Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, gentlemen, for taking the time to be here and for your presentations.
I understand that you've had a lot to say and I, alone, have a lot more questions than we have time for, let alone having to share it with the other people here. We're at the beginning of our examination and we're going to be pulling all this information together and hopefully coming together with a constructive conclusion.
I want to start with this. I certainly support any decisions that help us sustain our fishery, whatever it is, northern shrimp or otherwise. The question is how we do that and how we make sure that we help to maintain those communities that are sustained by the fishery, the economic activity and so on, for, in this case, the province of Newfoundland and Labrador.
We, as were many communities and fishermen and others, were quite concerned about the impact of the cuts to the inshore. In SFAs 4 to 7 the reduction has been in the area of 26%. It's a big deal. It's a lot of fish, it's a lot of money, and we're increasingly hearing stories of the capitalization of some of these small enterprises, both the fishermen and the plants and the communities that are supported by their activities. A key part of this discussion seems to be not if we need to cut the quota.... Although we're looking at that and we want to look at the science and come to some conclusion that we think makes sense. The resource appears to be under some stress and therefore to head in that direction makes some sense. It's a question of how you do that and how participants in the industry share in that reduction.
We've had this—Mr. Chapman mentioned it and it's been mentioned—last in, first out policy, which, the way you've described it, Mr. Chapman, sounded a lot more clear than the way I've heard it explained to me. One of our presenters the other day from Torngat didn't think that it was as clear as that. Nonetheless, it really does tear the guts out of the inshore sector in many ways. I think what we need to do is get to the bottom of what this last in, first out policy is, number one, and whether it's as clear as you suggest it is, and secondly, whether we're going to recommend to the government that they support it and allow the inshore sector to continue to absorb the greater burden of these cuts.
We're looking at 3,000-odd employees, not only fishermen and their crew but the plants. I was in the southern coast of Labrador last year and I know that I met with a number of fish plant workers, and if the boats aren't able to bring in the fish, the shrimp in this case, they won't be able to work. They're going to continue to move away and then that community will all of a sudden dry up and blow away. Is that the answer? I don't think so.
I'll ask you this question. Given the history of the fishery and given the fact that these fishermen, as fishermen throughout Newfoundland and Labrador in many cases, have fished this resource for generations—and the principle of adjacency was one of those principles in 1997 and then in 2003—would you not think that there should be some fairness introduced into the allocation reductions? Would you not think so in order to ensure that there is some control over a reduction in the resource, if that's what it is, so that these enterprises, small and large, can adjust in a timely manner rather than be hit by simply a 30% reduction to one fleet for one year? Can you deal with that principle, please?