I would disagree with your categorization of it, because it's in the Law of the Sea that the coastal state, the inspecting state, actually has the right to not only board and inspect, but if a serious infraction is committed to which the flag state is not responding appropriately, the Law of the Sea allows the inspecting state to seize the vessel, bring it to port, and pose appropriate sanctions if the flag state refuses. How that can be an international incident is beyond me.
Since you raised the question of the marketplace--and providing sustainable product is very important--let me ask you this about the whole circumstance surrounding NAFO's potential involvement inside 200 miles. In market certification it's very important that Europe certify Canadian seafood products before entry is allowed into the European Union marketplace. If they all of a sudden disagreed.... Shrimp, for example, is a transboundary stock that's managed by NAFO. A very small portion of it is actually managed within NAFO. Most of it is actually a Canadian stock or is managed by Canada. If Europe suddenly decided that the Canadian harvest inside the 200 miles was no longer very appropriate and that we were just catching too much turbot as a bycatch, or too much redfish, they could say that since it has actually been decided that Canada agrees that NAFO has the ability to manage inside 200 miles--and it is a transboundary unitary stock....
Do you have any concerns that certain political pressures could be laid in the European Union? As a member of NAFO, they could simply say that since that provision exists within the NAFO convention, they want one management regime both outside and inside 200 miles. It is a NAFO-managed stock, so they could ask why we don't apply unitary measures. And if they don't get unitary measures, they could say, “You've got something to hide, Canada, so therefore we will not certify your shrimp product anymore.” Is that a possibility, at least?