If I may have a quick follow-up, this is right, this point that when you stay at the level of principles--it will help trade, it won't help trade--you have to look at the specifics. What I was trying to suggest in my presentation was that when you look at the specific areas of commerce in the conflict economy of Colombia, there actually are significant reasons for concern. Economic growth in Colombia has been rooted in the fairly violent takeover of land and resources from people. These are well-documented scenarios wherein small campesinos, small artisanal miners, are literally forced from their land through threat, violence, and intimidation to make room for large-scale agricultural plantations, for example, or large-scale mining. So the basis on which commerce would grow in Colombia would be very difficult to disentangle from commerce not based on human rights violations, on minerals that have not come out of the ground based on the violent takeover of land and the death and killing of trade unionists who were trying to organize in that area. Mr. Neve just gave a specific example of workers in a mine area who received threats this week.
So we have the principle level. There's a concern that you can't accept that it would automatically be favourable. In fact, a more substantive concern is that in the conflict economy of Colombia, there is significant evidence, given the violent way commerce is undertaken, profit is extracted, and exports are generated, that Canadian investment in trade would be complicit in that violence. We have a huge obligation to do due diligence to ensure no harm. To accelerate industries that are based on the expropriation of land illegally, to accelerate mineral extraction that is based on intimidating artisanal miners, makes Canada complicit in the human rights problems.