My question is for Dr. Dadswell.
We've heard testimony from a Ph.D. candidate, Shelley Denny, that was consistent with what a Canada research chair, Dr. Megan Bailey, had said. They suggested that the seasons, in a reasoned argument, exist just as much for reasons of economics as for conservation.
They both have suggested that what we're really talking about is preserving the molting season rather than the health and the viability of the stocks, because there is a better market for hard-shell lobsters than for soft-shell lobsters.
How would you respond to the inconsistency within what you're telling us compared to what those learned doctors told us at committee?
I'm not hearing anything. Is he on mute?