Exactly like NAFO.
The beauty of such arrangements is that quotas are signed based on science, using the precautionary principle, and subject to negotiations obviously. The other beauty of it is that such organizations are open to membership from states outside the region. China, for instance, participates in several regional fisheries organizations, so you deal with that challenge of long-distance fishing countries to some degree. This best practice we've learned how to do elsewhere in the world is readily transferrable to the Arctic.
As I understand it, the Americans were looking for partners on this initiative and have been working closely with Russia, but Canada for some reason has been missing in action. I don't think we would oppose such a thing, but in terms of opportunities for leadership, this is it.
Finally, some people say that the Arctic Council is the wrong place to do this, because Sweden and Finland are at the Arctic Council and they are subject to the common fisheries policy of the European Union. Therefore, the Arctic Council is the wrong place because of that EU connection.
My response is that we need the European Union onside with any regional fisheries organization, just as we need China, just as we need Japan and South Korea. If we don't have those Spanish trawlers subject to this agreement, then we're in a problem right from the start.
Let's do it in the Arctic Council, or at least try it at the Arctic Council. It's a major item for Canadian leadership. We know how to do this. We have our experience from the Atlantic. Let's show the other countries how to work together in the north.