First of all, Mr. Weston, I'm glad you picked up on one particular thing that I'm going to refer to now. It is much better to have flag-state enforcement when the flag states are willing to enforce. It's much better if flag states themselves take the necessary action to stop their vessels from overfishing, arrest them, bring them home, take them off the fishing waters.
This was acknowledged in the negotiations for UNFA. The reason UNFA went further than that was the recognition that in the real world this doesn't happen, or it does happen for some flag states but not for others, or times change and countries that were following the rules at one point stop following the rules. That's why under the UNFA rules it provided that non-flag states--any member of an international fisheries organization--could seize a vessel on the high seas, keep it off the water for a while, and hand it over to the flag state.
If you had that ability written into the NAFO convention, what you'd have is an ability you would hope you'd never have to use. The very knowledge that this is available would deter flag states from saying they're going to let their vessels get away with things. The alternative would then be that they'd be arrested by somebody else.
It's an important provision, and it took a lot of trouble and effort to put it into the UNFA convention. It's still there and it's still available if any country, including Canada, decided to take advantage of it and use it.
The best thing would have been to work it right into the proposed new NAFO convention, and it wasn't.