Okay. So in other words, the government's assertion that it has now instituted custodial management is a fraud. That's a false statement, because contracting parties still have a genuine legal opportunity to enact unilateral fishing practices under current and proposed circumstances.
Now, Mr. Bevan, you've suggested here this morning--it's sort of counterintuitive--that the former NAFO convention was broken and didn't work. Yet in your closing statements you said that fishing practices are changing dramatically without the proposed convention, the redraft, being in place. Can you explain that?