On the first point, too, the important thing to remember is that in terms of NAFO having some jurisdiction inside for either of the two big issues, which are access and enforcement, I think the chances of that are so remote. Yet in cases like science there may be an opportunity to work together. In fact, there are examples now of straddling stocks, whereby you try to work together. But the chances, in my opinion, of any minister of the crown—having worked for a few—suggesting that there's Canadian fish available to a NAFO country or that NAFO would be asked to come in and police Canadian activities would be a little remote.
On the second point you raised, on the dispute settlement, just to reiterate what Earle has said, over many years with just a simple objection and being able to do anything you wish in that regard, without some ad hoc panel or compulsory decision-making process, we have made a good step forward in getting a process in place that allows us to at least deal with objections.
In voting, I would just add one thing to what Mr. McCurdy has said, and that is, from a Canadian perspective, what we want to be most certain of is that we won't lose some of our percentage of the share of fish we have. Hence, in the case of voting, I would remind you that 90% of the NAFO stock—90% of all the fish—is basically held by three countries: Canada first, the European Union, and Russia. And in a voting process, I have to agree again that I'd much prefer us to protect the percentage we have with those three voting, as opposed to even the 50% rule. It's only a difference of one, but it's nice to be able to protect your quotas in the process that gives you the number of votes you need.
I'll just use one example. There's one stock out there, in particular, right now, and the Americans would love to have some of it. It's 97.5% Canadian, under the current rules. For us to be able to protect—