Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you for your presentations, gentlemen.
I have two questions, and perhaps my colleague, Mr. Byrne, will ask other questions if we have any time left.
Here's my first question. Apart from the issues of sharing and newcomers to the fishing industry, what do you think the industry, or rather the department, since it is responsible for this, could have done from 2006 to 2009 to avoid or limit the current crisis you're facing? Setting aside the sharing issues, is there anything else that could have been done to avoid the 63% reduction? That's perhaps one thing we will agree on: a 63% cut in one year makes no sense.
I come to my second question. Mr. Bevan, and Mr. Blanchard earlier this morning, tried in a way to rule out the economic profitability argument that you advocate somewhat eloquently. According to that argument—and this is something we often hear—if you had gross revenue of $800,000 for one year and had a loss of $80,000 or $100,000 that year, over a period of five of 10 years, and not for any single year in particular, the balance is nevertheless positive. Any other business has a certain obligation to retain its undistributed profits.
How do you react to this argument that Mr. Bevan advanced this morning, that a lot of businesses go through cycles in which income may be $800,000 one year, fall in other years and increase again? I won't conceal the fact that this is an argument that has often been used and that has a certain public appeal. Here's a chance to explain to us why that argument is not valid.