I think the main thing is that as we look forward there is a way to deal with the objection procedure and to correct the limbo that allowed it to go on and on.
The second thing that's really important here is that, with the increased Canadian surveillance monitoring and enforcement, coupled with NAFO and the new measures that are under the convention.... I always consider the convention language as the act, and all the stuff that is needed, the measures, being the regulations, or the way we operate on the water. What we see as a big plus in all of this is that the thing putting at least some fear into the captains of the ships coming to fish the NAFO area is the measures under the convention. A lot of the improvements are in enforcement and surveillance, and especially when you get something like what we call the “shall” clause. When we find you in error with two major issues, as Earl has explained, we don't stop there. We can now insist that the captain and his crew and the boat come to some port. That in itself is probably a bigger penalty and deterrent to any illegal activity than a lot of the other regulations you might have on the books—just the fact that we can do that.
Let me go back to one point I made. You have an individual at our meetings as an adviser who represents all of the offshore fleet, be it in groundfish or shrimp, and you have somebody like my colleague, Mr. McCurdy who represents all of the fishers in Newfoundland and Labrador. When you see the whole group coming together and saying this is an improvement, I think we have basically found a level of comfort that says proceed and do the best you can, knowing it's not going to be perfect—you'll never get all you need out of 12 countries. At least this looks and sounds and is better than what we had, so let's do it.