This can get a little technical. I'll try not to get too technical.
We have been asking for three years for the government to do a thorough clause-by-clause analysis of the NAFO Convention, the new amendment, to see where the subtle little changes have come in. There are a lot of subtle word changes in there. There are changes where, for example, there were obligations on the members of NAFO in making allocations and decisions to give a priority to Canada. Now the obligation is on the Fisheries Commission, but there's no legal obligation on any of the members to do anything. In the past convention and existing conventions there were obligations on each individual contracting party. By putting the obligation on the commission, if any party doesn't support the Canadian allocation position, they're not acting contrary to the convention. This time they would be acting contrary to the convention. That's one that significantly diminishes the convention.
Making us vulnerable in arbitration.... I mentioned one in our presentation. If we chose to use our UNFA rights to seize and detain a vessel fishing on the high seas that has committed a serious infringement in NAFO without the flag states approval, because we deem the flag state has not acted appropriately in responding to that serious infringement, under UNFA we could do that. Now with the new convention, the EU is likely to argue, no, you signed this convention after UNFA. The purpose of the convention was to implement UNFA, and because this clause wasn't in it we obviously agreed this clause no longer applies. So you can't use that clause any more.