Thank you for that question. Some of the answer will be things you've heard before, but I'll have a try at the major principles for a new convention to replace or amend NAFO. One is that the integrity of the Canadian 200-mile zone has to be protected. There should be no provision that allows, in any way, any international meddling with Canada's sovereign rights inside 200 miles. That's one. That's a protective thing.
The other one, which Mr. Parsons mentioned earlier, is to have a provision locked into the convention that provides for an enforcement regime that cannot be changed by NAFO meetings or avoided by other NAFO members. One enforcement regime is the one that's already been agreed to by the EU in what is now the UN fisheries agreement, UNFA. That allows any member of an organization to seize a vessel that is outside 200 miles and keep it off the water for a while.
Another one is that I think you have to have some form of objection procedure, a real, effective appeal procedure that would result in a binding conclusion so that objections could be overruled when it's right that they be overruled.
Those are the three main points I can think of. There are lots of other little points, of course, and maybe not so little.