That's not actually the intention. The intention is that whatever is going on today would continue, but things that might go on, for instance oil and gas exploration, would not be allowed to go forward. That's a point that actually a number of people have missed in the interpretation of this bill. It's understandable, because we've had a lot of discussions here at this committee about marine protected areas and what that actually means. This is sort of a halfway step toward that.
When you look at the impact of a decision, even on an interim marine protected area where current activities are allowed to continue, do you see any other negative impacts on your communities of simply maintaining the status quo?