I'll start with your last question first.
That clause is there because it was discussed at the table. It clarifies that NAFO could never impose itself on us but that if we asked NAFO to impose on us, then it could. For example, Greenland, which has a very small population, may not have the capacity to carry out research science, or whatever, and it may want NAFO to carry out science within its waters. That's why it is there. It's my understanding that the entire NAFO convention must be interpreted in accordance with the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, which guarantees Canadian sovereignty.
I respect that these gentlemen have differing opinions, but I also know there was an independent lawyer brought to the Senate committee who did not agree with their opinions. They are ex-bureaucrats; however, they are not lawyers.
Now, on the process of the objection, if a state objects and says it does not have enough quota and it is going to fish anyway, that state can fish legally. The objection must come before an ad hoc panel, and if whatever that ad hoc panel decides is not to the satisfaction of the contracting party, this will go to UNFA for its binding objection process. While that is happening, the contracting party or the state that has objected must abide by the ruling by the ad hoc panel. So if that ad hoc panel found they were overfishing, then that becomes an illegal fishery and they could be charged.