I have another question. You mentioned Colombia, and for those of us who were on committee last time who travelled to Colombia, Colombia is a nation that is coming out of civil war and turmoil; it was not safe to travel there.
I think you would have to agree, regardless of any bias you may or may not have against Uribe, that Colombia today is safer than it was three years ago, certainly five years ago or ten years ago. And I have to say the thing I was amazed at, when we were in Colombia, was the makeup of Uribe's government. He had former members who had been captured and incarcerated for years by the FARC guerillas and had escaped. He had ex-justices. He had socialists. He had communists. He had right-wing large “C” conservatives. All these people were sitting in his cabinet. Here's a president who moves the country ahead remarkably under dire, difficult circumstances.
Today you can drive from Bogotá to the coast in Colombia, and when we were there six or seven years ago, whatever it was, you could not do that unless you had armed guards. So that's not just me saying it; Colombians are saying that today.
It's a statement, Mr. Chair. That's all.
But on the pork, you mentioned a couple of issues and I want to try to drill into them. I know we're running out of time, but the issue is this. We have parameters in our agreements that we have now with Chile, Colombia, Peru, and Mexico. Those parameters are very difficult to renegotiate unless you open up the entire agreement. So by going to this Pacific Alliance and becoming a member of the Pacific Alliance, which will be the ninth largest trading bloc in the world, we'll have another opportunity to put those issues back on the table.
Is that the way the Canadian Pork Council looks at that, or do you see it as even more difficult to put them back on the table?