This is the absolute opposite of custodial management, because custodial management basically involves Canada extending its jurisdiction while respecting the historical rights of other countries.
We have found that it is very difficult to extend custodial management. It's not an easy thing to do, and nobody suggests it is easy to extend custodial management, because you have to deal with all of those contracting parties. But it was a commitment of government to extend custodial management—and presumably they knew what they were about. Now that the commitment is there, what I see happening is that we're attempting to reform NAFO instead of dealing with custodial management. This is an attempt to prove that NAFO can work and that we can somehow emulate or reproduce the attributes of custodial management through NAFO. Everything that I have seen suggests that it has not been done. Whether it's possible is another question.
If you look at these amendments in this convention, some of them are dangerous and some are benign. When you look at the change with regard to the dispute settlement and the objection procedure, in my opinion, it makes no progress—but there is no slippage either. It's not dangerous. On the other hand, the sovereignty question is absolutely dangerous. When it comes to adopting conservation measures, the two-thirds majority instead of 50% plus one is dangerous.
On balance, what I would say is that we're moving away from custodial management big time.