Then we have Minister Rideout saying that he goes along with the proposed amendment. Newfoundland is actively involved in negotiations to amend the convention. Throughout, there have been exchanges of information. Newfoundland is at the table. The most contentious issue is the amendment to article VI that would allow NAFO management inside the Canadian EEZ. Canada asks for it and then votes in favour of such management. I think we agree on that.
Then in July of this year you wrote to Minister Shea saying that the protections offered by Canada's having to ask for NAFO measures inside our EEZ and having to vote for them was an acceptable package. These are your own words; I'm quoting you back what you said:
The fact that Canada would have to support a NAFO measure and then request its application in the [EEZ] seems to provide the necessary safeguard against an unintended consequence of the amended convention.
This along with securing the Canadian shares of NAFO-managed stocks makes an acceptable package.
You wrote that on July 6, 2009. I can only presume that you were looking, as you said, at the compromises required to achieve our objectives. You said it, and Canada, based on what you said, told our international partners that we're prepared to go along with this.
So tell me, what happened? What was the critical event in your life or your government's assessment that led to this diametrically opposed position?