Madam Chair, I opened my remarks with the fact that sharing was done to be able to provide the benefits of the resource for the benefit of as many as possible with consultation from the industry.
In fact, in the southern Gulf of St. Lawrence, for example, approximately 400 new entrants were added to the fishery.
The minister has actually just said that not only does she agree with that decision but that she will provide stability to the industry for the next five years, not remove anybody from the fishery and will not change any quota sharing structure. She agrees with the decision and she cannot deny that.
The minister is also saying that tough decisions have to be taken. If I were minister and science suddenly came to me with a recommendation for a cut of 63%, the first thing I would do is go to my department and my deputy minister to find out where these scientists were when this was happening.
The quota cannot be reduced. The fishable biomass cannot be reduced by 63% in one year unless a nuclear submarine blew up in the southern Gulf of St. Lawrence spreading radioactive waste.
What happened here was that the minister was asleep at the switch. She did not ask her scientists to ensure they were providing proper advice or, the scientists, over a series of years, were providing that advice and she failed to act on it.
She asked whether I would allow new entrants. We were the ones who allowed new entrants. It is not the number of fishermen who catch the fish, it is the amount of fish that is taken out of the water. The minister does not understand that basic conservation principle. The number of fishermen in a fishery do not affect the stock. It is the amount of fish that is taken out of the water that affects the stock. We better get that straight or we better get a brand new minister.