Thank you, Mr. Wilks.
I have a couple of questions and maybe even a comment before we move on. I think all members have had a chance to ask some questions.
With respect to the minister's comments about reforming habitat management within the department, I want to echo some comments from my colleagues. I don't come at it from a scientific standpoint; I come at it from a political standpoint.
Mr. Stringer, I believe your comment was that stakeholder feedback was mixed. I can assure you that the feedback I get is not mixed; there tends to be a lot of frustration with the policy and practices. From my point of view, the focus seems to be more on stopping development--that's the public's perspective--than on helping the developers comply with the policy.
I don't know if there needs to be a change of focus in how you approach this, because that's the feedback I get within my office as a local member of Parliament. I have people coming to me who are completely frustrated with it. It seems as if they hit a roadblock, more than anything else, when they deal with officials. Obviously, I get a little more of an enthusiastic response, if you like. People come into my office and talk about how enforcement officials are over-the-top in some of their practices and whatnot. I try to work with the officials to get to where you need to be. If there were more of a focus on helping them comply with the policy, I think the policy would be much better received—and it would make my job a lot easier, as well. Maybe that's what I'm looking for more than anything else.
Also, the minister talked about $1.7 billion of landed value from the fishery. I was surprised that only 10% came from groundfish. That point caught my attention. One of the questions I had was whether aquaculture was included in that $1.7 billion figure.
I see Mr. Balfour shaking his head. Is it not included in that?