Thank you. I'll disagree with your latter statement.
You mention that there are improvements that obviously could be made. One of the options you did not include, Mr. McDorman, is not to accept this treaty and start over again. It took 30 years to get to this point. There have been no revisions to the constitutions of the convention of NAFO from 1978 until 2009, presumably, and we still haven't got there, so it could be some more years yet. Realistically speaking, once we accept the revised convention we might safely presume that it will take another 30 years to provide further modifications or improvements to the NAFO convention. That's a bit of conjecture, but needless to say it doesn't happen quickly.
One option may be to go back to the table, not to accept the revised NAFO convention, and to seek further improvements. One of the further improvements I see as possible is a provision of the Law of the Sea, which actually gives enhanced powers to the coastal state. Once a serious infraction is noted, under the Law of the Sea notice has to be given to the flag state. If the flag state fails to take action, under the Law of the Sea power is provided to the inspecting state to take action, to return the vessel to the port of the inspecting state, if need be. Under the revised NAFO convention that provision is not provided for. It is the flag state that continues to hold absolute jurisdiction over the enforcement and potential prosecution of a flagged vessel that is being suggested is conducting a serious infringement of conservation policy or NAFO rules. Why wouldn't we go with the United Nations Law of the Sea, as opposed to a watered-down NAFO version?