Yes, and that's exactly what I was trying to go to. You have to look at the specific new policy measures that are added.
In agriculture, it therefore adds an opening of vulnerable sectors in Colombia, which has price effects and livelihood effects. In investment, it adds unprecedented new powers of enforcement to investors who are interested in controlling aspects of land and resources in a country—because it really matters what country--where there's a lot of local people who are contested and who have been violently displaced from their lands. In a balance of power that's already quite tipped towards corporate interests, it further strengthens corporate interests.
The safeguards are not the top in the world. The environmental side agreement is lower than the one negotiated for NAFTA, and the labour side accord doesn't offer any new, additional safeguard to workers. I think the assumption that is missing, in asking “If we just add rules, what is missing?”, is to underscore that one of the most important conclusions from the signing of the accord is a political agreement between the two governments, which the Colombian government wants very desperately.
I think we can't underestimate the importance of Canada's seal of approval. The main interest on the Colombian government's part is the U.S. deal, on which they are stalled because there are human rights questions. They see, as the ministers identify in their testimony, that the Canadian agreement—