This is my third point, then. Wouldn't you agree that there's no such thing as a perfect treaty, that ultimately any treaty is an accumulation of several agreements?
I'd like to read to you an excerpt from Tom Hedderson, who is Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture for Newfoundland. He appeared before us as well. This was his statement back in July:
The fact that Canada would have to support a NAFO measure and then request its application in the [EEZ] seems to provide the necessary safeguard against an unintended consequence of the amended convention. This along with securing the Canadian shares of NAFO-managed stocks makes an acceptable package.
He wasn't saying that the treaty is perfect from Canada's perspective, nor is the minister saying that it's got everything Canada unilaterally would have in a treaty. But in a world where we're working together with other bodies, we ultimately came to what is considered an acceptable package, at least as Minister Hedderson deemed the package at that time.
There were obviously some mutual negotiations going on.
So far, so good. You're agreeing with that?