Thank you very much to both of our witnesses this morning. I know both of you have a certain passion for this particular issue and have spent a career, a lifetime, working on it for the betterment of Canadian fisheries policy. So thank you for being here, and I especially thank you, Scott, for being here under difficult circumstances for you. We acknowledge that.
I want to just get right off the mark and say that a very wise and experienced man once told me that prior to extension of the 200-mile limit back in 1977, fishing activity by foreign-flag vessels was actually somewhat minimized temporarily, not because of the extension of the 200-mile limit, but because we were in a fuel shortage, a global economic crisis, and market conditions didn't necessarily allow for much foreign activity.
It seems to me that we have a parallel situation in 2009 now. It's quite interesting. What Mr. Bevan described as limits to foreign citations on the Grand Banks being a result of enforcement mechanisms may be exactly some of the same circumstances that occurred back in 1977.
Notwithstanding all of that, I raised three very specific, direct questions to our witnesses on Tuesday. One was on the finality of the decision-making process. You touched on each and every one of those questions in your presentations, but I just want to repeat them and ask you for your comments.
Do the changes to the NAFO convention result in binding decisions on contracting parties?
Mr. Bevan didn't give a very clear picture, in my mind, of the objection procedure that the revised convention allows. Could you elaborate and include a discussion about UNFA in this process? Mr. Bevan put a lot of stock in UNFA in this process?
At the end of the day, under the revised convention, could a NAFO-contracting partner implement unilateral fishing plans within the NAFO regulatory area if they so chose--yes or no?
Second, the NAFO convention provides for a mechanism for NAFO to assume patrols and management authority inside Canada's 200-mile limit. Could they actually assume patrols, enforcement, inside of the 200-mile limit, inside the exclusive economic zone of Canada, if this provision were adopted and acquiesced by Canada? Any discussion on that would be helpful.
And finally, on the NAFO decision-making process, it's been described to us that a two-thirds majority in decision-making is better than a simple majority, 50% plus one. I'd like a discussion on that.
So there are three questions. One is on the two-thirds majority; one is on NAFO-contracting parties patrolling inside of 200 miles; and the other question is on the objection procedure and the finality of decision-making.