Very briefly, this is clearly a very transparent process. The fall survey takes place. I think it's pretty transparent that people know what the trends are.
There's then the RAP, the assessment process and scientific process. It's transparently done in that we have a peer-reviewed process with the fishermen. Everybody knows the trends. They know where we're going. It's not as if there's secrecy or it's a big surprise.
Of course, we take that advice through the advisory process, where you have input from the harvesters, provinces, and so on, about how to interpret it and how to make a decision based on that advice. It then goes to the minister.
I would say nobody was expecting the status quo in 2010. Everybody knew what the trends were, starting in the fall and going through the process. The number that came out was perhaps more than they had expected. They were expecting a 40% or 50% cut, not 60%.
The number is based on the fact that we don't want to risk the future by taking short-term action now. Trying to mitigate the impacts on plant workers and fishermen this year by taking risks with the future is not the way to go. We've learned that through bitter experience.
I don't know if you want to add anything about the process. Has it changed since the 1990s?