Maybe. But I think this relates to what we alluded to at the end of the last day, that an international convention that imposes duties on a party is different from an international convention whose domestic implementing legislation—such as the Marine Liability Act, which we enacted for some international conventions that we signed—affords protection to parties against liability.
So when you're talking about “inconsistency”, it's not exactly clear how that will play out. In this case, it's especially not clear how it will play out because we don't yet know what orders can be made as a result of a civil action that someone would bring against a shipper. The Marine Liability Act and the convention it relates to provide for liability only in certain circumstances. Unless we know what kinds of orders can be made pursuant to Bill C-469, then we can't know whether there are any inconsistencies or not.