The department provided advice for a lower TAC than that. The fishers had very strongly supported advice, by the way, with lots of technical work on their part, in coming forward with an alternative view, and the minister had to decide where to land on the issue.
This happens, and can happen, in many cases, especially when you don't have the precautionary approach and agreed upon decision rules for a particular fishery. Those now exist in this fishery, but in 2009 they didn't, and there were conflicting views—strongly held—by the fishers, and the minister had to take those into consideration.
That's the obligation and burden ministers face. They have no framework. They can't offload that decision to anybody else and they can't have a technocracy of views coming forward from a group that does not have accountability through Parliament and to the people of Canada. They have to make those decisions themselves. They don't always get consensus and they don't always get the same views, and they may not have hard lines drawn in the sand with respect to the science. So those are the cases the ministers often face and have faced in the past.