Sure.
On the first point, when we say there was no way of knowing how they would aggregate, whether five would come together and form a company, or 15, I think that's the point. Appendix B simply averaged it, and we had 10 or 12 per organization. The more important point is it didn't matter if it was five or 15 because each were taking in their own quota shares. That licence would then be assigned whatever the aggregate of those quota shares was, if that was 5%, 7%, or 2%, as the case may be.
Where it made a difference is in the way the actual decision was made in 2009. If I'm a quota holder and I think ahead that we're all going to be equal, then I'll combine with two or three others, because I'm going to get a huge gain. I go in with only 2%, but I stand to get 10% when they're all equalized, if you follow the logic. The people who are penalized are the ones who organize more than the average. If there were 15 or 20 in a company that pool their quotas, then they're levelized to a point well below that, and they're losers.
If you follow the logical extension of what the department did and look back at the report, in my mind it's almost inconceivable that you could arrive at this approach.
I'm not going to comment on the second part. That's more for the people who are participating in the fishery. As far as the mechanism is concerned, there's the explanation.