It's all right. I think the response would be similar or the same.
My question on this one is this. The minister, and you and everyone, said they would not foresee any reason as to why we would allow NAFO management within our 200-mile limit, that we have the sovereign right to do that, and you're absolutely correct. But my question is, why is that inclusion in there? Canada never did it. I can't say we just said, look, we're going to give you this. Correct me if I'm wrong. I want you just to listen to this and see if they're right or wrong. If Canada will never have any need for this, why is it now provided for? The answer, they figure, is that the EU insisted on inclusion of these provisions because it serves their interest. With this provision they'll be able to, in future, demand NAFO management inside 200 miles as the price for agreeing to restrictive conservation measures possibly proposed by Canada. Canada will either have to agree to it or accept less restrictive measures.
As you know, Mr. Applebaum, Mr. Parsons, and others, people who had serious levels of DFO experience, have raised this concern as to why that inclusion is in the latest agreement. So an answer, if possible: if we're never going to use it, if we have no reason for doing it--we have our sovereign right--then why is that inclusion in that NAFO agreement?