 Those of you who follow the news, I think that should be everybody in this room, knows that we're engaged in arguably trade wars, multi-dimensional trade wars, with China and the EU and now with our NAFTA partners. It's not yet, I think, a visible issue in terms of the upcoming election. When we do polling, there aren't a lot of people thinking about tariffs. They assume that this is just a temporary debate. Maybe you guys will enlighten us as to whether you think it's a temporary debate or a long negotiation that will take longer. But at any rate, the public isn't yet seeing this as highly visible. What we know from some recent polling that have been done here at Stanford that people are not in favor of tariffs and are skeptical about these negotiations. But again, they don't know very much. And so forums like this will hopefully help people think about where they stand on these issues. One of the things to bear in mind as we think about American politics right now is that President Trump, who usually is a man who takes a lot of debt, this time has a lot of credit. He is basically riding on a cushion as a result of the tax reform and the regulatory relief. And if you like some of the market recovery that we've seen actually started in the Obama years, but it's continued. So he has credit that he's spending. He argues that all of this is for the purpose of eventually not having tariffs, but having better trade. So one of the things we want to do is explore how these positions are seen in Mexico and Canada. See what the future could be if there were negotiations about changing after, because I think we'll find out that both Mexico and Canada had some issues that they wanted to bring up, not the least of which were issues that are related to what's happened in terms of the digital economy. So there are a lot of things that we can discuss. We're very lucky today to have two distinguished speakers, one from Canada representing Canada and the other representing Mexico. We'll start with Jimmy Jose Gonzalez Lopez. I will not go through his whole bio. It's extensive and very impressive, but only to say that he's been the Council General of Mexico in San Francisco since June of 2016. So he's been here for all the turmoil or a fair amount of the turmoil since the election. And Rana Sarkar, who is also the San Francisco Silicon Valley Council General for Canada since 2017. Both of them have extensive experiences, as you can see, reading in the bios in government and in business. So we're really very lucky to have them speak. They're both going to give some opening remarks. I'll then try to engage in a Q&A with them and with each other. Hopefully they'll discuss things among themselves and then we will throw it open to the audience for your questions. So I'm not sure that we decided who wants to start. Do we start in the north or the south? Start in the north. All right. Thank you very much, Bruce, for that kind of generous introduction to the folks at the pre-court center at Stanford as well, and for all of you for being here. By this point, Hemi and I are quite used to doing this show. It's talking about NAFTA in various forms. And that amount of togetherness really goes in a long way to how much, how energized this relationship's been. We're going to try to pick it up a little bit and to introduce some energy. I know that folks might need one more dose of coffee before we get going. But the subject material is something that I think that we should all take seriously. And a lot of folks, when we started talking about NAFTA, the very mention of the word NAFTA over the last 20 years has been a bit of a swear word of sorts. It's something that it was easy to be down on because politically there was a great advantage of saying that people were against NAFTA or worried about the consequences of NAFTA. But since the deal was really put together in 1994, there really hasn't been a lot of folks out there describing what the benefits of NAFTA are. And this is not just the fact that the NAFTA trading area is 28% of the world GDP with 7% of the population, it's a trillion dollar trading agreement. I could put stats in front of you all day long, but none of those stats are really meaningful for people. Maybe this is part of the discussion that we're getting into. Bruce hinted at it and where we're at, and I want to get at this bigger conversation about the direction of trade, the direction of the social license for trade, this idea that we're in a remarkably changed world for a variety of reasons. Trade often gets the blame, but we know technology, it probably has displaced far more jobs than trade over the last couple of decades. And it's always the transitions that kill you. And we're in this extraordinary moment of transition when the new has yet to be properly defined and the old looks insufficient. And we also recognize that the institutions of the post-world order are in serious challenge right now. I think that if you were to say what are the most grievous consequences of the last few months of activity, and Bruce mentioned a trade war that's taking place, something that very few of you would probably even have contemplated as possible or meaningful a few years ago, we're in the midst of this. And what does that really mean? The institutions of the post-world order, the WTO being a significant second part of it, has brought literally billions into the world economy, generated meaningful improvement of life for many folks around this planet, has introduced the life that most of us currently live. And yet we find ourselves at a point where we are going to have to go back to first principles to really discuss the importance of truth, meaning in the value of facts in arguments, in statistics, the value of openness and the value of diversity. And I think that for all of you in the room, whatever constituency you represent, whatever interest you represent, I think you want to bring this conversation back to what sort of world order do you want to live in. Canada certainly doesn't thrive in a world order of might as right. We require, and we are wholeheartedly looking to be good actors in a world where it's a rules-based order, where openness and diversity are the coda of this next economy. We need to build on the traditions that we've had in the last 50 years that have built this prosperity to add on just at the moment when we need to grow the fastest, to make the biggest institutional moves in our lifetime, given the amount of challenges that we're up against, not just in sort of the energy transformation that's taking place, which is a significant one that you're exercised in, but also in virtually every other sphere we're talking about from artificial intelligence to autonomous, I mean we're in the midst of five co-mingled revolutions that require institutional apparatus. The substrate of what everything that you all do and we all do is a set of political institutions and a set of decisions about the world. And where we are as a country is looking to be good actors, positive actors, and we're looking to be progressive actors in the middle of that. And so I bring everything back to that original statement of what sort of world do you want to live in. Thank you. Thank you, Bruce. It's a pleasure to be with you and with my friend Rana that we have done this several times before. So let me share with you a little bit of what we have seen in the past months and in the past two years. With North America I think that the greatest news that we have had is what we call now the NAFSA, the North American Soccer Agreement. We're all on Team Mexico now. Exactly. Thank you. So it's fantastic that we're going to have the World Cup in North America. I think that was a great success in 2036. It's going to be amazing. And I think that that gives us spirit to understand that we're better together, that the world sees us as a region and as a region we're more competitive and we believe in that. So what happened some months ago, it has been very interesting. And I remember and let me share with you this story. When President Trump got elected, I was invited that day after the 9th of November, I was invited to talk at the World Affairs Council. This invitation came three weeks before and I called Mexico City, my boss, and I told them, hey, they're inviting me to speak the 9th of November, should I accept? And they told me, yes, of course, everything is going to be fine. And they, well, we had that surprise. And so that moment was the 9th of November was complicated. There was a lot of tension in the room. Of course, I had to tell my best jokes and everything too. And I'm very optimistic and I am still very optimistic. So after that, talking about NAFTA, I was invited two months after that, just few days after President Trump went into office to talk about NAFTA. And in that occasion, I asked for permission and they told me, wait, we will be present at the World Affairs Council talking about NAFTA. Actually, we did that as well with Canada at that moment. It was a Council General, Brandon Lee, at that moment. But Mexico decided to send an expert in NAFTA because we didn't know what was going to happen. And everything went well at that moment. But I just want to give you the sense of the awareness that we had about what was going to happen with NAFTA, with this administration in the US. And now this administration, what we have seen is that they don't really like multilateral agreements. We can mention a number of them that they have pulled out climate change. And now the Council of Human Rights and Iran and migration issues and UNESCO. And you can name much more. But NAFTA is still there. We have NAFTA. And that is not for free because NAFTA, as you know, it's very easy to pull out. And you can send a letter and you pull out very quickly. So it has been a lot of work of the three countries of a lot of professionals taking it very seriously. The kind of negotiations have changed a lot since the beginning through now. We have had several rounds of negotiations. So I am very optimistic. The last time that Rana and I were together talking about this, it was May. May was some weeks ago. So May was a very important month because we really thought that we could finish the negotiations of NAFTA on that month. I was very optimistic until the 31st of May. And now we are going to go in a new path. And that is because I think that we were working very, very hard because everyone knew that elections are coming, not only in the U.S. in November, but we're going to have in 15 days, we're going to have a general election in Mexico. So we're going to have not only a new president, but a new Congress. And as you know, our trade agreements also have to go through the Mexican Senate. So now I think that things are changing a little bit. I am very optimistic as well. I think that at the end this will be good news because we're not going to be in any kind of hurry or whatever. I think that negotiations will continue maybe for a longer time and maybe with more patience, looking at each item more carefully. And I am pretty sure that at the end we will have a very good agreement for the three countries. But what I am seeing at this moment is that I don't really think that it's going to be now as soon as we thought because we are having this general election in 15 days. New Congress coming in taking office the first of September. The new president will take office the first of December. So this administration in Mexico has five months to go. We are going to keep doing the negotiations, of course, and doing our best. But new guys are coming. So I think that is going to translate in new negotiations, but with a different pace. And I think at the end that will be good news because if we are negotiating NAFTA, what we have is NAFTA. I mean if any of the three countries pull out, so what we have is the agreement still. So I really think that this might go until 2019 at some point. Okay, so as in the previous panel, we sort of have a distinction between the end state where we want to go in the big picture and then the transitional issues which are so problematic from my perspective as a political scientist. But let's put the political science side aside. Let's talk about the end state. So one of the things President Trump harps on, and let's leave aside how we think about President Trump and just take his points, is well, maybe we shouldn't be negotiating three-way treaties or regional treaties. They're not working out so well in the EU. Things change very quickly. There are aspects of this we'll get into later of NAFTA that you're not particularly happy with, either one of your countries. So why go through the trouble of having a three-way negotiation? Why not bilateral negotiations between Mexico and the United States? What's lost in doing it that way? So I think that, you know, I would take issue with the idea that multilateral negotiations don't ever win. I think that, you know, if you take a longer view on the EU, I think the EU has, you know, as a 300 and some odd million population region has a lot more clout in the deals that it's doing with India, with the rest of Asia, and potentially even with the United States if it comes to that, than it would if they were individual countries. And I think that, you know, as Britain post-Brexit starts to look at its negotiations and situations, I think that's amongst trade folks. That's what, you know, I think they would come to. But then that said, the fact is that they're dividing into different types of memberships based on heterogeneous problems. Some people want to be in the currencies, some people don't. Got that, but I mean, I think that if you actually look at the broader scope of what the EU has achieved in its negotiations with its real trading partners abroad, and also with some of its near trading partners, you know, from Turkey to parts of Africa and elsewhere, I mean, I think the EU has, you know, been one of the most successful entities in terms of being able to express its trading position. So I would argue the toss in terms of whether that individual countries within that would have been more successful in making those agreements. But certainly, if you look at the case of North America, you know, if you have a worldview that ultimately, you know, if there is going to be geoeconomic competition, it's probably going to be based around, you know, this will be one of the centers of geoeconomic power. And you will probably see, you know, in Asia, another center of geoeconomic power rise up. And what type of actor do you want, and what type of coalition do you want at the center of those trading agreements? Do you need a, blocks will emerge. And if you don't have practice and you don't have the ability to put down the tracks for a successful trading block, I mean, I can tell you that if you talk to folks in Asia, and my previous role, I'd often talked to folks in China, and they would say, you know, there were two real significant things that they admired about the achievement of what North America has done in the last 20 years. And one of them was the growth of this place about the Valley, the tech corridor, the way in which technology has essentially, you know, created itself in this region and is transforming the world as a result of that. The second was the creation of an integrated supply chain. And people don't pay attention to that, it's the less sexy part. But, you know, North America, we don't, you know, sell things to each other. We build things together. We have an integrated supply chain. If you look at, you know, if Michigan and Ontario were nations that have the sixth largest trading relationship in the world, and why is that? It's because there's a automobile construction that is taking place across the border, often vehicles, you know, going back and forth three, four, five, six times before final assembly. And so we are deeply integrated. And so, and that has been a position of economic strength for North America versus a position of weakness that some might... I will add the same example exactly because the NAFTA crisis or the critics about NAFTA is the surplus that, for example, Mexico has with the U.S. But it's a surplus that we have only because of the car industry. If you take out the car industry of NAFTA, the surplus in services and in exchange of goods, it's in favour of the U.S. So the car industry is very important when we talk about NAFTA. And it's not that car industry of the U.S. is a car industry of North America. So, and it's not even that car industry, we're not talking about the U.S. companies. We are talking about also the German companies and the Japanese companies. So in the negotiations, this is not only about three countries, but the car industry as well. And it's very complicated to try to change that because if you will try, for example, to have more suppliers in the U.S. for the car industry, you have to build new industries of glass or mirrors or tires or whatever. That now we are taking advantage of these agreements, of the agreements that Mexico has, for example, with many other countries. Mexico is a country in the world that has the most international agreements. We have another 50 trade agreements in the world. So it's very complicated to try to do NAFTA better or to have bilateral conversations when the most important industry of the agreement is an industry that has to do with the three countries. So I really think that in this case, it makes a lot of sense to keep the three of them on the table or the fourth of them with the car industry on the table to try to solve this problem. Okay, so let's assume then we're all committed or, well, these two countries are committed to staying within a three-country framework. What if we didn't have Mr. Trump doing all this and we had come to your countries and said, what would you like to change about NAFTA, not only with respect to the United States, but with respect to the third partner, what would you have said prior to Mr. Trump? Let's start from the side. So in our case, I think that's a review in NAFTA. It's very important and it has been very important that there are a lot of opportunities over there. NAFTA was an agreement that was negotiated 25 years ago in a pre-digital era and in the case of Mexico, there are a lot of opportunities because the federal administration in Mexico at this moment, we did a lot of economic reforms and two of them are very important. One is a telecom reform. Now you can have 100% foreign investment in Mexico. That's one of the reasons why Mr. Carlos Slim is not the richest man in the world anymore because now we have AT&T competing with him and that's because we had these kind of reforms and that telecom sector was not part of NAFTA 35 years ago. So that's an opportunity that we're looking at. The other one is energy. We had a close market of energy and now in this administration, we had a constitutional reform. A lot of laws were modified as well so that now we can have a private market of energy in Mexico. So that is now part of the negotiations of NAFTA at this moment. Now include things that have to do with energy. So that is very important as well. So I will say that if we had the opportunity to talk about or to put something on the table, those two industries will be very important and as an example, now only of clean energy, we have hundreds of companies of the US working in Mexico, many of them actually from California. So I think that that will be... What's the problem that needs to be solved? Because that's happening. You're already transporting electricity across international boundaries into California. You're already bringing lots of companies in. So what's the problem that has to be dealt with with respect to energy and the digital economy? It's something that is happening often after. So it's something that is going on but it's not in the framework of NAFTA. And NAFTA is important for us because NAFTA gives a lot of security to many investments. The supply change, there are thoughts for many years. The chapters that tend to solve controversies and conflicts. Those are very important for us because those chapters are chapters that give a lot of investors the security that they will go invest in Mexico and if they have some kind of problem, they can use those chapters to solve any kind of legal problem that they want. Right. So I would agree with Hemi in the sense that... So there are two overall things. I mean, NAFTA was agreed in 1994, there was a... It was the successor to the Canada U.S. free trade agreement which had its own provisions and it was the first comprehensive trade agreement in our part of the hemisphere. And so it was an attempt at the beginning and it reflected the economy that was really a 1980s economy that was largely industrial that most of the aspects on the table were very traditional industries. And it excluded a lot of the industries. I mean, in the early 1990s, the internet properly hadn't been a thing at that stage and all of the digital economy world was a rumor at that stage. It wasn't part of any of the agreements and it wasn't part of the trade thinking that was taking place. And secondly, but the housing, and this is where Hemi's right, in the sense that the housing underneath the NAFTA infrastructure is very important for investment confidence. And this is why in this current negotiation, I mean, you'll hear, our government particularly has a huge issue with what something the president is trying to put forward now which is a five-year sunset clause in the agreement, which means that we're going to be back at this pretty much right away. Because five years, as we know, is not a significant period of time. Certainly not the period that countries would want to make investments on or companies would want to make investments on. But on the other hand, I mean, you admit that there were lots of changes that we didn't accommodate within the NAFTA framework. So is there a way to accommodate that? So the last round, just to give you an indication, the last round, we put a proposal on the table to have essentially an ongoing renewal component of the agreement where we would be able to look at the renewal of the agreement and making sure it was updated to reflect the changes that were required as a result of the changing economy on an ongoing basis. And I mean, so there are many ways to do that without having the sort of Damocles hanging over the agreement. And I think that that's the kind of the danger of an agreement having a sort of Damocles, as I would say, put into it, is that it undermines the real fabric of the agreement. It's like, what is it? It's predictability. You can invest here. You can ensure that you have this market that's in market access that is guaranteed for your country. And so we would think that that is an essential thing. The second thing I would say is, look, part of the reason why we're having this discussion about NAFTA, known NAFTA trade, is global trade and globalization has not delivered the goods for everyone. And let's just be frank about that. It has generated an enormous amount of prosperity, but that prosperity hasn't been evenly shared. And we haven't done anywhere near the job that we should have done in also communicating that. So there's two things that we could have done better at and we need to do better at, or we have the license to do nothing. And one of them is ensuring that that prosperity is shared. And this is why it was important for us to put forward what we'd call progressive aspects of NAFTA as well, make sure that the labor standards are brought up to date, make sure that that labor and the value of labor were reflected into that. Secondly, around gender, recognizing that in terms of the actual, if you look at just productivity in the last 30 years, a good chunk of that productivity growth in Western economies is as a result of women entering the workforce. And if we want to increase productivity, it's going to be a significant component of what we need to do over the next decades. We need to ensure that women are at the table more. And if there are provisions within our trade agreements that could encourage that, then I think that we've already seen that with some of the trade agreements that we've accomplished and certainly with the European Union, that's an avenue for doing things like that. So there's no attempt to try to redress some of the problems that have arisen for your particular country. So for example, in Mexico, I think you alluded to this, that their farming industry was hurt very badly by this agreement. Is that something that you're just willing to sort of look past going forward, especially if you get a more populist government? Is he going to be able to just say, well, we'll live with that for the sake of the surety of these trade agreements? Actually, thanks to NAFTA, our agricultural industry has improved very well. 80% of our exports come to the US, 80. And most of them are from the agricultural industry. For example, in the US, the day of the Super Bowl is the day that is the most consumed avocados in the world. Yeah, really, in Guacamole. From Mitruakan. So an acre of avocado in Mitruakan is as expensive as an acre of grapes in the wine country. So it has improved a lot. So we don't see that. We do some of the critiques that we have had and we are working on that. And it's very important. And we have to say that and address that. Address that are the wages. It's something that Mexico has to work very well there. But it has to be, it cannot be from one day to another. I mean, we cannot assign an executive order to do that because the next day the factories will go to Vietnam. So it has to be, that's one of the competitive things that North America has. And that's why we have many, many of the factories of the car industry, for example, in Mexico and not in the US. So it's something that we know that we have to improve and we have to do it in a mid-term period. It cannot be from just one day to another. But that would be outside the negotiation. Yes, but it's something that it has been on the table. I see. Canada has raised that at the US and they are writing something. But we cannot do that in a very fast or quick or immediate way. But it's something that we are looking at and it's important. Are there labor issues in Canada as well? I mean, were there people left behind the way in the United States? And how has Canada dealt with it? Are there any tips for what we can do with Michigan? I think that one of the great stories this last 25 years around trade agreements is that we have, and certainly since China's entering into the WTO in 2001, we have neglected the impact of trade agreements on the jobs, particularly in manufacturing jobs, but also in white-collar jobs at the lower end and elsewhere. And we've really neglected the trade adjustment assistance that should have gone to those areas. And often we've spent a lot of time absorbing the benefits of that. And that's often gone to large organizations, companies, elsewhere, financial markets. But not enough has gone to the people that were impacted. And I think that if there's a discourse that we need to work on in these next decades, are going to be how we're going to better invest and how we're going to bring folks to the table. And that's going to be about training. It's going to be about apprenticeships. It's going to be about working with business and working with government to make that happen. And that's the kind of housing that we need to all our trade agreements to be in, because if we don't have that social license to trade, and we're just seeing the kind of echoes of that in our political system right now. And I'll just give you a short story on this. I was driven to the cab. An Uber driver drove me to the airport two days ago. And he said to me, he goes, listen, I know you're from Canada, but let me tell you something. I voted for Barack Obama twice. And then I volunteered for Bernie Sanders. And then I became a Trump voter. And now he gets a lot of his information from YouTube. He has really delved into the civic nationalism discourse. He's somebody that is really taking the kind of nationalist America first ideology to heart. And I say this not in judgment towards him, because I say I understand the path that that voter has traveled to get where he is. And I'd say that for those of us in these rooms and those of us who have political responsibility and social responsibility as companies, we need to get very serious about that voter. And the plight that they're in. And so part of that is rebuilding the license to do trade. And so that's something that we in Canada particularly, we think about that every day. That's why we're at this table and we're trying to make it better. Now another dimension that might get folded in or might not is on the environmental side. And there have been criticisms from environmental groups of enabling shale gas exploration in Canada, the pollution that comes across the border as a result of the factories on the border and increasing commercial activity on the border and the cars just throughout Mexico. So is that something that should be in there? And if so, how does the three-way negotiation make things better? Actually NAFTA was amazing for the environmental sector in Mexico because in Mexico we did not have law enforcement institutions to apply the environmental laws that we had. And one of the conditions that Canada and the US put on the table was that we had to create the Mexican EPA. You used to have one of those here in the US. Oh, that hurts. And actually my previous job... We're the security threat. That hurts too. So actually my previous job to this one, I was a lawyer of the Profeta, the Mexican EPA. I was the Deputy General Attorney for Environmental Crimes. And I did my PhD thesis on those issues because I think that we have a common thing that has to do with energy and native North American people. So we can see that in the Standing Rock problem in North Dakota here in the US. In Mexico we have a very large indigenous population. Many of them are in the same places where we want to extract gas or oil. Canada has a large, important native population as well. So we need to understand how are we going to deal with the North American native population and things that have to do with extracting natural resources, especially energy. So for Mexico, NAFTA was important. And now I think that we have this common discussion that we need something to solve. We all know that we might not have a meeting in the mines right now in terms of energy environment policy right now between all of our NAFTA neighbors. And we, I think Canada and Mexico, have a view that was shared by maybe prior administrations and elsewhere around how we should take the global climate change challenge on. And we are going to continue to work global forums and to continue to work on our own. State governments have also been extremely useful on that. And cities are really important into this conversation as well. It's just a nation to nation to nation conversation. There are many at the table there. And the other thing is I agree with Hemi in the sense that just the civil society, the amount of institutional sharing that's taking place in the energy environment and energy side and how those tables are now conjoined is pretty remarkable. And I think that we've got committed folks at the table. We've got a chapter on energy. We've got a chapter on environment that I think that we're making progress on at the working levels. And so I think that there could be much more done in those spaces. And again, I go back to that point where a lot of the energy to please pardon the pun on that is coming at the state and local level on that file. But we're certainly committed. And I think we see commitment from our other partners as well. Well, certainly California has been a leader in that are under two MOU under Jerry Brown. We'll probably get continued under the next governor. So the last panel was on autonomous vehicles. So let's let's on this theme of how do you anticipate the future? Let's assume I'm not sure where there was pro or con in that debate. I got confused too. But let's assume that we go forward in the United States with autonomous trucks, okay, which has been a big issue in in terms of Mexico trade and whether truck drivers could come across. But let's say we get ahead of you in terms of mandating it in certain roads or certain situations. I mean, how do you anticipate issues like that? And what would because that's the kind of changes we're talking about. We're talking about really rapid evolution in smart cities and technology smart smart devices, etc. And and that's if if one country gets way ahead of the other, how do you deal with that? And I mean, I think that's the exciting part. We probably spent like 15, 20 minutes, half an hour talking about the old economy in many ways. And the energy in these sorts of rooms, the place here are about this next economy that's coming. And this is where actually I think this the housing of NAFTA slash the housing of the institutions that we built between the three countries are actually going to really come into the four. You know, what doesn't get discussed is the amount of institutional connectivity between the countries be the official between governments, but at a state to state level, but also the city to city level. And on in terms of regulatory, you know, just just cooperation, I think that you're seeing a lot more of those. And if you think about sandboxes that we need to put together for things like autonomous and working on a cross-border autonomous trucking compact, that's going to require the automotive players at the table, the OEMs is going to require, you know, various groups within government from transportation. But also to security and infrastructure and homeland security as well, which is another big component of that. And that's the other component that I'll put down. You know, I earlier in this conversation, I was talking about how if we are going to have borders, what are those borders going to look like. And one of the NORAD is now 60 years old this year. And it was, you know, constructed to protect us against a nuclear threat in another era. But that form of cooperation is what we're going to need to, A, protect ourselves and enhance ourselves in this next threat environment, which is cyber, which is looking at sort of a new global economy where we'll have different types of actors, be they sub-state or states. We're also going to have an opportunity for this regulatory cooperation to really have markets of scale where we can start to experiment. And maybe that's in something like, take an experiment like autonomous trucking, for instance, that has a cross-border component across three borders. We have this autonomous, we have the autonomous infrastructure. Our investments are already being made by OEMs and all of the aftermarket players in the automotive sector. And so we have that basis already. And so providing an off-NAFDA conversation about how we can create those regulatory sandboxes, I think, is a really important addition to the conversation that we need to be having. Well, for that, the biggest problem that we had with the trucks crossing the border and everything, it was that Teamsters Union didn't want the Mexican drivers to take their jobs and whatever. So maybe the autonomous trucks will solve it. So let me use this opportunity to tell two things. One is that about electrical vehicles. So that's an opportunity in Mexico because it has a very important pollution problem in medical cities and in some other cities. And the only way to put that down is with electric vehicles. So that's a huge opportunity for these industries that are dealing with clean energy. That's one. And the other thing that is complicated and we're really worried about is autonomous things in the agricultural sector. There, Mexico and the U.S., especially Mexico and California, will have a huge problems because we have hundreds of thousands of Mexican workers in Salinas, in Fresno, the central valleys, all of those places. And we are seeing, I am seeing in my jurisdiction in the wine country. I have seen the robots that cut perfectly well the grapes and people are losing jobs because of that. So what is going to happen to all those people? So that's an issue, it's a common issue. Okay, I think this is the time to open it up to the audience. Does anybody want to, here we go. First question. Yes, so that we can all hear it. Thank you. I have a question to all three of you. One is a statistic. This is actually two questions. One is a statistic that I just read last week. And I always ask myself whether it was true or not. And that is that the statistic says that in the manufacturing sector, because of the cheaper labor in Mexico particularly, the U.S. lost over the 25 years, there's something like 17% of the manufacturing jobs. And that of course was mentioned by candidate Trump many times. Okay, that's the first question. The second question has to do with the Keystone XL because that is one where Canada might benefit more than the world as a whole. So I'd like to have those two questions answered. Okay, well we had a candidate in Mexico who wants to go first? Well, I can go for the job question. Today, thanks to NAFTA, thanks to the trade that Canada, the U.S. and Mexico, in the U.S., we have 14 million jobs. And there are places, for example, 85% of the rice that Arkansas produces is bought by Mexico. So whole towns in Arkansas, Trump orders, depends on the trade with Mexico. The first international partner of 25 states of the 50 is Mexico. The first international partner of the city of Detroit is Mexico. I think that measuring those numbers just like that is very complicated if you do not see the whole picture of all the jobs that this agreement has created in Mexico, in the U.S. and in Canada. I'll just go for that. I mean, I think that we have to look up a bigger picture and see all the jobs that have been created thanks to NAFTA in the U.S. And all the good things that it has done in many parts of the country. Yeah, the only, what I will say about Keystone is, you know, it's gone through a long evolution. And what I would say about Keystone is that it's part of a much bigger and broader conversation on the global patterns of oil, obviously, that has evolved. And let's see what the next 24 months, 36 months in terms of the demand patterns and also in terms of, you know, what other options would be available for the shipment of that product to port ultimately. As many of you know that, so Canada, we recognize that we're in the midst of energy transition. We like the United States and Mexico are carbon producers and we're emitters and we have an industry that, you know, we all want to ensure that we're working towards energy transition. But, you know, we're also committed to making sure that we have an efficient production process in between now and then. And also a environmentally conscious one. And so if you, one of the, often the discussion comes back to our the Athabasca oil sands. And for us and what I would say to that is that, you know, the Athabasca oil sands has, you know, been, you know, a site of also great innovation over the last several decades. The actual carbon intensity of the barrels produced there has come down significantly and is competitive globally with other competitors. And what I would say is that we all have to work together in terms of the energy grid in North America. We started this conversation with a conversation about Mexico in that context. You know, in terms of the productions of hydrocarbons, we need to in this midst of this transformation, this unprecedented transformation. And we can argue the toss in terms of how fast that transformation is going to be. We're going to have to work together on the next phase of that strategy. The other piece that I would also mention in terms of the cooperation though is around the electricity grid. And I think that, you know, what one thing that people do forget is that we also have a conjoined electricity grid. And we need to look at that from, you know, as in the transition in the context from distributed energy to, you know, grid energy, the implications of storage in that and also security. And I think that that's a site of significant conversation that, you know, often gets overlooked in the context of the hydrocarbon discussion. Well, if there's nothing else out there, I'll ask another question. Oh, right here. Where? Okay, you see it? Yeah. Well, let's just get one started here. Yeah, there's lots of them over here. I'm right. So I want to find out how secure is NAFTA and because of the trade wars will be pulled out. I mean, how strong is the NAFTA agreement? Is there any chance that there will be trade wars? Well, I mean, there's always a chance. So the question, let's repeat the question, the question is how strong is NAFTA and how is susceptible is it to the trade war? Well, you need any country can pull out with a six month notice essentially. But I, you know, I'm of the view and maybe it's an optimistic view that I think that in absence of something significant happening, I think that the inclination is not to pull out for most of the parties right now. I think we've got goodwill and intent to continue in the negotiations as Hemi was saying. So there's, you know, in the midst of this, you know, all of the stuff that we're hearing about NAFTA and trade, there's also a very professional table of discussion that's taking place that, you know, I'm great hope for. I agree. I mean, I don't know what is going to happen in the general election in Mexico in 15 days, but I am pretty sure that the same guys that are sitting at the table at this moment will keep with the negotiation. So I am very optimistic as well. Okay, over here. My question has more to do with the Paris Accord and climate change goals and objectives. And we are at an energy summit to vote it to this topic. And I've heard both of you talk about oil extraction and how that's increased with NAFTA, how a lot of that is imported into the United States. And I've heard earlier, you know, when we first started this summit earlier this morning, you guys mentioned that over 80% of our energy consumption is still in oil. And that really hasn't changed for 30 years. What is it that Canada and Mexico can contribute through NAFTA or otherwise to address this energy issue that continues to be a global consequence, not just for the United States, but for the countries as well. And then my second question has to do with indigenous populations, because I'm sure you understand that for the last 20 or so years, those who are concerned about the environment concern also very much about human health in the environment and the impact of human beings. And indigenous populations promote a sustainable lifestyle and are very much part of what makes North America, North America, it's very unique in that way. And they have been, at least statistically, statistics have shown, impacted by oil extraction, as you've mentioned. What are you doing quantitatively to address that moving forward? So let me answer this in three parts. First, climate change and the commitment that we have. For us, that is a very serious, serious issue because Mexico has a privileged geography. We are a bridge. We connect with the two oceans. And that is also a threat in environmental issues. So the countries that have the most impact of hurricanes in the world are the Philippines and us. And actually, five years ago, we had, for the first time in history, two hurricanes hitting at the same time Ingrid and Manuel, that they destroyed completely, Acapulco, that was awful. And also, three years ago, we had, you know, that the highest rate for hurricanes is five points. We had one that measured six for the first time in history, and that one was going to hit Puerto Vallarta. Unfortunately, before that, it came down and the mountains that surround Puerto Vallarta saved the city. So climate change for us, it's really a very important issue. And that's why as Bruce was saying, talking about the MOU under two MOU, actually my first day in office here in San Francisco, I had the chance to announce that the Mexican President was the first national government that was endorsing the effort of Governor Jerry Brown here in California. So we have a very strong commitment into that. Now, energy in Mexico has to do with oil. I think that for the US is very important. Five years ago, I had the opportunity to be in a meeting. I used to work for the Department of Communications and Transportation in Mexico. I handled the international relations there. And there was a meeting with Vice President Joe Biden. And he was telling us that for the US, our energy reform was as important as the US migration reform for us. So it was like the same thing. Well, we did our job. We reformed our energy sector. We opened our energy sector for private investments. And we're having a lot of American companies coming to get advantage of that. We're still waiting for the US part to do the migration thing. It's not getting very nice, but well. And the third part with indigenous groups, as I was saying, for me it was a very important issue. So Mexico has something very unique and important that the US, they don't, is that we recognize the jurisdiction of the Inter-American Court of Justice. And we don't only recognize the jurisdiction of the court, but we recognize the sentences that give advice that we were not part in the litigation. So for example, if Paraguay, the government of Paraguay has an important litigation of an indigenous group in Paraguay, and the court responds with some measures to protect the human rights of that indigenous group, automatically those recommendations can be brought to a Mexican court as well. So those recommendations are obligatory to Mexico as well. So Mexico is under a lot of pressure, the Mexican institutions, to take care, properly care of our indigenous groups, because we have a lot of international pressure because of that. So we have this EPA in Mexico, we have a special commission for indigenous groups. They talk together. And we are having this conversation so that the rights of the indigenous people will not get violated when we extract natural resources. I think we'll give Rana a final word on this because we've got to wrap it up. So Aboriginal inclusion into both the process of how we make decisions and extractive industries particularly, but also in terms of justice for Aboriginal communities in general is something that's been at the heart of, certainly our Prime Minister takes it to heart and has been at the heart of many of the things that he's done since he's been in government. And particularly if you connect that to the energy conversation in Canada, for instance, we've had extensive conversations about pipeline extensions to new project approvals that have had Aboriginal groups at the table from the very beginning. And in fact, the template for the discussion that Canada has set up is something that globally is now becoming more and more acknowledged. And in fact, tomorrow I'm leaving right after this to go to Canada for a discussion of our NAFTA Council. And on that NAFTA Council with me is the Grand Chief of the Assembly of First Nations, Perry Belgard, who's at the NAFTA table because we are proposing an Aboriginal chapter, Indigenous chapter into the NAFTA agreement itself. And partly as a recognition of we need to not just create the license, but we need to create the energy and the inclusion of the Indigenous perspective in order to make our way forward. So I think that's a big issue. And in terms of the broader conversation about how we get to the Paris 23rd targets, we are committed to getting to 100% of those targets. In fact, my friend Catherine McKenna, who is the Environment and Climate Change Minister, you'll note it's in the first time in that title. She was a key actor in coming to that Paris discussion. But we are absolutely committed to making that energy transition happen. We recognize the responsibility of governments like Canada and Western governments in making sure that happens at a global scale. And in the midst of that, we're doing everything from putting a price on carbon, making sure that there is a price on carbon, a national price on carbon. Although our provincial governments have the responsibility of coming up with the plan of how to do it, but there is a floorp that our national government will set. So there are a variety of mitigating standards. Also, we've joined with the government of the UK on the Powering Pass Coal Alliance, which is about getting the world off of coal, which I think is a significant first step. But this discussion of how we bring the renewables world into existence is something that I think that we need to spend a lot more time and energy. We've been a leader in that as a country, but we'd also like to ensure that a lot of the discussion goes into the renewables space as well. Well, speaking of time and energy, we're out of time, but you guys provided a lot of energy. So thank you very much.