I think 20 or 25 years ago, I would have said that I felt that the DFO scientific review of its work wasn't as transparent as it should be. Today, however, I think DFO's scientific reviews are quite open and quite transparent. They do incorporate the industry, the union, and academics. I think perhaps they could make better use of NGOs than they have in the past.
Basically, what I could envisage emerging from a review of this nature is that science, through a variety of different types of models, comes up with estimates of target reference points. There are various targets that are used internationally and nationally and there can be uncertainties associated with what they might be, but the key element to these types of meetings is that they're peer-reviewed. In other words, the methodology is there to be torn apart if it needs to be torn apart, and if assumptions are made that are inappropriate, people will hear about them.
Ideally, you end up having scientific advice or a recommendation that is based on the best available information, and the methodologies that have been used to obtain that advice have been thoroughly vetted.