Madam Chair, I would like to return to the second part of my question from an hour ago. Just to refresh the minister, I asked about the quota increase in a NAFO regulatory zone for the bycatch, which went from 5% to 13%.
The core issue here is about the idea of the commitment to custodial management. During the years 2003 to 2005, when former minister Hearn openly discussed the idea of custodial management, in his view custodial management pertained to the Government of Canada making the primary decisions in areas such as the Nose and Tail of the Grand Banks. Therefore, if a decision were made through the NAFO mechanism to increase quotas, how can NAFO claim that it has effectively achieved custodial management when that decision should have been made by the Government of Canada? Is that really custodial management? I do not think it is.