Thank you to our expert witnesses for coming in today to give us some insight into this matter.
DFO has admitted that the 1978 NAFO convention is flawed, and it continues to be flawed to this day. They are trying to take steps to improve it.
I'd like to get into this whole custodial management area that was alluded to and to the former minister masking the convention as custodial management of the stocks.
Could you give me some insight as to why DFO continues to push NAFO as the way to manage our stocks outside the 200-mile limit? Why wouldn't DFO be more aggressive in going after our jurisdiction, extending the 200-mile limit, and trying to get the custodial management ourselves? If this process in the past was flawed, and we can't come to some reasonable compromises and corrections, why hasn't the department in the past—and looking at the department now—put more custodial management outright on the nose and tail and the Flemish Cap and the continental shelf?