Thank you very much for the questions. I will offer my thoughts and then perhaps turn to colleagues to supplement.
At a global level, this bill is intended to strengthen the global regime to combat IUU fisheries. With respect to the NAFO region, the intent is to respect the regional fisheries management organization, RFMO, as it currently operates, so the amendments in this bill do not propose to change that in any way.
My colleague Mr. MacLean can likely elaborate, but I would say that in general we have a robust partnership under NAFO, and we have seen the number of citations issued decline over time. We have seen recovery in some fish stocks in the area governed by the RFMO, and we believe that this RFMO is working well.
In terms of foreign states directing their vessels into a Canadian port, I am aware of one specific example of that happening. Bear in mind that the principal purpose of this bill is to bring Canada into compliance with an international treaty; so it is true that some of the amendments proposed envisage situations that are rare in Canadian waters, but that one is not without precedent. Although, as I mentioned previously, we do believe that the amendments are intended to bring Canada into compliance with an international treaty, we believe as well that some of these amendments will, in very practical and concrete and common-sense terms, give our fisheries officers and other law enforcement officials better authority, more clear authorities, to collaborate and to do their jobs more effectively.
Allan or Tim, do you have anything to add?