Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, member, for the question.
There's always a bit of uncertainty in any scientific advice. We're trying to measure what's going on in a natural system that has its own variabilities. But in this case we're quite confident about the advice and the information that we're sharing here today. We have been assessing the northern shrimp stocks—all of these stocks, really—for many years. We have well-established procedures for monitoring and collecting the information that contributes to the assessment of their abundance. In recent times certainly our monitoring efforts have been very successful in that they are operationally complete. We haven't missed large parts of the season for doing our monitoring activities.
Given all of that, and the fact that the results that we see are not new, they are a continuation of a trend year over year, we're reasonably comfortable with the stock assessment that we see in all three of these cases, and we stand by the scientific advice that we have provided to the department for their consideration in management decision-making.
For the reasons that we just mentioned, it wouldn't be my place to make comments on the management process. We contribute our science advice into that management process, and I can certainly assure the committee that all of the information that we had that was relevant was available to the management decision-making process in the department. But I probably can't say very much more than that on that issue.
With regard to an independent review, from the inside of the department, for the reasons that I just outlined a moment ago, we're confident in the signal that we see coming from these resources, and we're comfortable with the advice that we've provided. From inside the department we would not see any compelling reason that we would need to have an independent, full assessment.
I would say that in doing our science, the end step in the process is to take all of the calculations and the analysis that we have done, and subject it to a peer review. This is a process that brings in other scientists other than the ones who have been principally responsible for doing the work. We put out all of our information and our calculations in front of them, and they're analyzed and picked apart and verified until the room is comfortable that we have the best analysis, the best interpretation, and therefore the best advice that's available. That process routinely includes people from other places in our department, but also outside the department, including the industry in many cases.