I want to specify this very clearly. We were involved in the establishment of the precautionary approach, but in the precautionary approach there were two aspects. We suggested an approach that was precautionary, but at the same time we indicated, and science indicated, to DFO that in order for the precautionary approach to work, the managers had to balance fishing capacity with resource availability. This is an aspect that DFO people did not mention to you this morning. The whole precautionary approach can work as long you have a viable industry to work with.
The other point I want to make is that when we decided to quit partnering with DFO, it was basically when people decided to establish this overcapacity in the fisheries on a permanent basis. We said we're not in the game anymore. This is the reason we quit our financing in 2003. In negotiating with DFO at the time, we had on the table an amount of $2.3 million per year, an investment from the industry to améliorer the science and the management.
The problem we've had in the last few years with this discrepancy between the industry and science in terms of the status of the stock is that if those investments were there, that problem would not exist. They're not there because for political reasons DFO decided to spread the thing all over and make everybody unsustainable in the long run.
These types of situations do not promote good management and good performance in the industry. That's another example. This is why we're saying we need to bring this to the Auditor General. This thing has lasted for too long. Everybody's struggling, and it's basic.
One last thing in terms of science. The problem we have is that what is happening in the fishery.... We don't say we know better, but the thing we see in the fishery contradicts what they say they see in their trawl survey. There needs to be an audit of that. Our scientists need to go with them to check that.
I don't know if that answers your question.