There are informal ITQ systems in place in Newfoundland, so they're not formal. The reason they've done that is that they want to share the quota amongst themselves, but they don't want to pay the extra licence fee that is required if you have an ITQ fishery. That's something we'd have to consider in any review of licence fees in the future: why would we create a disincentive to having what works out for us to be an easier to manage fishery? In general, there are an awful lot of those arrangements in place, in Newfoundland, in particular, where it's not a formal ITQ, and therefore the vessel length requirements still persist.
We did, as I said, offer in 2003 the flexibility to move to that, but I guess what's happened there is the informal arrangements are better for the fleet in general because they can avoid the current extra licence fees that would be encumbered if they were to go there.
We also have some exercise of flexibility or judgment in the case of vessel replacements on a temporary basis, but I'm not quite sure about the specifics of this one that you mention.