I think the examples that Joshua Laughren of Oceana gave are cases in point of where other countries and groups of countries have much better fisheries laws than we have. I think Bill C-68 goes a long way to getting there, but it's not quite there. I think two key areas, making sure that we are taking account for rebuilding and requiring it, and also making sure that we are managing cumulative effects properly, get to actually achieving the purpose of the act.
Law, as you know, is iterative, but I don't think right now that this Bill C-68 is quite in line with the UN fish stocks agreement or with the NAFO-amended convention, which are the two most recent pieces.
