Thank you.
I'll respond briefly to Mr. Cannan and then to Mr. Burney.
The provision we're proposing would require that the complaint of surge be put to an independent panel, so it's not something that would be unilaterally invoked or decided by the party.
In terms of whether this is protectionist, I think it's hardly the case that we would accuse the United States of being protectionist. This is a provision that the United States has negotiated and is present in the Korea-U.S. trade agreement. It's not protectionist at all.
This is—and Mr. Burney kind of confirmed that—a way of dealing with something that all parties acknowledge needs to be dealt with, which is a potential surge in products. The current agreement deals with that. Obviously it's not protectionist, or else the Canadian government has been protectionist in negotiating the provisions that are already in the agreement about dealing with surges. With great respect, that's absurd.
What our amendment proposes is that there be, as Mr. Burney put it, a specified retaliatory measure.
By the way, I have to tell you that if you get excited about my speeches in the House, you have get out more, Ron.