Yes. There were three amendments. Number one had to do with a dispute mechanism where, for example, if a country participating in the fisheries had a dispute with respect to overfishing or some infraction, or this, that or the other, the amendments to that dispute mechanism made it almost useless for dealing with the dispute, weakening it to a considerable degree.
The second one had to do with the objection procedure, and that was a major one. The objection procedure was on the basis of NAFO, the organization governing fishing outside 200 miles, awarding a quota, let's say, of 10,000 tonnes to Spain, whose representatives at the annual meeting had 60 days to return to their government, review the quota level, and if their own scientists and their own industry determined that it was too low and not justified, they would fish beyond it to any limit. It made the organization useless really. So the objection procedure was further weakened.
The third one had to do with Canada allowing the return of the European Union nations to participate in our fisheries, provided that Canada offered the invitation. That was embedded in the amendment. We asked a simple question, if you don't want them to come back into our fisheries, why in God's name do you make provision for it, and there was no answer.
It was such that both standing committees, the Senate and House fisheries committees, were so seized by it that they brought it to the House of Commons floor.