Thank you, Mr. Chair.
First of all, in response to the member's comments about the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, Newfoundland and Labrador are a part of this delegation to NAFO. They were part of it in 2007 when these changes were negotiated and, until very recently, did not give any indication that they were not supportive of what had been negotiated; as a matter of fact, quite the opposite, because I did get a couple of letters from the minister in Newfoundland indicating just that as recently as July 18.
On the sponges and corals, these areas that have been identified to be closed for protection of the ecosystem are areas that have not been subject to bottom trawling because once you do bottom trawling, whatever harm you're going to effect on these corals and sponges has already taken place. These 11 areas that have been identified are areas that have not been touched and are still very much intact.
On custodial management, I know different ideas are put forward by different people on what custodial management actually is. But what has happened in this case is that we cannot take ownership of property of the ocean outside of our 200-mile limit because the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea would not allow that to happen. It cannot happen. What has happened is that we do provide surveillance, conservation, and protection. We do, through NAFO, have rules that are present in the NAFO regulatory area, and therefore we manage this area.