I won't repeat anything Keith said, but I think another practical way is looking at the fact that the offshore, for example, has access to all of the seven and the inshore only to two of them. Certainly, this has been presented to us in hearings that were held. Should the offshore have access carte blanche to anywhere they want to go, especially when they choose not to go to the northern areas without giving any proof of why they shouldn't go there? They call it “paper shrimp”. It's only paper shrimp in their books. Real shrimp are there, so I think that whole thing has to be assessed, Yvonne, for sure.
It's why for me, and I think for all four of us, recommendations number 1 and 2 are key, because they address the issue you're talking about, as well, regarding the aboriginal groups, the adjacency, and then the issue with regard to Nunatsiavut. Yes, we've been presented that and we are aware of the discrepancy between the 11% and what they're getting.
Recommendations number 3 and 4 are long term. They're contextual. We want to recognize them, but the key recommendations to deal with the issues that are being raised and that you've just raised are recommendations number 1 and 2.