Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I think what we've learned so far at this meeting is that there is indeed a legal opt-out option for any foreign nation and contracting party to fish as it sees fit in the NAFO regulatory area. In other words, that throws the assertion that Canada now has custodial management of the nose and the tail of the Grand Banks out the window.
We've discovered that countries are now lining up to feast at the Canadian fish buffet. To allow ratification, Canada is prepared to engage in talks with contracting parties to ensure that ratification of this convention proceeds. We also know that Canada has proposed certain measures that actually allow foreign countries and NAFO contracting parties, NAFO generally, to be able to engage in operations and management of Canadian fish practices inside our exclusive economic zone and that we failed to negotiate any sort of comparable arrangement outside the economic zone.
That, Mr. Weston, is exactly the point here. You asked the question if it's consistent with international law. If NAFO so decides and Canada agrees to letting NAFO control inside our 200-mile limit, then NAFO could allow Canada to control outside the 200-mile limit, so it would be completely consistent with international law. The problem is Canada didn't ask for it. We allowed NAFO the rewriting of the NAFO convention inside the 200 miles without asking for the rewrite of the NAFO convention to allow Canada to manage outside the 200 miles. That is the failure of Canadian foreign policy and international fish management, in my opinion.
Mr. Bevan, would you like to respond?