Right off the bat, it's obvious. It's harder to get a restrictive NAFO decision on conservation the more votes you need. It was difficult enough in the years that I was in this organization to get that simple majority. As soon as you increase it two-thirds or three-quarters, it doesn't matter, one vote, two, three, you have to accommodate somebody else. In the most simple example, somebody wants more fish, so the TAC has to go higher to accommodate the country that needs more fish. You need that country's vote; you have to accommodate it. The total allowable catch goes up to accommodate it. It's better than it going up higher, but it's not what it ought to be.
That's essentially what the two-thirds voting does. From Mr. Bevan's position, the two-thirds provision now for voting would—I think they've used the expression—lock in the existing allocation shares. What it does is, yes, it makes it a little harder to change the allocation shares. You need another vote with the current membership to change them. If another country, a foreign country, can get that other vote and change the shares, once they've changed, Canada has to get the extra vote next time to be able to change them back. The two-thirds voting vote goes against Canada as soon as we lose a vote on the proportional shares.