I think what's fundamentally different about the concept of custodial management, in the minds of most people who advocated, as compared to what's proposed under this new draft convention for NAFO, is the question of the power to enforce. We can force vessels in certain circumstances into Canadian ports, but we can't force them into Canadian courts, and that's the fundamental difference.
Under the proposed reform of NAFO, the flag state would have to relinquish its sovereignty over its own vessels in order for Canadian courts to have the authority to penalize offenders. I don't see that happening, and I don't think there's any chance of that happening under that proposed regime. Through the changes we have, I think, some improved enforcement measures, but the proposed regime, if it comes into effect, will still leave the enforcement authority over those vessels with the flag state, not with the coastal state. So that's where it's fundamentally different from what most people view as custodial management.