I would point out that in the past, prior to the changes at NAFO--in behaviour, at least--that took place back in the 1990s, we won all the votes and lost all the fish. That's a reality. We paid with fish to get the votes, and then when we won the votes, because of the convention people just went fishing anyway. That's the reality. Every conservation measure that's been put in place since that time has been done by consensus, with not one vote on one conservation measure. We've had tremendous gains, as you can see from the compliance on the conservation measures, all by consensus.
The real fear that all the people who participate in NAFO now have is that there's going to be a potential redistribution of fish. That's why we want more stickiness to the process. That's where the votes will be: not on the conservation, but on the sharing of the resource. We want to protect ourselves, along with the other quota-holders.