Thank you, Mr. Chair.
At the beginning of my remarks, which was an hour and a half ago already, I was really talking about the principle. I still agree with that principle.
I obviously learned that the agreement in principle was public, although I had read it on July 22. So I've had an hour, and I must admit that I didn't listen to all the speeches, but I can tell you that I've been working very hard to unpack the agreement.
It is perfectly normal to want to get to the bottom of this. I also have some questions that I'm sure my colleagues won't be able to answer.
For example, article 1 provides for payments equal to 50% of net revenues—that's correct, we know that—for the first 15 fiscal years with no conditions on debt repayment. Yes, that contradicted what had previously been indicated. That's one point. What information do we have today? It's not enough. Yes, article 1, if you read it, is specific. It really focuses on the first 15 years, but it doesn't define net revenues without reference to capital. In addition, it puts those payments outside the 2012 framework, even though we're being told that the 2012 agreement remains intact. I'll continue for a bit. I don't understand. That's not what I see. So, on reading it, it's clear that these payments will go on for 15 years. That's fine. We understand that.
There is another interpretation that is legally possible, but it has to be confirmed by implementation arrangements. When it comes to risk management and the management of public funds, audit information is needed. For example, what is the exact date of the first payment to the U.S. fund? When is it due? We don't know. Does the repayment of Canadian contributions constitute a deduction when calculating net revenues? We don't know. Why does article 1 not mention the condition publicly announced by the Prime Minister regarding the full repayment of the debt? Will the payments be made by the Windsor-Detroit Bridge Authority or directly by the federal treasury? I have so many questions. For example, if the U.S. refuses to adjust tariffs, will that have to be justified and reasonable?
I see four major problems with the agreement. I did a cursory analysis in the last hour. There is a possible discrepancy between the Prime Minister's statements and the published text. We want to know more. That is perfectly legitimate. The priority given to Canadian taxpayers' repayments, as planned in 2022, could have a negative economic impact. The United States has been granted the power to approve certain toll decisions. I think it is very much in our interest to find out more about that. My final point is that we want to know what legal and financial instruments need to be defined to measure enforceability and real costs. My colleague spoke about this earlier.
In view of all that, we really need to meet to discuss the matter. Now, as far as this motion is concerned, there was an amendment, which is what we're talking about now. However, I would go even further. If we can reach an agreement to shed light on the situation for our constituents, I think we can achieve this by the middle of summer. I spent many hours working here in Parliament throughout July 2020. I have no problem sitting through the summer, but I'm very aware that we can plan and we can give the government time to do its homework and be accountable. In addition, the Parliamentary Budget Officer will be able to provide us with information, and the ministers concerned will also be able to attend. This is a proposal. I think it could be a win-win for everyone.
Otherwise, we'll be packing up and heading home three minutes from now. The opposition members won't get any answers, and the government will go into hiding, precisely because it doesn't have all the answers. Negotiations often happen very quickly.