In all fairness, Mr. Byrne, in the way the assessment of cod was done at the time.... The survey that is carried out by the department is only one of the indices that is used in doing the survey. We have many other indices that are used. There is the sentinel fishery survey, for instance, the mobile gear and the fixed gear, and there is ongoing discussion on the state of the fishery. To my recollection, the indices—and I can see the assessment in front of me—show that the index from the sentinel survey was parallel with the index of the research vessel survey of the department. They have been in parallel for a number of years.
So I don't think there were major discrepancies in terms of the various indices. I agree that the large-vessel survey we have cannot go inshore up to the bay, and things like that, but this is why there are the other kinds of indices in order to look at the resource.
So I don't think the department was careless in terms of looking at all the information available in terms of providing the advice. But the state of the stock has been very low in terms of what it has been in the past, probably 10% of the spawning biomass as compared to the mid-eighties. In that sense, the stock was at a low state. So the issue here is rebuilding the stock versus keeping the stock where they are. The advice took that into consideration, to the best of my knowledge.