Madame Deschamps, you asked what went wrong with the negotiations. You talked about the government's promoting custodial management. The bottom line is that they did commit to implementing custodial management; in fact, they committed to more than that. They committed to extending fisheries jurisdiction not only to the edge of the Grand Banks, which covers the straddling stocks, but also to the edge of the Flemish Cap, which includes discrete stocks beyond the Canadian 200-mile zone.
That's what they said before coming to power. Then the task was turned over to a group of negotiators, some of whom were in the room earlier today. In fact, the one person who was in the negotiations was sitting to the right of Mr. Balfour but said nothing when the question was asked.
What went wrong, in our view, is that because there was a commitment to pursue custodial management, those who participated in the negotiations from the Canadian side were under great pressure to deliver something called “improvements” that could be then spun as results fulfilling the promise made in 2006.
They also made mistakes in the negotiations. One fundamental error was that they allowed the European Union to be the drafter of amendments, to hold the drafting pen. In fact, each time there was discussion, a European Union drafter would be the one that brought the proposals back to the table.
The other thing was that the negotiators could not walk away from the table. Anyone in this room who has been involved in negotiations knows that if you do not have the option of walking out of the room, thereby saying no to what's being proposed, then the only way out is to acquiesce, to give ground, and to make concessions without concessions being made on the other side. In such cases, you're going to end up with a mess, and that's what we have in front of us.
Thank you.