You're right. That's fundamental. The objection procedure can be used. The dispute settlement will take years. The point to be made is that there is no fisheries agreement anywhere in the world that has a shorter form. So yes, you could always try to negotiate for something better, and that may be a good goal, but there's no indication by anybody that that's even remotely possible. There's no quick process for dispute settlement. There's no quick process for objection.
The NAFO amendment, tracking, again, other agreements, has tried to have a short form with an ad hoc tribunal to try to get to that. But if a country wants to disregard the fisheries organization, it's going to take a number of years before that's going to be corrected. As I point out, that's a problem, but it's a problem that exists in all the fisheries organizations. It's not unique to NAFO. That may not make you feel any better, but it's not as if, for the sake of argument, the Canadian government has somehow failed to achieve something that somebody else has accomplished. In this particular case, they certainly have not.