Can I just respond to that? We do agree. We do agree, but it's the role of government, when unexpected things happen within their jurisdiction, to try to address them in a timely fashion and to mitigate against any negative consequences as a result of those actions. Fundamentally, there needs to be parity as well in the way they respond to those people who could be injured or to situations of potential injury. You mentioned that post-Larocque they were in a tizzy.
One of the reasons we pursued from the sablefish is that there's been an inconsistent response and policy. I'll quote from the same document, from the January briefing. It says, “The department has already undertaken to fund, through DFO A-base moneys, a number of science-related activities, which began in July 2006, including $2.2 million in post-season crab surveys.” They say that because of Larocque they had to fund the post-season crab surveys, but in our case they didn't have to.
All I'm seeking—because my background is public policy—is clarity, parity, transparency in public policy. The department's response in this interim period has not been that. And when you raise these things with the department they get angry with you, because they think you're pointing a finger. We're pointing out inconsistencies, hoping that we can work with them in order to resolve them.
On the issue of the interim while the department goes through this adjustment, what we need is clearly, Mr. Chair, a full allocation from Parliament to cover all of the science that would have been covered by an allocation of quota. Second, as Christina said clearly, we need a process undertaken to determine the base science that needs to be done, the fiduciary responsibility of the government, and the responsibility of industry—and we want a process that's transparent, so that we stop this one-offing within various sectors in our industry.