Thank you for the questions.
With regard to the Europeans' reluctance to undertake these negotiations and Canada's insistence on doing so, I would say that has put us in a position of weakness in relation to Europe. With the help of some statistics, I explained that the European attitude was rather justified given the limited scope of the Canadian market compared to the European market, and given that the barriers that had been negotiated at the GATT and WTO were relatively inconsequential. So there is indeed a risk. Having urged the Europeans to engage in these bilateral negotiations, we could end up paying somewhat more than if there had been multilateral negotiations. I believe that poses a clear risk.
The fact that Quebec's Premier Charest played a very influential role in Canada's decision to go to Brussels in order to convince the Europeans to undertake the negotiations, I think, was a key element. Furthermore, I still do not really understand why Quebec was so insistent that Canadian authorities undertake those negotiations.
How are we to differentiate between a good and a bad agreement? As with any negotiation, I believe that we will have to determine whether the concessions on both sides balance out. Now, this obviously brings me back to your first question. If Canada decides to grant broader, more wide-ranging concessions, because it absolutely wants to reach an agreement, then that balance will be difficult to attain.
Your third question dealt with the priorities of a multilateral agreement. Negotiations have been stalled now for almost two years. Things have not moved since July 2008, almost two years ago. There is a very ambitious program on the table and it is 80% to 85% complete, according to WTO Director General, Pascal Lamy. However, no leadership is being exercised, in particular by the United States, in order to restart the negotiations that broke down in trying to deal with U.S. and European agricultural issues, but also because of the role played by major emerging countries like India, China and Brazil. This leadership really needs to come from the United States, as it has since the system was set up in the 1940s.