Monsieur Labonté, there is a common thread and characteristic between both of the examples I gave. In the years in question, the Teleost, was performing the outer trawl surveys to actually do the stock assessments, and it's in the DFO scientific documents that those trawl surveys were inadequate in being able to provide effective baseline data as to exactly what the stock assessments were.
There was gear fouling. There were a limited number of tows. The vessel was incapacitated; it was at port for most of the summer. But despite all of that, despite the fact that the vessel was basically not performing within what would normally be considered to be normal parameters, DFO went forward and made recommendations, and it was based on, in fairness, a precautionary principle. But I think that's where the disconnect is created here. Despite the fact that there were concerns or issues within the Department of Fisheries and Oceans science branch, and those who were conducting these surveys, that never really got brought to the full attention of decision-makers and stakeholders. This is a major concern that I think each and every one of us has, especially when that kind of circumstance is brought to full light.