You said that the title of special envoy was clearer. In that case, why were you not given that title in the beginning? As you said, it would have been much clearer at the outset, and would not have created a diplomatic and political issue in Canada and in Europe, as Ms. Laverdière, Mr. Kent and others have said; that is also what the media reported. This created a diplomatic shock in some countries, and for certain people in Europe.
Why was it not established right from the beginning that you would be called a special adviser,with special responsibilities to the Prime Minister, rather than trying to create a new ambassadorial position to the European Union and Europe?