As noted, all parties are bound by NAFO decisions in the NAFO regulatory area. So anything that Canada puts forward as a proposal that is adopted would be obligatory for all parties in the NAFO regulatory area.
Because we're looking at ecosystem-based management, there was some concern that you can't split up the ecosystem and therefore maybe there'd be circumstances in the future where Canada might want to ensure the measures would be applied throughout.
I don't have a real concern because of the conditions on it. It would take a request. We could ask for it. We'd have to approve it. We'd have to vote for it. Clearly, there'd be a great deal of consideration given to that.
I would point out that any treaty has impacts on sovereignty: trade agreements, agreements on environmental issues. The Pacific Salmon Treaty means we can't unilaterally manage those stocks; we have to agree. So any treaty has some obligations. But in this case, I'm not really that concerned about it.
The other thing I would point out is that we have already moved ahead with vulnerable marine ecosystems, closing seamounts and coral closures in NAFO and the NAFO regulatory area. Canada did not have a problem with implementing the same actions inside our zone using the Fisheries Act. So whether we'd ever use this provision of NAFO would have to be considered, but it is our choice. I know this is about overfishing, etc., but if somebody wants to overfish, they'll have other problems. People fish for money, and unless you have your own market, you won't necessarily have any benefits in overfishing if your market gets closed. And that's where the world is going.