It is certainly necessary to have some form of management regime in a place outside of 200 miles. We've seen the pillaging that occurred under an ineffective NAFO organization. We need an improved management regime that includes the provisions Mr. Applebaum and I have mentioned--and not just us, by the way. These have been well documented in the reports I referred to earlier, the task force in 2005 and so on.
An absence of management, no regime, would lead to total plunder, total pillage, and without restraint, without any controls. Some people would argue that maybe you could go that way because then they would fish out the stocks and they would go home, but the reality is we're dealing here with straddling stocks of importance to Canada. We're not dealing with isolated stocks on the high seas beyond Canadian jurisdiction that are not of interest to Canada except for the Flemish Cap. We're dealing with this fishing that occurs outside the Canadian 200-mile zone because of the nature of the continental shelf and the extension of the shelf beyond the Canadian 200-mile zone.
As one former fisheries minister used to say, fish don't carry passports. They cross back and forth across that boundary, so it is vitally important to Canada to have some form of effective management outside 200 miles.