Basically, there's nothing in this document that says a country has requested a provision so that it can manage fish inside the Canadian zone. Basically, there's a provision, as you say, that if suddenly Canada feels that NAFO has done something with respect to fisheries management or in terms of protection of the ecosystem, and if in fact some of that ecosystem ranges into the Canadian zone, and if Canada feels that it's in the best interest of the request to have a consistent management regime, then Canada has the option to go that way.
The way you positioned that opening comment, that the EU has requested that they have a provision that they can manage fish in Canadian zones, is a misrepresentation of the clause.
My understanding as to why they've requested it in there is that they have a similar provision in the NEAFC, the North East Atlantic Fisheries Commission, which governs the fishing activities on the eastern side of the Atlantic, and the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization is on the western side of the Atlantic. They have it in that, and I suspect that what they wanted to see was some sort of consistency.
As Mr. Chapman said, you look at an agreement and you try to determine what is your basic interest. In this issue, it's quite clear in terms of the English language—I'm sorry, Mr. Blais, I haven't read the French translation—that the clause is designed in such a way that the coastal state, whether it be Canada, the United States of America, or Greenland, has protected its sovereignty, as rightly it should, and has an opportunity.