Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Good afternoon, Loyola.
I can see that you have been a parliamentarian for some time. You are still very skilful in your answers, whether the questions are vague or direct. I know very well that you have a position and that you are sticking to it. I am going to try something else. As I understand it, the negotiations we are discussing took place in 2007. In my opinion, and I am not alone, the negotiations became a kind of bargain basement sale. We did not get our money's worth and we gave up more than we got. That is my impression, that is the impression of a lot of people, including several of our witnesses.
There is talk of a new text, but the basic problem remains. For several years, NAFO failed—everyone agrees that it did—in the case of cod. We could not say that our international organization succeeded in resolving great challenges. The results, unfortunately, were not there. So, we had to ask ourselves—as we eventually did—whether we ought to remain part of NAFO. When you were minister, you decided to cooperate, to take part in negotiations designed to improve NAFO. I do not feel that there has been any improvement.
I understand that there have been negotiations, but can you account for the feeling that we gave up more than we got there? We are discussing a new text. But the people from Newfoundland and Labrador who are involved are very familiar with the matter. You are very well acquainted with the people who have testified; you know them perhaps better than I do. These are credible people; their opinions about the amendments are not purely partisan or political. There are facts, and they have their views on them.
Against that background, I would like to hear what you have to say about what you did, about your successes. I cannot say whether you were the chief negotiator, I do not know exactly how things proceeded. But you were the one responsible, you were the minister at the time.