Well, thank you very much, everybody. A question was asked just a little while ago about supporting the people protesting in Iran and are going through a very tough period. And we do support them totally and have supported them from the beginning. The question was asked: "Do we support them" -- I thought -- "financially?" And we haven't supported them. I don't know that we've ever been actually asked to support them, financially. And I -- you know, if somebody asked, maybe we would. But we support them very, very seriously. The people that are protesting in Iran, they're looking for their freedom, and we are fully in support of them. So I wanted to -- just in case anybody had any questions. We haven't been asked to support them, financially, which I assume that's what the question was. But just to make sure everybody understood it. It's an honor to be with a friend of mine who just had a great election victory. Congratulations. Thank you, Donald. And done a very good job. And we actually have a very good relationship and a good relationship, in terms of our countries. We're working on the USMCA. We're trying to get Nancy Pelosi to put it up for a vote. You know, if it gets put up for a vote, it passes. But, so far, she hasn't decided to do that. It's up to her. It's actually -- a single individual has the -- the Speaker of the House -- it's that person's decision, and she's the Speaker of the House. And it's a great deal for Mexico and for Canada and for the United States. And it's a lot of jobs for everybody, and it replaces a deal that's really a lousy deal, a bad deal, for -- I can tell you -- I can't refer to you, but I would say, for the United States, that the deal that we have right now is terrible -- NAFTA. Terrible. Been a terrible deal for the United States. So we look forward to being able to vote on -- take the vote on USMCA. It's been there for a long time. And at some point, perhaps the President of Mexico -- we have a wonderful man there, you know. He really is. He's been a wonderful man. They'll get tired and the Prime Minister will get tired and he'll say, "Look, let's forget this deal." And I could understand it if you did. It's been sitting in Congress now for six or seven months. And it's a great deal for everybody. So, hopefully, they can get it done and get it done fast. And it's one of the few transactions, I think, where all three countries benefit, really, as a unit against the world, if you look at it. It really is a unit against the world. And that's the way we looked at it right from the beginning. So we hope that's the case. Again, congratulations. We're going to be talking about a number of subjects, including additional trade to that, and the military and the military presence. And it's great being at NATO. We had some real success, I think, and some very successful talks having to do with NATO. As you know, a lot of the countries have stepped up and they're putting in at least 130 -- probably the exact number is $131 billion -- more. And that's great. And they have commitments for $400 billion. So it really has become a force. And as we've discussed in the past, there's going to be great flexibility shown now with NATO. We can go to other parts of the world, not just one focus; it's a lot of focuses. And we need a lot of focuses. We need a lot of focus. We'll be looking at other forms of terror. We'll be looking at other countries. We'll be looking at countries that are aggressive, and not just one particular part of this world. So, I think NATO has become a very big factor over the last two or three years. You've been involved. I've been involved. And a lot of good things have happened. And it's great to have you here. Thank you very much. Thank you. Congratulations. Thank you. It's a real pleasure to be sitting down with President Trump. The relationship between Canada and the United States is incredibly strong. I don't think it's ever been stronger. Our work together on the USMCA, as we move forward towards ratification, has been really tremendous. It's been -- it's been a great process working with -- between your team and our team, working with the Mexicans, as well. We know that we're here for NATO -- the 70th anniversary, extremely important. The American strength in ensuring that people are stepping up, in terms of their military investments, is certainly something we've recognized in Canada. We're increasing our defense investments by 70 percent over these 10 years because we know that making sure that everyone is there to step up and deliver is really important. We have an enhanced forward battle group in Latvia. We're leading the command mission in Baghdad. Canadians are a strong part of this Alliance, and we'll continue to be. But this is just a great opportunity for me to sit down with the President and talk about the many issues in which we align and we work together. [Speaks in French, No translation provided] That sounded very good. [Laughter] Any questions, please? Yeah. Mr. President, climate change is a top priority for the Prime Minister here, as well as for President Macron earlier. We've not heard you talk about it on this trip, and it doesn't appear to be on your agenda. Are you thinking about that issue? And why is it not -- I think about it all the time, Phil. And, honestly, climate change is very important to me. And, you know, I've done many environmental impact statements over my life. And I believe in -- I believe very strongly in very, very crystal clear, clean water and clean air. That's a big part of climate change. I also see what's happening with our oceans, where certain countries are dumping unlimited loads of things in it. They float -- they tend to float toward the United States. I see that happening, and nobody has ever seen anything like it, and it's gotten worse. But, no, it's very important to me also. But I want clean air and clean water. That would be number one and number two. Very important. Yes. Are you concerned about rising sea levels at all, sir? You know, I'm concerned about everything. But I'm also concerned about nuclear proliferation, which I think is a very important topic, and it's a topic that we're going to discuss today. I'm -- you know, the whole situation with nuclear, to me, is very, very important, as we've been discussing today at the various meetings that we've had. I think that's something that has to be taken care of and it has to be dealt with very strongly. Okay? Mr. President, are you happy with Canadian defense spending as it is right now? Say it? Are you happy with Canadian defense spending as it is right now? Well, they're moving up, and they're moving up substantially. And they're starting to do very well, economically. And that has something to do with it. And, yeah, they're getting up to a level that's getting to be very acceptable. They have been under the 2 percent, obviously, but they're moving up. We discuss it. I'm satisfied with it. Do you plan to discuss Huawei, Mr. President? Excuse me? Do you plan to discuss Huawei? We'll discuss that. Yes, we'll discuss that. We'll be discussing that, yes. What's your message to the Prime Minister about Huawei and using it in the next generation of cell phone networks in Canada? Well, we find a security problem with it. And, you know -- and Canada is going to make a decision at some point. But we find -- I just speak for the United States, and we have ability to do a lot of things. We've actually advanced very far on 5G -- much further than anyone really knows. Ajit Pai has headed it up, and he's very good. And we have a lot of -- a lot of action going on, with respect to 5G. We're not using Huawei. And we're -- we're really -- some of the -- some of our great companies are getting much involved with 5G right now. But, no, we find a tremendous security problem with respect to Huawei. Mr. President, on the nuclear issue: Your comments a little earlier about Russia -- the governments of Russia and China trying to come to the table on some sort of agreement on nuclear nonproliferation -- your description of those conversations that you've had with those leaders doesn't really mesh with what they've said publicly. I was hoping you might be able to elaborate when was the last time you -- Is not what they said publicly? Yeah. Can you talk about when -- Well, look, we've had -- we've had discussions and we've also had communications. And I can tell you, on behalf of both, they'd like to see something done with it. Now, does that mean they'll agree to do some- -- I'm the one that terminated the agreement. And I terminated it because they were not living it -- up to it. And we don't want to be living up to an agreement and they don't. And so it wasn't fair. But it was also a very obsolete agreement. You know, it covered things that, frankly, didn't matter anymore. We are looking at doing a new agreement with Russia, and we're looking at doing a new agreement with China. And maybe the three of us will do it together. And they do want to do it. I can tell you that, with China, we were at a trade meeting, and the subject -- I broached the subject, and they were very excited about it. No, they'd like to do it. We may do it with Russia first and then go to China, or we may to it altogether. Or it may not happen. I mean, to be honest with you, maybe it won't happen. But we are spending a lot of money on nuclear. And we have new nuclear and we have tremendous renovations of our older capability. And I have to tell you, I see the kind of damage that we're talking about and the kind of power that we have, and it's a very -- it would be a very sad day if we ever had to use it. It's a very good thing if we could do something to stop making that, fixing that. We'll see what happens. Now, there are other countries. But, in terms of the world, we're number one, by far. Russia is number two. And China would be number three. China is not -- you know, China will be pretty even over a period of four or five years. But it's a tremendous expense for them and for us -- for everybody. The destructive capability is really unacceptable. So we'll see if we can do something. I think Russia and I think China would like to do it very much. President Trump, on NATO spending, you called member countries and the Allied countries in the past "delinquent" for not meeting the 2 percent standard. Where would you put Canada in that, as they're not -- Slightly delinquent, I'd say -- Canada. But they'll be okay. I have confidence. Just slightly delinquent. But, no, some are major delinquent. Some are -- some are way below 1 percent, and that's unacceptable. And then, if something happens, we're supposed to protect them, and it's not really fair. And it never has been fair. And they're paying up -- we are talking to Germany tomorrow. And they're -- they are starting to come along. They have to. They have to. Otherwise, if they don't want to, I'll have to do something with respect to trade. So Canada is okay for now? And with trade, I have all the cards. We've built a -- we have built something in the last three years that's been incredible. You've seen it. We're up $21 trillion, and China is down about $32 trillion. And as you know, for years, I've been hearing that it was "2019." "In 2019, China's going to become the largest economy." Well, that didn't happen. We're much larger than China now, because we've gone up and they've gone down. And they've had their worst year in 56 or 57 years now. By far, they've had the worst year that they've had, that they know of. And -- and we don't want that, frankly. But what they were doing was wrong. And I think they're going to stop it. And they want to -- and they want to make a deal very badly. Yes. On that question, would you commit -- if there's a country that's "delinquent," as you put it, in paying for their defense spending, will you commit, as President of the United States, to defend them if they were attacked? Well, you know, I'm going to be discussing that today. And it's a very interesting question, isn't it? And, you know, it also depends on what your definition of "delinquent" is. For instance, if you have a country that's paying only 1 percent -- and you have some that are paying less than 1 percent, and they shouldn't be -- you have some that are paying less than 1 percent, and they're wealthy countries, on top of everything. Now we go to a new year, and they don't pay. And now we go to yet another year, and they don't play. Well, now, I ask you: Do they have to pay for the back years? Okay? Now, so why is it that they owe us for this year, but every time a new year comes out, they don't have to pay? It's wrong. It's not right. So, I mean, you have -- I could say that you could go back 25 years. I won't do that with Canada, of course. But, no, but you could go back -- you can go back, you know, right from the beginning, where they were short of whatever goal it was at the time. It's 2 percent now. Two percent is very low. It should be 4 percent. Two percent is very low. But you have some that are well short of that. But they were short of it last year, the year before, the year before, the year before, right? So they're short all these years. Well, in theory, you don't just say, "That's okay. You don't have to have ever pay." I mean, they really owe all that money from the past. That's the way I look at it. If Germany, as an example, is paying 1 percent and they're supposed to be paying 2 percent -- you're talking about billions of dollars -- well, that means that last year, the year before, the year before -- all of those years, they would owe us money. You're talking about -- really, you're talking about trillions of dollars. Nobody has ever brought that up. They just keep talking about the present. So if they're short one year, and then you go into the new year, they never talk about the year that they didn't pay. But they actually, in theory, owe us that money. It's not fair. It's not fair. Mr. President, just regarding China. When you met the Prime Minister in June, you talked about being -- or trying to help with the two prisoners that are Canadians, that are in China. Yeah. Have you made any -- Well, I have. And I think we've made progress. And I had mentioned that to President Xi, as you know, because it was a big subject at the time. And I just hope they're be treated well. But I put in a very, very strong word for those two prisoners. There's still more to do. Now, I haven't spoken to him recently, to be honest with you. I don't think he likes me so much anymore, but that's okay. So, Mr. President, Canada does not meet the 2 percent standard. Should it have a plan to meet the 2 percent standard? Well, we'll put them on a payment plan, you know? We'll put Canada on a payment plan, right? I'm sure the Prime Minister would love that. What are you at? What -- what is your number? The number we talk about is a 70 percent increase over these past years, including -- and for the coming years -- including significant investments in our fighter jets, significant investments in our naval fleets. We are increasing significantly our defense spending from previous governments that cut it. Okay, where are you now, in terms of your number? We're at 1.35 [Inaudible] 1.3. 1.4 1.4. And we're continuing to move forward. They'll get there. They're getting there. They've -- they've -- they know it's important to do that. And their economy is doing well. They'll get there quickly, I think. And look, it's to their benefit. And the President knows well, as well, that Canada has been there for every NATO deployment. We have consistently stepped up, sent our troops into harm's way. We're leading in Iraq. We're leading in NATO -- in Latvia. We continue to step up, like -- like most of our Allies. There are some countries that, even though they might reach the 2 percent, don't step up nearly as much. And I think it's important to look at what is actually being done. And the United States and all NATO Allies know that Canada is a solid, reliable partner. We'll continue to defend NATO and defend our interests. And we do have tremendous coordination with radar, with all of the different things that, you know -- technologically, we have tremendous coordination between Canada and the United States. So, that's good. Yes. Mr. President, to turn back to impeachment, you met with Clinton advisor Mark Penn last month. What did you learn from that meeting? And what advice are you getting on impeachment? We are winning so big. We had our biggest fundraising month ever. We've had -- last quarter was unbelievable. I have my best poll numbers that I've ever had. The impeachment hoax is going nowhere. The Republican Party has never been so unified as it is right now. I have never seen anything like it. You know, I used to tell you -- I said: The one thing -- the Republicans are better politicians, they have better policies. But the Democrats do stick together. The Democrats like open borders. They like sanctuary cities. They like a lot of things that are not good. But they do stick together. Well, the Republican Party, on this whole impeachment hoax has been like glue, because they know it's a hoax. It's a way of hurting the Republican Party -- beyond me. It's a way of trying to hurt the Republican Party and a lot of great people. And the -- the people aren't standing for it. And a lot of these Democrats went back over the weekend and over the last week and a half -- you know, they talk about how -- how much of an emergency everything is and then they go away for two weeks. They went back to their districts and they are getting hammered in their districts. I mean, I see what's going on, especially the Trump districts where I won by a lot. I have districts where I won by a lot. You people know it better than anybody. And we had a lot of great elections recently. We had the two big victories in North Carolina, I told you before. We had -- in Kentucky, we won everything other than the governorship. And the governor I brought up almost 19 points. He won by just -- he lost by just a few votes. And Louisiana was a long shot. It was less than 1 percent. He came up 12 or 14 points -- a lot. We've -- and we won everything else. And we won everything else -- and, by the way, in Mississippi, we won the governorship. Very close race. And it was tied going in two days before. I went up, we made a speech. We had a rally, and he won by a lot. And we have a wonderful governor in Mississippi, and everybody else won. So, other than the two races. But they both -- both candidates went up a lot. We have never had the spirit that we've had. I really believe -- I think I can honestly say I don't think we've ever had the spirit that we have right now in the Republican Party. And the impeachment hoax is what's done it. So, that's the way it is. But you people -- you know what? Honestly, I think you people know that better than I do. Please. Mr. President, the Dow is down more than 400 points right now, in part over the comments you made earlier in this room about the China trade deal extending past 2020. That's okay. Well, it's up -- let me tell you, we took it up -- it was about at 16,000 or 15,000, and now it's almost at 30,000. It's going to be at 30,000. No, I have to tell you, if it's not going to be a good deal, I'm not signing a deal. It's peanuts compared to what -- we have picked up record numbers in our stock markets. So, that's okay. I mean, that's the way I feel. I have to make the right deal. I'm not going to make a deal that's not going to be great for our country. And it can't be an even deal. If it's an even deal, it's no good, because China -- other Presidents and leaders of our country have really let us down because they let China get away with -- get away with something that should have never been allowed to happen. Billions and billions of dollars a year were lost in dealing with China, by -- by foolish people, or by people that didn't care or by people that didn't know how. We rebuilt China. And I give China great credit. And I don't even blame China because our people should have done what they did. But what they've done is -- we've lost $150 billion, then $200 billion, then $400 billion to China. They rebuilt China with the money that they took out of the United States. And that's where they were and that's where it is. And now we're taking in billions of dollars in tariffs. And, by the way, they're eating it. You know, remember, you used to tell me how it will cost us -- they're eating that money because they don't want to lose their supply chains. And I don't want them to lose their supply chains, but if it happens, it happens. And that's where it is. They want to make a deal, but I like the deal that we have, and the deal that we have could get even better. And I could do it all by myself. So we'll see what happens. We're at a critical stage. They've called us today and they've called us yesterday. We're having ongoing discussions. And we'll see what happens. But if the stock market goes up or down -- I don't watch the stock market. I watch jobs. Jobs are what I watch. I watch making the proper deal. We've been taken advantage of, the United States, by China for so many years at numbers that if you were doing this, you wouldn't have believed it. I came in, I looked at numbers for -- I mean, ever since the founding of the China's entrance into the World Trade Organization, the WTO, the numbers are astronomical that we've given to China, because of Presidents that didn't know, didn't care, or weren't smart. So that's over. As to whether or not we make a deal: They want to make a deal. We'll see what happens. Mr. President, a point of clarification on your answer earlier where you talked about the "delinquent" countries and whether you would commit to defending them if they were attacked. In your answer, does that signal that you're wavering about Article 5 of the NATO Charter? It doesn't signal anything. Is that something you're contemplating? It's just that when a country is delinquent -- they don't pay -- and then something happens -- now, usually, we look at it as a group, and I think I have to look at it as a group, Phil. So I would look at it as a group. But I think it's very unfair when a country doesn't pay. So, most likely, I'd do something with respect to trade. But that's one of the things we'll be discussing today. I have to look at it as a group. You can't say, "Well, gee, this country sitting right in the middle is delinquent" -- they're not paid -- and something happens to that country. I think it's an unlikely circumstance, but I would do something having to do with trade much more so than what you're suggesting. Back to impeachment -- back to impeachment for a second. Is it your belief now that there will be a Senate trial, sir? I have no idea. I think they're making a mistake if they do that, but that's okay. If they do it, they do it. I think it's a disgrace. I think the Democrats should be ashamed of themselves. If you look at impeachment -- and the word "impeachment" -- here, there was nothing wrong. Nothing done wrong. It was a perfect conversation with a very nice gentleman, the President of Ukraine. The conversation was perfect. It was two conversations; they were both perfect. They were transcribed. They were both perfect. And this is what you're going to impeach the President of the United States on? The Republicans have never been stronger, never been more unified. The Democrats have gone crazy. And you know what? They have to be careful, because when the shoe is on the other foot, and some day -- hopefully in a very long, distant future -- you'll have a Democrat President and you'll have a Republican House, and they'll do the same thing, because somebody picked an orange out of a refrigerator and you don't like it, so let's go and impeach him. It's no good. That's not the way our country is supposed to be run. Mr. President, have you selected a new site for the G7 Summit next year? We really have. And I think it's been more or less announced. We're going to do it at Camp David. And we'll be doing some very special things at Camp David. It's nearby. It's close. We're going to give very good access to the press. You'll have great access. And we'll have a little bit of a Washington, I think, deliverance. We're going to have -- but it will be Camp David, which is a place that people like. [Inaudible] that your decision to leave Syria and leave the Kurds will affect NATO Allies [Inaudible] -- No, not only have we not left the Kurds, we're working with the Kurds. We have a very good relationship with the Kurds. And we've taken the oil. I've taken the oil. We should have done it in other locations, frankly, where we were. I can name four of them right now. But we've taken the oil. And that oil is what -- what they lived off of. And that was going to be taken away from them, but now our great soldiers are right around the oil. We're -- we've got the oil. But if we didn't have it, they wouldn't be able to survive. The Kurds wouldn't be able to survive. In the impeachment inquiry, you've maintained, in a number of these sessions today, that you've done nothing wrong in your conduct with Ukraine. Why won't you permit the Secretary of State or the Acting White House Chief of Staff to testify on your behalf? Well, I would. I'd like them to testify. But these are very unfair hearings. And this gives these unfair, witch-hunt hearings -- as an example, I just heard today, they get three constitutional lawyers -- it's all nonsense; they're just wasting their time -- and we get one. Okay, now nobody has to know anything about constitutional law, but they get three and we get one. Uh, that's not sounding too good. But that's the way it is. For the hearings, we don't get a lawyer. We don't get any witnesses. We want Biden. We want the son, Hunter. Where is Hunter? We want the son. We want Schiff. We want to interview these people. Well, they said, "No, you can't do it. We can't do it." So when it's fair -- and it will be fair in the Senate. I would love to have Mike Pompeo. I'd love to have Mick. I'd love to have Rick Perry and many other people testify. But I don't want them to testify when this is a total fix. You know what a fix is? This is a fix. Just think of it: Tomorrow -- I don't think anybody is going to watch -- I'm not going to watch, but I'm going to be doing this; it's much more exciting. But you know what? Tomorrow -- think of it -- they get three constitutional lawyers and we get one. That's not even smart, because it's not going to matter. And they take three and they give us one. Who ever heard of anything like that? No, but I want them to testify, but I want them to testify in the Senate where they'll get a fair trial. What do we want to learn from the Adam Schiff testimony? From which? From Adam Schiff. I learn nothing from Adam Schiff. I think he's a maniac. What would you -- what would you want to learn if he testifies? I think Adam Schiff is a deranged human being. I think he grew up with a complex, for lots of reasons that are obvious. I think he's a very sick man and he lies. Adam Schiff made up my conversation with the President of Ukraine. And one of the reasons people keep talking about it is that's what they saw. We have a perfectly beautiful, three-to-four-page transcription, and then, in the other case, a two-page transcription of the conversation. But a lot of people didn't read that. How many people call you -- a friend of mine called up -- a top person in New York called up, great friend of mine, very successful: "Gee, I didn't like what was said." I said, "Oh, where did you see it? Did you read it?" "No, I didn't read it. I heard Adam Schiff give it." I said, "Well, that's not what was said." And I sent him a copy of what was said. He said, "This is like -- this is great. This isn't what he said." This guy is sick. He made up the conversation. He lied. If he didn't do that in the halls of Congress, he'd be thrown into jail. But he did it in the halls of Congress, and he's given immunity. This is a sick person. He's a liar. And, by the way, Nancy Pelosi knew he was lying and she went on a show -- Stephanopoulos -- and she said he told the truth. So she was lying too. These people are deranged. Okay, anybody else? Mr. Prime Minister, the President has suggested that Canada might pull out of USMCA if the U.S. Congress doesn't ratify a deal. Have you ever made that suggestion directly to the President? We've had lots of great conversations about how we're going to keep moving forward to benefit workers in all three of our countries and we are very confident that we're going to be able to get there. I know Ambassador Lighthizer and Deputy Prime Minister Freeland and the Mexican negotiators are engaged very closely on this issue. We've very, very hopeful that we're going to have good news -- news, soon. [Speaks in French, no translation provided] [Speaks in French, no translation provided] Mr. Prime Minister, is it your plan to have discussions about Turkey and its role in NATO with your meeting with the President? I think there's a range of discussions that we're going to have during this meeting. I look forward to having an opportunity to chat with the President -- That will come up in the meeting. Yeah. -- on a range of things. But including -- including the various challenges and reflections we have to have on how we move forward as NATO and how we make sure that we're responding to the real challenges the world sees right now. And do you have any plan to talk about the extradition of Meng Wanzhou? We will absolutely be bringing up -- bringing up the issue of China and the detained Canadians. Okay? Thank you very much, everybody.