That's exactly what we're proposing. We're suggesting that the FFAW or the MFU could propose a way to go forward, come up with a solution for rationalization and access this fund. This fund would have two or three criteria to be able to get this capital. They would explain how they're going to do it, what the industry will be using to do it.
So it would not be a government-led program; it would be an industry-led program. You're actually submitting a proposal to get the capital funding to be able to do the job.
And yes, you could have different versions of this throughout Atlantic Canada. We have found it very difficult to find common ground with other associations on the ways of being able to rationalize, but we've all said we're trying to do the same thing; it might be different for what is acceptable in one area and another, but let's just create some form of fund. The basic criteria we found that we could all agree upon was that, one, it should be aiming at rationalization in some formal way, and, two, it should have some way to be able to sustain itself.
In other words—and I think this has been documented in literature—buyouts in the past have often proven that there's an effort creep-up afterwards. In other words, if you eliminate some fish harvesters or participants, the people who remain get better gear or better equipment, fish harder, and actually end up fishing relatively somewhere around the same amount. However, if in exchange for receiving some capital to do what you want to do you are able to improve the conservation elements, you are able to sustain that; you are able to keep that effort reduced throughout the years. That's the sacrifice that our alliance is proposing.