Here's an observation. I think one consequence of the Obama election, on environmental issues, is that the inclination to sort of set the developed world off against the developing world is over. I think we've passed that phase. I don't think it's something in his mindset. And given the immense influence the Americans have on this file, because they were regarded as being recalcitrant before, I think we could have a more productive debate about moving forward together.
The question you're raising now has broader implications than simply a conversation among the three members of NAFTA. If we can find some formula that takes account of the differing situations with which these nations approach environmental questions, that could well hold some guidance for the future.
Who does this? You know who did this in acid rain? The ministers took the credit; the members of Parliament did it. There was a very active movement, led by the late Stan Darling, the MP for Parry Sound—Muskoka, but joined by several of his colleagues, who simply worked the lines all of you know, with the members of Congress and the Senate in the United States, and persuaded them that there was a real issue here. They were followed up by ministers.
In that case, I suppose because it was a different era, Foreign Affairs—External Affairs at that time—probably was the lead ministry. However, in another sense the PMO was the lead ministry—the Prime Minister was deeply engaged in that issue—and Parry Sound—Muskoka was a lead influence. These environmental issues, at least in the Canada-U.S. context, I think are international issues but also highly local, so they are almost tailor-made for collaboration among members of Congress and members of Parliament in Canada.
The Mexico side, I can't comment on. My experience doesn't apply to that.