Okay.
I want to talk about an issue about as far away from British Columbia as we can get. You touched on it—northern shrimp. Last in, first out is, as you know, a policy that came into being under a previous LIberal government and was supported by the previous Conservative government. Of course, we're now seeing that when last in, first out was used last time to reduce quota, people who had entered under those terms were very upset about it. There are now varying positions being put forward by the inshore and the offshore fleet as to who provides more economic value, who has the greater number of jobs for the region. I understand that the science—and there's been no change here, I would argue, and I think officials would back me up on this—has always determined what the total allowable catch is, and so there's no argument to even close area 6 when there are significant reductions in the biomass.
The science can make that determination, but you have to make the determination as to who gets to fish it, if anybody does. I know you've set up a consultation mechanism, but how do you ensure that there's no political interference in that process, when both groups—both the inshore and the offshore—are making compelling cases that you should honour the agreement or that you should look at a new agreement. How are you going to ensure that there's no political interference and that you are making that decision based on the evidence, when the evidence is so contradictory?