Okay. My apologies.
Our province and many experts, including DFO executives with extensive NAFO experience, are extremely concerned with the clause in the amended NAFO convention that in certain circumstances allows NAFO to apply measures in the waters under our national jurisdiction. The new wording could very easily and clearly lead to the increased influence of NAFO inside the Canadian 200-mile limit.
I wrote to Minister Shea in July 2009, concerned that the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans alone could make this decision. I asked that any request of any management of NAFO within the zone certainly at least be a decision of cabinet. Since then, the high-calibre representation that we've had from former DFO executives has demonstrated that the risk is simply too great to proceed with the amended NAFO agreement. Indeed, there are no other persons in Canada who have such an intimate knowledge of NAFO conventions as these officials. Their sage advice cannot be ignored.
The province has certainly again reiterated that we can take no risk and that the amended convention should not be ratified by Canada. Particularly in these times when arctic sovereignty issues abound, Canada must demonstrate with clarity and certainty that we will not accept such measures in any jurisdiction in this great country.
Some have argued that we need not worry because the opposed amendment would only put that option into the NAFO convention and Canadian politicians would never allow it to happen in practice. Unfortunately, no one can predict how any future minister or government will act. Therefore, it's critical that this option not exist in any manner, shape, or form that opens the possibility of foreign management or enforcement in Canadian waters.
One of the primary objectives stated by the federal government when heading into NAFO reform was to prevent the continued abuse of the objection procedure. The EU has historically used this clause to grossly overfish stocks off our coast during the 1980s and early 1990s, with the blessing of NAFO. The agreed-upon NAFO objection review procedure in the new convention continues to be inadequate. While it puts a process in place, nothing in this process is binding on the contracting party or prevents unilateral action that could seriously jeopardize conservation. Nations can continue to use the objection procedure. While this can be challenged by others at NAFO, unilaterally decided quotas will continue to be fished, further eroding the precious and often valuable resources off our shores. Indeed, such quotas are being set today in relation to shrimp stocks off our coast.
Just a few days ago, in Bergen, NAFO agreed to set the TAC for a number of stocks, again above the scientific advice. This is indeed time that we did something different. We know that the NAFO approach has and will continue to require that member states, particularly Canada as a key coastal state, compromise either their historic attachment to the resource or conservation of these important stocks.
The Province of Newfoundland and Labrador believes that Canada should not be willing to stay on such a destructive path. Custodial management is a multilateral and collective opportunity to restore, protect, and share resources in the future. It speaks to Newfoundland and Labrador's awareness that the current system is not working. It just might serve as a model for other parts of the world as well.
I ask for your support for Canadian custodial management of straddling stocks off the coast of Newfoundland and Labrador.
Thank you very much.