Thank you, Mr. Chair.
With respect to this last issue, the work was done expecting that a question might be asked at the meeting with officials and the minister, but no questions were asked. If there a formal request made to the department to answer these questions, I assume that will be forthcoming. I don't recall it being made formally. If it was just a case of, “I wish we had this information”, then I don't think we can expect them to send it to us, but they would be prepared to answer it at that meeting.
With respect to the RFMO and the point Mr. MacAulay raises, I think the general answer is that we participate in RFMOs in which we have an interest. We are a part of number of tuna RFMOs, as Angela has said, the ones that most directly impact us in terms of their migratory patterns and so on. If we don't fish in that area, or if that stock does not migrate into an area where Canadian fishermen fish, then it's less likely that we would be part of that.
To return to the amendments at hand, the authorization or the authority to make a regulation to do what we're asking here is in the second amendment to clause 5. This one in clause 4 basically says that it's an offence not to provide the documentation that's being referred to in clause 5, which is an upcoming amendment. That's a little bit confusing I know, but....