You don't need an agreement to state that. So the only reason I can think of as to why this agreement is in here is because the EU asked for it. I wasn't at the negotiation table, but I don't think Canada would have asked for it, because Mr. Applebaum stated quite clearly in their negotiations for years and years that Canada never would have contemplated this type of idea. He reported that to the Senate committee earlier this week.
You can correct me if I'm wrong. I have to question myself as to why would this provision be in here, why the two-thirds instead of the 50% plus one. Why not exercise the most strictest of precautionary principles when it comes to quota and TAC on these precious fish stocks? I don't understand, sir, why you would have been part of, obviously, a group of people who would have consented to higher quotas, and even though it's within a range, why you wouldn't have gone for the lowest quota in that regard. If we truly believe in conservation and the precautionary principle, which we hear repeatedly from officials within the department, why would Canada have gone to the higher route in that regard? It's quite disconcerting. When I hear four people who worked in DFO at very senior levels raise some very serious issues about this particular agreement, it sets alarm bells ringing and red flags all over the place, and I say this with great respect. I simply haven't been assured by the department that it's actually doing the right thing for Canada, and especially the good people of Newfoundland and Labrador.
Those are my comments.