause forced displacement of any populations, since regions that are rich in minerals tend to become theatres of violence, paramilitary control and displacements. A few Colombians have been killed after they opposed the Colombian government's concessions to a Canadian industry to begin mining operations.

In Colombia's current environment, in which the state cannot seem to guarantee the security of its territory, the Colombian government and security forces are unlikely to be capable of maintaining proper control of the foreign companies that are exploiting resources there.

According to the KAIROS group, Mexico's experience with NAFTA demonstrates how free trade agreements favour corporations to the detriment of the rights of individuals and communities. Foreign investments based on NAFTA's chapter 11 rules often fail to recognize aboriginal peoples' right to be free, informed and willing participants in the activities that take place on their territory.

According to Amnesty International, over 60% of the three million displaced people in Colombia have been forced from their homes and lands in areas of mineral, agricultural or other economic importance.

The Bloc Québécois has always supported the adoption of mandatory standards and accountability measures with respect to the activities of mining companies abroad.

The Bloc Québécois agreed with the national roundtable advisory group when it called for the adoption of mandatory corporate social responsibility standards for mining companies operating abroad, for punitive measures for offending companies, and for the creation of an independent ombudsman to conduct impartial investigations to validate complaints.

However, the Minister of International Trade chose to reject most of the national roundtables' recommendations and implement voluntary standards. The Conservative government is not doing anything to compel Canadian companies to implement socially responsible practices when investing abroad.

In its June 2008 report to the House, the Standing Committee on International Trade recommended creating an independent organization to assess the impact on rights and the environment when negotiating economic agreements with countries at risk, like Colombia. But Canada carried out no such assessment. Or if it did, it did not make the results public.

The Bloc Québécois is open to trade, as long as it is fair. Trade agreements must include clauses mandating compliance with international standards for labour rights, human rights and the environment.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciated the thoughtful remarks of the member who just spoke, unlike the member for Cariboo—Prince George whose ideological tirade appeared to have absolutely no concern for humanitarian or environmental issues in Colombia whatsoever, and also unlike the comments from the member for Burnaby—New Westminster who either has forgotten or is completely misrepresenting the testimony that I was present for during the visit of the international trade committee in the spring of 2008.

I will note that many of the witnesses were personally brought forward by the NDP and that member. We saw and heard from hundreds of people. With the exception of a very small handful of people, those witnesses acknowledged the serious shortcomings in Colombia regarding human rights, the environment, and security, yet confirmed their belief that this imperfect free trade agreement would be a benefit compared with no free trade agreement.

My question for the member would be, is the issue whether this is a perfect free trade agreement or not, and I agree with her that it is not, or that having this free trade agreement would be beneficial to the lives of Colombians compared with having no free trade agreement?

[Johanne Deschamps, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for her question.

I would like to take this opportunity to say that we have to tell it like it is: Canada and Colombia are simply not major trading partners. One of Canada's primary exports is western grain, and we have no trouble finding takers for that, particularly during this time of economic crisis. Canada mainly exports cars and grain, which represented about 23% and 19%, respectively, of our 2007 exports.

The government's primary motivation for signing this free trade agreement is investment, not trade. Most Canadian investments in Colombia are in the mining industry. These industries typically operate in rural and remote regions, regions that contain most of the country's natural resources and where, coincidentally, there is the most violence. These regions have experienced 87% of all forced population displacements, 82% of all human rights and international humanitarian rights abuses, and 83% of all union leader assassinations.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the member for her speech. As usual, it was very incisive.

We know that first nations organizations, Colombian aboriginal groups, Afro-Colombians and women's groups are opposed to this free trade agreement for the simple fact that it contributes nothing to the well-being of these peoples. On the contrary, the violence experienced by these groups at the hands of paramilitary operatives is related to the fact that the latter can do whatever they want in order to take over the land of the indigenous peoples.

Does the member believe that it is mainly because of the reaction of first nations groups, women's groups, Afro-Colombian groups that all members in this House should oppose this agreement?

[Johanne Deschamps, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would say to my NDP colleague that that is key. In light of the outcry, we have a moral duty, as the government, as elected members of this House, to scrap this agreement. Who has not met, in their office, NGOs and individuals who have spoken out against the violations of human rights that occur in Colombia?

In my opinion, the government should show moral responsibility before ratifying or adopting this agreement given that all opposition members are against it. We must ask ourselves if we can take a different approach to helping that country.

[Leon Benoit, Conservative, Vegreville—Wainwright, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement is not just an agreement with a country a great distance away; it is an issue that will make a very real difference to the people in my constituency, in the oil and gas industry and to my neighbours and friends who are farmers.

I have listened to members from the New Democratic Party in particular. I do not think they have spoken in favour of any free trade agreement, certainly not in the 16 years I have been here, and I do not expect they will start now. Members from the Bloc tend to oppose free trade as well.

However, I have been quite surprised by members of the Liberal Party speaking against this agreement, and for reasons I simply do not believe are legitimate. I think it shows they have not studied the agreement and they have not paid attention to the testimony presented at the international trade committee. That is a sad thing.

I have farmers in my neighbourhood, but also right across Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba who have just started a very late harvest. It has been a very small harvest in many parts of Alberta and western Saskatchewan. There was a terrible drought in those areas. The choices they have to market their goods makes a difference to them. If they have more choices, there is more demand as more markets are opened up and the prices tend to increase.

Particularly in a year like this where a drought has had such a negative impact, it is critical that they get every penny out of every bushel or tonne of the commodities they grow. For cattlemen this agreement could have a very important positive impact, and it is the same in many sectors.

I would encourage all members of the House when they are speaking about the bill to see it as something that does touch us directly, because it does touch me, my friends, my neighbours, farmers, people in the oil and gas sector and many other people in a very real way.

It also affects the people of Colombia in a very positive way. When we can have a win-win situation, why on earth would one be against the agreement? In sitting here listening to the debate today, quite frankly I am wondering how members of those parties can be against the agreement.

I would like to talk about some of the other things. The positives are easy to see: the new markets, the higher price for commodities are easy to see. This agreement demonstrates this government's commitment to help Canadians move through the economic times in the positive way I talked about, but it includes parallel agreements on labour cooperation and the environment as well.

I heard my colleague, the chair of the international trade committee, speak very eloquently earlier about how it will benefit the environment. I think that argument seemed to be well accepted by the House. In fact I do not believe I heard any argument against that. If I did, it was probably from the member who is against every aspect of the agreement it seems, but I do not remember hearing that.

I want to make the point that we have a strong and comprehensive labour cooperation agreement that will help improve labour standards for Colombian workers in many different sectors.

I have heard some hon. members raise concerns about the potential impact of free trade agreements on workers. It is an important concern for this government. Let me assure the House that this government believes that prosperity cannot come at the expense of workers' rights. We are simply not going there.

That is why the Canada-Colombia labour cooperation agreement is such an important part of the overall agreement. It commits both countries to ensuring that their laws respect the International Labour Organization's 1998 declaration on the fundamental principles and rights at work.

The International Labour Organization declaration covers a wide range of workers' rights and obligations, including the right to freedom of association, collective bargaining, the abolition of child labour, which is something we all work towards, the elimination of forced or compulsory labour and the elimination of discrimination in the workforce.

Our agreement with Colombia goes even further than the International Labour Organization declaration. It goes further in at least three ways. First, it commits both countries to provide acceptable protection for occupational health and safety. Second, migrant workers will now enjoy the same legal protection as nationals in terms of working conditions. That is more important in a world where workers move around more freely and more often. Third, it has minimum employment standards covering such things as minimum wages and overtime pay. However, as members can appreciate, these commitments are only as strong as the dispute resolution mechanisms and penalties backing them up.

We have a much more comprehensive agreement when it comes to labour, but it is critical and the agreement also focuses on enforcing those standards. That is why I am pleased that the agreement includes appropriate penalties for not living up to these commitments.

To ensure the highest possible compliance, the agreement provides for an open and transparent complaints and dispute resolution process. As part of this, members of the general public can submit complaints to either government concerning non-compliance of labour laws and the provisions under the ILO declaration.

If the matter cannot be resolved through this process, an independent panel review process kicks in that may require the offending country to pay up to $15 million annually into a cooperation fund to be used to resolve the matter identified through the dispute resolution mechanism. Through the Canada-Colombia labour cooperation agreement, Canadians will have a unique tool at their disposal to ensure the Colombian government continues to demonstrate the political will and provide the necessary resources to improve the labour situation.

At the same time we clearly recognize the challenges that nations like Colombia face in complying with each standard set out in the agreement. It is difficult for us to meet these standards, but it is much more difficult for a country like Colombia, which is sincerely trying to move ahead to get away from some of the wrongs of the past.

That is why our agreement will be complemented with a $1 million, labour-related technical cooperation agreement, which has started to implement projects in Colombia to promote and enforce internationally recognized labour standards, particularly in areas of labour inspection, tripartite consultation, and enforcement of labour rights and occupational safety and health, a program that will help Colombia enforce its domestic laws and meet very high standards established by this agreement.

Canada is committed to helping our Colombian partners make the most of our new free trade agreement. That includes ensuring better protection for Colombian workers, in particular trade unionists.

The Conservative government is re-engaging with our partners in the Americas and promoting the principles of sound governance, security and prosperity. This agreement helps add to that effort on our part.

I will conclude by reiterating that this agreement is important to me personally. It is important to my neighbours and friends, to farmers, people in the oil and gas industry and to many other Canadians across this country. It is not some idea that does not make a real impact.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed the hon. member's presentation. Of course he would have more credibility on the agricultural file if his government were not seeking to actually undermine prices that farmers can get through the Canadian Wheat Board. If the government were not trying to undermine those prices, he would have credibility on the issue.

However, I do want to get back to the comments made by the member for Cariboo—Prince George. When I asked him about the links between President Uribe, highly documented by The Washington Post, the BBC and a lot of other organizations, and about drug lords such as Pablo Escobar, the member for Cariboo—Prince George said that it is okay because President Uribe said he was not guilty.

I would like to ask the member if he agrees with the member for Cariboo—Prince George that one can simply say, “I am not guilty”, and that is enough, despite the preponderant level of evidence that is there from very reputable human rights organizations, journalists, et cetera.

Suppose somebody dealt in drugs in the member's riding or killed somebody, and the person just said that he or she was not guilty and got off scot-free. Would the member support the approach that a person could simply say that he or she is not guilty? Would that be good enough for a Conservative member?