I guess it's always easy to second-guess negotiations done by somebody else. In the world I have to operate in, you have to make choices between the real choices--not the ones you wish for--on the table.
On that one, the full debate on NAFO reform did not take place at the full NAFO table. A lot of that was done by side working groups and in heads-of-delegation meetings. So to a degree we're subject to what we're told by the people who conduct that. I think ultimately what they came back with was that the total package that emerged appears to be as good as it's going to get. The question for the Canadian delegation was whether to proceed or let it drop, because Canada really was, I think as much as anyone, the instigator of the whole process. The view of the delegation was that the warts on that one were less objectionable than the warts on the current agreement.