I think I qualified the latter by saying that in the last round of cuts—that's the cuts as a result of budget 2013—there were no front-line staff cut who were involved in delivery of services to Canadians directly. It was based on a combination of existing organizations, to remove duplication, to look at increasing spans of control, to deal with the management overhead, etc. While staff did get cut, obviously, most of them were located away from the front lines. The heaviest cuts came to our executive cadre as we streamlined our management. That was in 2013.
We did lose scientists in the previous budgets. We looked at where we could focus our attention. We wanted information in support of decision-making. In terms of ELA or that kind of thing, that doesn't support regulatory decision-making, and that's one place we focused. We also looked at obtaining service differently for contaminants.
Scientists were impacted in the initial rounds, but not recently, as we focused on our core. That meant we wanted to avoid cuts to anyone who was helping fisheries science and stock assessment and ecosystem evaluation, etc.