My take on that particular point and my understanding of where that language came from was that it was modelled on NEAFC, which is the North East Atlantic Fisheries Commission, which deals with the other side of the Atlantic. I'm not absolutely certain, but that's my recollection. But in any event, there is one stock I can think of that Canada does exercise a degree of control over outside 200 miles, namely the northern cod stock, where in the quota NAFO has a practice of accepting the Canadian total allowable catch and doesn't actually set that figure. But having said that, that's a kind of an outlier; it's not the norm.
On this business of what could notionally happen under that wording, Canada would have to propose the measure, they'd have to go to NAFO and ask, would you please manage a stock inside our zone, and then they'd have to also support the measure in the ensuing discussion for it to happen.
Currently, under the old convention that's in place today, right now as we speak somebody on behalf of the Government of Canada could go to the Spanish government and say you can take your whole armada and fish in Conception Bay if you'd like. In other words, if the government of the day were to say we're prepared to do that, then they're not defending our sovereignty at all. So while notionally that could happen, to me it's unimaginable.
I participated in a debate in about 1986 where industry people and government officials of the day concurred that the business of trading access to fish in the Canadian zone in return for support on NAFO measures, in return for market access and so on, had to stop. So that hasn't been in place, even though today there's nothing to stop the government from saying to whoever they want to give it to, whether it's NAFO or an individual NAFO member country or whoever, come on in to our zone and fill your boats with fish.