We've had a particular challenge in Nunavut-adjacent waters with respect to Greenland halibut. Granted, because of COVID we missed the surveys, but a vessel went down and there wasn't a plan to put the new vessel in place to do the research survey. We finally got there, but now we're missing a couple of data points with respect to the time series. You need to establish at least five years in the time series to have confidence in the results. There is work under way to do the correlations between the old survey—a vessel did do some work, but it wasn't strictly correlated—and the new survey so we can have confidence in where the resource is.
If we don't do that work and miss data points in the survey, we take the cuts under the precautionary approach. I have thoughts on that. I think we have a very restrictive view of what the precautionary approach means. If we don't do the necessary work, fill in the data gaps and do the work with AI or whatever is available, we take the cuts as an industry and as Inuit we lose fish. We don't get that fish back. It takes a while for allocations to be re-established. If you take a 2,000- or 3,000-tonne quota this year, it doesn't come back up next year and you start again from the new level. You lose that going forward. It's not just an annual cut. The work on Greenland halibut is probably one of the best examples right now.