It's very difficult. I would take the view that most of the countries that were negotiating in NAFO are negotiating in good faith and have an interest in conservation. After all, if there's no fish to fish, then there's no fish to fish. So all of the countries--whether they be the Europeans, whether they be the Icelandic, the Norwegians--that are participating in NAFO have a fairly high degree of good faith.
There is an interesting reality that's going on, as I said in my opening remarks, that these organizations are starting to look very much like one another around the world, regardless of who is in Canada's position. Off the coast of Australia, it's Australia in our position, yet the agreements that are there look very similar to the ones that this NAFO amendment is at. This indicates that while in one scenario the Europeans may have the upper hand, in another scenario they do not. We get a similar type of agreement coming out.
So I would take issue a little bit. I think there is a lot of goodwill among the countries. Now, they have interests as well--all countries have their interests--but for most fishing countries, the interest is that there has to be some fish. I'm not a European specialist, but we've seen significant change in European behaviour on fisheries. Now, it hasn't been perfect.