And we did, indeed, hear testimony from Mr. Bevan that there's activity right now by contracting parties to actually use the ratification—well, he did not say that; he said there is activity by contracting parties to change the quota structure. For example, he did acknowledge that the Faroe Islands were currently looking for bigger shares of shrimp.
I'm sure other contracting parties are doing that right now, because as I noted, in order for ratification to occur, if any one contracting party dissents and does not ratify prior to a three-quarters majority, then the entire convention fails. So Canada, again, is in a very difficult position. We either acquiesce and provide more quota today or the Canadian official position could be torpedoed and the convention not ratified. So there is an appetite, it appears, to provide whatever is available.
This is my last question. Mr. Parsons, you made reference to the election campaign and commitments. Did the department work very hard, in your experience or opinion, to provide some sort of perception of a win? A commitment was made that custodial management would occur and changes to the NAFO convention, whatever they actually materialized to be, were perceived to be true. What do you think about that?