Thank you once again.
Gentlemen, again I've heard the terms “precautionary principle” and “conservation”, and yet Canada, and yourself, sir, admitted that they supported the higher TACs for the various fisheries. People like Boris Worm of Nova Scotia, and others, have indicated to us quite clearly that most fish stocks are in trouble around the world. I think most of us can agree on that. I don't understand why Canada would support any kind of a higher TAC. If you're using the precautionary principle, in my view, that means it should go to the lowest TAC that is possible, not somewhere in between or even higher. That's simply a statement in that regard.
Sir, you talked about the voting procedure if Canada said we wanted to use this provision. So we make the request to allow management inside our waters--only under our request, of course--and then through those negotiations we can vote against it if we wish. I understand there are two votes. One vote would be Canada's. Who would have the other vote? It would be another NAFO country, is that correct?