I'll handle the first one.
I left Washington four years ago, so I'm not up to date as to what f=Foreign Affairs is doing in terms of its campaigns. But to take the point, yes, as I mentioned to Mr. Ménard in one of his interventions, I do believe that legislators can speak to each other, and the more we have in Washington the better, because of that language they can have in common. It doesn't mean they agree on points, but it certainly brings a sincerity and a veracity to the argument.
I would also argue that, again, as I mentioned I guess in French, the subnational governments have a role to play with their counterpart states across the border, or their trading states, the states they trade a lot with, to play on the point of this economic interdependence of the two countries, that thickening borders or slowing down the borders on trade really does hurt those states that have Canada as their largest export partner as well. As someone said, 70% of our trade tends to be interactive within the sector, going back and forth.
I think, therefore, there are arguments that can be made by legislators, by officials, but I do believe the political level is perhaps the best place to do that, on the importance of Canada as a trading partner, as a partner for their own economic prosperity, and that cooperatively on security issues we're much better as a partner than as an adversary.