What happened was we tried to change the way we were interacting with the first nations. We brought in a third party to work with the first nations and us and the roe herring fishery. Before, we were trying to deal directly with the first nations--department to the first nations--and that created some challenges. By bringing in a third party we were able to all discuss the situation at a common table. That was an important departure from 2005.
The second thing we did was acknowledge there was an issue about the quantity of roe herring. The Heltsiuks felt the quantity they were harvesting was too low, but we also agreed there was another area that we could discuss, which was how we managed the roe herring fishery, and that there was a role there for the Heltsiuks to be more involved in it. We wanted to make sure the roe herring industry itself was comfortable with that involvement, so we changed the dynamic. We brought in a third party. We widened the discussion to include other issues on the table where we could actually make progress. We eventually entered into an MOU that allowed us to have a more flexible approach that gave a real role for the Heltsiuks in 2006 in terms of the management of the fishery, in terms of observers and being involved, and in a manner with which the roe herring industry itself was comfortable.
Those were the changes that allowed us to be successful in 2006.