Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Welcome to our witnesses.
I have a couple of questions.
First of all, although our representatives and our witnesses from agriculture are no longer here, I think it's worth picking up on a point they made, and that is the fact that Jordan is certainly water-challenged. Much of the Middle East is water-challenged. We--whether it's Canada, the U.S., or the European Union--have fairly abundant water and great agricultural resources, so we're certainly in a position to help those countries feed themselves, and that may become even more important in the future. There's a greater market there outside Jordan, a total market of at least 40 million people, and probably more, if we expand to all the countries in the Middle East, so I see that as a great opportunity.
I'll come to my specific question. The fact is that we have a binding labour agreement here, and a binding agreement on the environment. I understand the logistical problems of implementing these. I think we all do, and we're all cognizant of that challenge, but what I'm hearing from both our witnesses here is a little confusing.
Mr. Vogt, you said that you thought the U.S. decision vis-à-vis their free trade agreement with Jordan could do nothing but help in the long run, and I would declare that our free trade agreement with Jordan could do nothing but help in the long run. We're already trading with Jordan. We're not just beginning to trade with them tomorrow; we're putting rules-based trading in place, with rules that will be binding upon both Canada and Jordan. No one is trying to pretend that the situation is perfect, but certainly putting rules-based trading in place versus simply trading with very few rules and high tariffs has to help both countries in the long run. That's my point here. We're simply trying to put parameters on a situation that already exists.
I'd like to hear from you first, if I could.