I've been at NAFO with several different administrations heading up the government in Canada at different times, and I can't imagine any of the ministers who've been on either side of the current House or their predecessors ever saying.... There was a time, as I said, when we had a practice of trading fish for access to market and all that stuff. In this day and age, I don't see that happening. I think there'd be the same chaos either way, and I can't imagine how Canada would.... The political backlash would be just as strong, whether it was done through the NAFO convention or it was done under the current NAFO convention by other means. They're just saying to people to come on in and fill your boots in our waters, or observe our fisheries or whatever. It would be a simple matter of sovereignty that we would clearly expect the Government of Canada to never go to NAFO with any request to do that. In the absence of a request, it wouldn't happen.
If had my druthers, would that clause not be there? Yes, it would probably be better, but in the real world, if they were of a mind to do that, then I think they could easily trade off our sovereignty over our fish stocks in other ways, without that amendment.