Again, at the time of the decision in 2009, we didn't yet have the framework around the precautionary approach. That's an approach where you establish conservation limits, below which you have to be very cautious with the stock, and below which, if you hit the real limit, you must have a very cautious approach and very limited catches. That didn't exist in 2009 at the time of the decision.
And science isn't absolute. We come forward through the RAP process with a stock status report and an estimate of the biomass. And then there's an estimate of what the biomass can be and what the harvest rate can be. It's not absolute, and there were differing opinions that were relevant to the scientific work that formed the basis of the advice going to the minister in 2009, including of the fishers, who were of the opinion there were more fish than the scientists had found and there were some problems with the way the survey had been conducted.
Those views were taken into consideration during the whole process of the RAP. But at the end of the day, we went forward with advice to the minister, and the fishers then came forward and said that advice was not founded on the appropriate science and they presented an alternative view, and the minister had to make a decision.