I guess sometimes the challenge is that just because it's been said doesn't mean it is so, and I think that's what our NDP friends want to constantly go back to. Just because a trade unionist has made a statement doesn't mean it is true.
My question is to Mr. Simpson, who is doing business there, as well as Mr. d'Aquino. Along with what Mr. Miller had to say, there are some issues there in terms of trade unionists actually being involved in criminal activity, not necessarily with drugs, but there are certainly illegal activities in terms of some of the things that go on. I'm just wondering if some of the deaths—and you've spent some time there, Mr. Simpson—had to do with the argument the trade unionists possibly want to frame, that it's just a labour issue. They make it sound as if companies are not abiding by the law and are just going out and killing some of these members. What I'm wondering is whether it is possible it has nothing to do with the companies whatsoever. Maybe, just perhaps, they're involved with other illegal activities and that's causing some of the issues here.
You've been down there doing work. I know, Mr. d'Aquino, that you've got companies that are doing stuff. I don't think it's that black and white that you can say it's because they're involved with companies, they're anti-company, and they're killed as a result of that. Is there not a possibility of other reasons?