Thank you very much for that.
While we were at our Moncton meetings, we did indeed hear some testimony from some stakeholders who argued the point that science had redirected or redefined its benchmarks after the fact. That caused them some concerns, because, in terms of representation of those peaks and valleys, science had taken an earlier position of a particular biomass using a particular formula-based approach. When they later adjusted their formula, the mathematical calculation of the biomass changed dramatically. They're indicating that this indeed caused some serious concerns. The sense that I picked up, and I think most of the committee picked up, was that science either had it wrong then or they have it wrong now, but it's one or the other.
Maybe, Marc or Sylvain, you'd be able to comment on where that comes from, and explain to the committee what happened there.