In terms of penalties, I would have to give a bit more thought to the range of penalties. I think that the challenge is the issue of the seizure of goods destined for export, because we can seize the goods, but that does not necessarily relieve some of the pressures on local fishing communities that might have been disadvantaged by that product having been illegally harvested or unregulated in its harvesting.
The ultimate tool is ensuring that the export does not go abroad. However, I would say that we are two to three layers away from the original crime and the original issue, so I would potentially defer to some of our partner departments to assess what types of escalation or tools are available in terms of the direct regulation of the fishing industry.
For us at the border, there are certain implications should somebody attempt to export something illegally or something that is non-compliant, or to not represent the nature, the true value, of the goods deemed for export. That would certainly have an impact—if there is time, I would defer, potentially, to my colleague—on their ability to export legitimately.
Again, I think that most of the tools for escalation are more within the partner departments and agencies that have a direct role in the regulation of this particular industry.