I'll get to my third question, because, Ms. Reid, when UBC—which has a great reputation around the world for its science and its capabilities—is saying there's an abundance of fish, yet you close it anyway, we have questions.
The example I would bring up is that of Pender Bluffs. We were just outside of Sidney, B.C. That's a great example of closing unnecessarily. We were present in the area, but, of course, we didn't go in because it was closed. We've learned from Washington state data that southern resident killer whales are in the area only seven to 10 days on average per year. That's for the entire year, yet the closure is permanent and it's all year long.
With the 5,000 full-time-equivalent staff added to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans over the last six years, why can you not manage a moving bubble zone like the one on the east coast, where you simply manage and close the area when the whales are present? When they're present, it's closed—we'd all agree that's the thing to do—but when the whales are not present, then it's open.
With all the staff that have been added to DFO over the last number of years, why would you not implement a moving bubble zone in an area like Pender Bluffs?