It was based on their view of science. They had a critique that was based on their interpretation of the science. Yes, they had a view that was not just “I want to fish”.
I would point out, as you pointed out, that ministers have to make these decisions, and do make these decisions. On numerous downward cycles, we've seen ministers take decisions higher than the advice of the scientists. And in those cases they got away with it in terms of the following year; the predicted declines were less than what were anticipated. So that's the history. In this case, it didn't necessarily work out. But we have seen ministers having to take the advice of the department, the views of the industry, and the views of provinces into consideration, and they make a decision at the end of the day. We have had decisions that were above the advice provided by the department on previous downward cycles, and the consequences did not turn out to be as dire as had been predicted.