Actually we all have copies of the independent report, so I dragged it out, and I wondered what he was talking about. I went to it. It's a table. I started going through it and asking what he was talking about. It very clearly shows that 50% of the quota goes to us and 50% goes to them. The only thing that didn't quite compute is that based on the future, when we would have 31 licences and the traditionals would have 31 licences, if you shared 50% of the quota with each of us--guess what? It would mean you would have equal licences. Do you see what I'm saying?
The problem was because they held off that 9,700 thing, when we became permanent we put our licences together to make what a traditional permanent licence was--let's say 55 tonnes. It took 20 of our individual quota holders to make up 55 tonnes, because they were sharing--I don't know--for tonnage or whatever, so we got only 16 licences. We didn't end up with 31 licences. They had a master plan. They had decided how they would like things to be: we'd share things equally, 50-50. To me, I put a ribbon on the bow: why don't we make them both exactly the same number of licences? That way, it's much simpler. You give out the quota, and it's the same amount per.
I've been staring at this for the longest time, having discussions with DFO on this, and this seems to be the thing that's holding them back. I shouldn't say that. This is their excuse for not going forward with what was in the plan.