Those were good points of clarification, Mr. Chair.
I just want to talk to you and then get your points of view.
There are two complementary forces. Transport Canada regulates for safety, regulates design, and has no real interest in fisheries management, but DFO actually manages vessel construction and vessel size for conservation purposes. In other words, they limit you at 34 feet 11 inches, 39 feet 11 inches, or 64 feet 11 inches to try to control fishing efforts.
One thing that has been raised by DFO is that if they allow vessel length to change, if they basically have an open policy on vessel length, notwithstanding the safety issues, then you guys, for your fleets, would basically spend an awful lot of money on building bigger boats or putting extensions on your boats. That expense would force you to demand extra quota, and that's why there's a reluctance on the part of DFO, if I understand DFO correctly, to change or amend vessel replacement rules and vessel length rules.
Ted, would you and Hedley and John be able to describe to me...? So they're saying that they are containing capital investment expense by keeping the restrictions in place. Have your fleets in the last while spent a lot of money anyway on gearing up for new fisheries, whether it be shrimp or pelagics, which now seem to be coming on stream, and instead of going lengthwise, you're going upwards? In other words, you've already spent an awful lot of money—your fleets, not necessarily your individual boats—gearing up for shrimp and other things, and therefore that whole argument is somewhat invalid.
John, do you want to answer?