The honourable member is wrong. The context is taken inappropriately. The interpretation is taken inappropriately. We all have a celebration when, because of hard work, discipline and stalwart adherence to science, a quota could come up when we do the necessary stewardship. That is a celebration worth having.
However, we also recognize that there is a principle amongst all around the table, from the FFAW to the Government of Canada to the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, whereby if we respect and understand the 115,000 metric ton principle, we acknowledge that there is a future role for the offshore. We all have to say that and say it out loud. There will be a future role for the offshore. Here is the point that is often missed, though. Since NAFO became involved, we are now forced to be in a defensive position, and this was the mistake of allowing NAFO to be able to be engaged in this fishery.
Mr. Chair, I'd really appreciate, if I'm going to be asked a question, the opportunity to be able to answer it.
Here is where a mistake was made. When NAFO became involved, we automatically were put in a defensive position, because, if we did not take every pound of fish that was allocated to Canada out of the water, then guess who comes looking for it: Russia.