To actually allow.... This is your stalwart defence of the indefensible, in my opinion, and we'll just leave it at that. Because to allow that provision into the context of the proposed NAFO convention is contrary to Canadian sovereignty; at the very least, to not allow a quid pro quo for Canada, with the consent of NAFO--being able to usurp the authority of NAFO on consent of NAFO--to control outside of 200 miles is, quite frankly, ridiculous.
But, you know, the formal acceptance of any NAFO decision now has gone from 50%, a simple majority, to a two-thirds majority. That's being hailed by DFO and by the Canadian government as being a victory and as NAFO being more inclusive. Past experience at NAFO says that whenever tough conservation decisions need to be instituted, getting the 50% simple majority has been tough enough. Now we have to go to a two-thirds majority.
In fact, any observer of the NAFO process would agree that in order to get some of those tough conservation positions, Canada has often had to seek concessions from other contracting parties by giving away fish from non-threatened stocks. How has the two-thirds majority achieved any greater success? Because I'll tell you something from a guy who's been around this process: I can't see it.