No. Going back over this long debate, the thing about it is that coverage by observers has been an issue of concern for us all. We've argued with some of our contracting partners that coverage hasn't been adequate or sufficient, because in essence, I guess, they put the observers on their vessels. We've argued, really, that they should be ours, that all of the observers outside should be Canadian as well, because we trust our Canadian observers. I'm just wondering if, in all of these concerns, we are going to straighten that out, and if as a result we can move NAFO to a system similar to what we have inside. Will we be expected to pick up more of the tab or not?
I want to continue, because I know we're going to run out of time. You mentioned the objection procedure. We know what's happened in the past; a country could object to a quota and then go and fish and exceed what was recommended. You're now suggesting there be an independent group that will hear or scrutinize the objection.
My question on that end is, if a country objects to a science-based recommendation on quota and goes before an independent panel for review or judgment, will that country be allowed to fish while they're waiting for the hearing? If they do, then we're really back to square one. You know what I'm saying. Before, they could tell us to go you know where and go fish, and they could exceed what was recommended.
I'm just wondering if this independent group would stop-gap that. That's another question.