Mr. Speaker, I do not know where to begin. The member has left so many doors open to make counter-arguments.
First, he must understand that the NAFTA side agreement was a valiant attempt to overcome a glaring weakness in the original Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement. The weakness in the agreement was that the exemption for water that had been put in initial drafts of it was later removed by the Mulroney government.
In fact, it was done by the Prime Minister's Office at the time, no doubt, without the knowledge of the international trade minister, who is now a senator. She was asked at a press scrum whether Canada's water was protected. She said, “Of course, we have an exemption in the agreement”, and then was told it was no longer there. There is something going on beneath the surface, if everyone will excuse the pun.
Second, the United States does not think much of these agreements, quite frankly. The U.S. State Department considers such side agreements non-binding and merely “gentlemen's agreements”.
And third, we do not even know if it is signed. We have never seen a signed copy of this so-called exemption, which is nothing more than a press release. In fact, my office contacted the government at one point to try to get a copy and was told it was not possible to do so.
I would ask the parliamentary secretary, would he give me a guarantee today that he will produce a photocopy or some sort of facsimile of the signed side agreement?