Thank you very much, gentlemen, for being here.
Mr. Hampson, I am glad to have you back at committee again.
There is so little time and there are so many questions about both of your presentations. Mr. Hampson, you talked about how important NAFTA is, and Mr. Doran, you talked about the fact that maybe there are some bigger things at play in terms of China, etc. As we look at some of these things—when we talk about NAFTA and trade, for example—we talk about supply management and about some of these irritants, like softwood lumber, but the reality is that the U.S. subsidizes their agriculture like crazy as well, and that never seems to be the question. We talk about giving up something, whether it's softwood or.... They've taken us to the WTO four times. We've won every time. We solve these issues.
Both of you talked about raising defence spending, as an example. Is that part of the negotiation process? If we look at the overall picture of NAFTA, maybe we can say, listen, we're going to commit to spending more on defence or whatever the case is, versus just.... I think it's a false argument when we say that we're going to give up supply management so we can do better on softwood lumber. My question is this: what about all the other things, and the things that they actually subsidize as well?