 Thank you, Rick. Let me start by saying it's a great pleasure to be with you, Rick, and with such a distinguished panel. I think Thierry's timing on the subject of what the Chuches brought up couldn't be better because we're, frankly, in the midst of the throes of this process of renegotiation. And I would like to break my comments into just simply three or four issues. Number one, NAFTA, where it is, where it stands, what it's doing. Number two, the wall and where it is and what's occurring in its implications. Number three, what is occurring in between and then finally what to do. So those are the guidelines. Starting, obviously, the two initiatives, both the renegotiation of NAFTA and the way it was cast and the construction of the wall have created two very distinct feelings which I think are important to say within Mexico. The first one is one of uncertainty. Yesterday we were already discussing the questions of uncertainty and maybe protectionism and other in several of the different panels. But here very clearly not knowing what is going to happen and when and so on creates this level of uncertainty which is, from a business standpoint, apart from others, obviously a big handicap because you don't know whether you should, shouldn't invest, how you should be going and so on and that has a cost. Number one. And the second one is the way it was cast, both the trade and the wall created a certain level of resentment and I think it's important to say it. When you're labeled as the culprit of all the immigration problems and all of the drug problems and on top of that you have samples of the wall being shown and so on. It's not exactly the most conducive conversation to a good working relationship. So in that framework let me tell you where we are on each one of these subjects. Number one. In the case of NAFTA I don't think I need to make an explanation of just how unbelievably successful it has been for all three countries. I mean every single serious study shows it and demonstrates it and to say that all trade of the US with the world, 40% of it is between Canada and Mexico. So it's been an enormous success. I won't go into more detail but it goes beyond trade. It goes into rules of operation and I think that that part of the trade agreement is less visible but just as important. It sets a stage that brings comfort and support and credibility to a process and I think that element of NAFTA is very important. Where are we right now? Well I think we're facing a great opportunity and at the same time a great threat. Great opportunity why? Because simply any document you reread after 25 years of operation has got to have many areas of improvement given the enormous progress that has occurred throughout the world and within the area. So there are things that are very interesting like enhancing the dispute settlement system. Like bringing together all the new technologies in the e-commerce. Like locking in transformations like energy which occurred in Mexico which is a total no-no in the first go around and which today can be locked in and many other things that can be truly enhanced and made that much more efficient, that much more enforceable and therefore that much more credible. So there's literally today 700 very talented people working practically around the clock to achieve exactly what I just said. The three teams Rick, the three teams from Canada, US and Mexico are people who have known each other for well over 30 years, know their subjects and know exactly what needs to be done. That's the good side of the opportunity. The difficult side of the opportunity and very challenging are a series of initiatives that have been put forth in the last round of negotiation which really basically go directly against the sense of competitiveness of all three countries. Not just in Mexico but of the US and of Canada. For example like trying to administer a deficit. Clearly that's not doable nor should it be the measure of success. Such as doing away with a dispute settlement that brings credibility, strength, enforceability and so on. Such as trying to link the agricultural industries of all three countries which by the way have been enormously successful. Enormously successful to cycles that are not necessarily the ones attached to weather but when one is producing and when one isn't. And so on. And then finally one that is a sunset clause which I think is now being tabled hopefully. Which is we have to redo this process every five years. Well that automatically condemns any kind of permanence and credibility for a process. So that's the bad side. The teams are working on the wall. The casting is what is so wrong. It's clear that both Mexico and the US have a distinct interest in having an efficient border. The US, the drug side, the immigration side which is so sensitive. Though it must be important to mention that there's more coming back than going over now for the last three or four years. And it's more central American than it is Mexican. But be that as it may, it's totally valid to say I want to control my borders and my immigration policy. I don't think there's any dispute on that. And the whole drug thing I won't go down that lane because it's a co-responsibility and it's so much more complicated than just a sentence. But on the Mexican side we're just as interested. There are thousands, thousands of armories selling weapons, state of the art weapons to the Mexican drug dealers right across the border. And those armories are being paid with almost 50 billion dollars of drug money flowing into the leaders of the cartels in Mexico. The combination of weapons and money obviously make the battle so much more difficult because everything is so much more affordable for them than it is in fact even for our own police to the extent that we've lost over a hundred thousand policemen in the last three or four years doing the battle. So I think that we're just as interested in that not flowing towards us and as they are in the other. And there's so many new ways to be able to control and monitor and drones and so on electronics and what have they could be such so much more efficient if we both really set our minds to it. So both things are doable, both things are threats. What is happening right now? What is happening right now is very interesting. First of all, both countries, Canada and Mexico, but I'll speak for Mexico, we're developing very carefully our plan B. Should the United States decide to leave NAFTA, where do we stand and what do we do? And we're doing that in a very, very specific, grounded fashion. We're doing it by enhancing our trade agreements. By the end of this year, we'll have a state of the art trade agreement with Europe. We're enhancing, we're rekindling the Trans-Pacific Partnership without the U.S., which is very interesting. It sounded like dead in the water, it's not. And we've improved what is called the Pacific Alliance. Beyond that, we're finding sources, sourcing for certain key products around the world, which are more than happy to come into our market and that hadn't been there. So we have a plan B. It's not the plan we wish for, but it's one we need to plan for. And so that's what we're doing on that side. I think also on the U.S. side, and I'm sure you've seen this, the reaction from our colleagues in the private sector and in the different associations in the last week from these different things has been very strong. Their role in the law being very strong, so we'll see what happens there. And then finally, we've also been very clear in drawing the line on anything that affects our non-competitiveness. Both Canada and Mexico have done that. And I think there's very much of a great possibility that that will hold and that we will overcome the situation as we're seeing it right now. Canada in turn has just finished, as I'm sure you know, a truly state-of-the-art agreement with the European Union. I mean, it is by far the most modern trade agreement to date, and it includes all the different things that I just mentioned that we would like to have in ours and should have in ours. So there's the precedent, there's the capability, and I think. And then you have, I'm sorry? I still have a minute, I think. Is that right? I think that's a countdown. Oh, I'm sorry. I get carried away with my subject, so I'm sorry about that. It's just important to see that how the private sector is reacting. If you see that the anti-dumping that was levied on Bombardier, and the immediate reaction of Bombardier being making a joint venture with Airbus means it's all about optionality. If you can't do it, one way you're going to do it another. And I think that that is very eloquent, and that speaks a world for what can be done. What do we have to do towards the future, very simply? Continue to strive for making the best deal possible, and we will continue in good faith to do so. Hold our line where we've talked about it. Define very carefully our plan B so that we're as efficient as we possibly can. I personally think that we will achieve what I'm saying we're saying. In other words, the state-of-the-art agreement. And finally, last but not least, let's see how it goes. So, inshallah.