I guess the part we're not getting squared away is that, reading back through the testimony, it states that once the note is done to the minister, industry doesn't know what's in the note. So there's no interface with industry before the note goes—the input is there and the note goes. So they would like to be part of that note going up.
That being said, on the decision in 2009, the minister contends that it was industry that drove the decision to have the increased harvest in 2009, which warranted the reduction in 2010. So do you see? Industry is saying it doesn't have any impact on the final decision or doesn't know the note that goes to her, yet it was industry that drove the decision. She's sort of dumping it back on industry for the decisions she made in 2009.