Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, ladies and gentlemen, for appearing today.
I always sit back and reflect a bit on the fact that it's ironic that MPs, with their budgets and salaries, are questioning the people who serve us--their budgets, and so on. I always figure the best people for that should be that single mom working at Tim Hortons or that family with an autistic child. They should question our budgets and whether or not the taxpayer got value for it.
Madam Ridgeway, I know your history is impeccable. You have an incredible pedigree, as I know my colleague and friend Geoff Regan, the former minister, would say. You should be congratulated on the outstanding work you have done.
You can help me figure this out. We have a fisheries ambassador. I assumed, especially when he was first appointed, that he was supposed to do a lot of this international work, going around and protecting Canada's interests. Then we have Madam Ridgeway apparently doing the same thing. It always makes me think about what these two people are doing. Do they ever talk to each other? Do they work together? Is there a need for a fisheries ambassador?
There was one prior to 1995, I believe, and then the position was taken away and then brought back in 2006 under Mr. Hearn, I believe. My first question is on the comparison of the two. In this time of restraint, do we have to have the two?
The second question is this. You talked about the UN and the high seas dragging issue. I remember it quite well. Some of my facts may be a bit off, but Greenpeace had started the petition--and I believe Mr. Bevan is aware of it--of trying to get high seas dragging off the unregulated areas of the high seas.
I believe, David, if I'm right, that 30% or 35% of the seas are regulated, like NAFO on that, and 65% are unregulated. I could be wrong on that.