Thank you.
Honourable member, first of all let me clarify something. As the deputy commented, there have been no cuts to science. I want to make sure that's on the record. As a matter of fact, we've increased our science. We do more partnering with universities; we have MOUs with other countries where we cooperate on science so we maximize the return for our science investment.
What the deputy did say is that as opposed to some of the funds being on a DFO science line in the budget, they are now on the coast guard line because they actually provide the platform for us to do science. There have been no cuts in science. I want to make that clear. We are doing a lot of things in cooperation with other organizations that allow us to have more science for the investment.
With respect to the snow crab decision back in 2009, I did not exceed the science advice on the snow crab TAC. As you are aware, there's an advisory process, which the industry is very much involved in, when the science is done on snow crab. The department provides me, for my final decision, a range of TAC that could be approved with a number of decisions. They make a recommendation.
While I did not take the recommendation, I met several times with the industry, who did not agree with our science. They were looking for status quo, for a rollover of the TAC from the previous year. They were well aware of the risks involved in this. As a matter of fact, if you'd like, I could produce the notice to fishers that spelled out the risk with rolling over the TAC. They were made well aware of it.
I consulted with our science folks who assured me that rolling over the TAC would not do irreparable harm to the stock. It was a one-year rollover only, because TACs are set on an annual basis. As a result of that, the TAC did take a big drop the next year, but I don't think it was any surprise to the fishers.