It's very difficult. The fact is that we still have an international fishery carried out on our doorstep, until and unless, either one or two things.... The government was reluctant, for trade reasons and other pressures I guess, to extend jurisdiction where they should have. We compromised, which probably we shouldn't have, and talked about “custodial management”, in other words making Canada manager of the fishery that's outside, allocating fish to foreigners on the basis of their historical performances of the past.
We tried everything with the last Prime Minister. Lo and behold, instead of giving us some kind of satisfaction in that respect, there's a meeting that takes place in Spain of NAFO and a delegation from the government and from industry goes and sits down at this meeting in Spain and agrees to amendments to the NAFO agreement that would provide them with the opportunity of re-entering the 200 miles. Then there was another condition in the article in the NAFO agreement that was called the “objection procedure”. In other words, any foreign country could overfish to any extent. They had something like 50 or 60 days to go back home and register an objection to being warned about it or an infraction or something like that. It went out the window because under NAFO, while the Canadian government can inspect the ships that are fishing outside, or if they do fish inside, and record infractions against the regulations for overfishing and so on, it's the flag state and the flag state only that can take any punitive measures against them. In the last 30 years, to my knowledge, there hasn't been one punitive measure taken against the violent overfishing that has taken place.
But I'm going to tell you, excuse me, just one minute, it's my last statement—