Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, gentlemen, for appearing today.
Just for the record, I'm a west coaster living on the east coast now.
First of all, sir, you said that all countries have an interest in the fish stocks. I've seen far too many examples of where some countries have raided the stocks and have caught fish they're not supposed to, and they have tried to get away with it, to the point where I'm not sure if they've rehabilitated themselves. Hopefully they have. Hopefully they have understood that the decline of fish stocks is bad not just for them but for the planet. I hope the optimism is there in the future in order to do this, because you're right, without the fish stocks, there's no NAFO; you don't have to worry about anything.
You said you've read the wise men's comments in this regard. Are Mr. Applebaum and company just fundamentally wrong when they mention article 6 of the proposed amendments, where, if Canada requests, there could be NAFO management within our 200-mile limit? From the concerns he has expressed over that, and the other three have expressed, that seems to be the number one point of discretion in their point, plus the two-thirds majority. You're right, there are arguments for and against the two-thirds one. Article 6 seems to be the one that is most contentious. They're arguing that it should technically be removed from the draft in this particular regard. Are they fundamentally wrong, or do they have a point?