Thank you, Chair, and thank you, Mr. Bevan.
I have a bit of an overriding question.
I'm familiar with how the shrimp was developed. There were some very creative decisions made during this process—the allocation to the Fishermen's Union Shrimp Company and to Torngat Fisheries, based on community ownership of the allocation, essentially. But there are also individuals or investors who developed this fishery.
I have a sense that outsiders who know nothing about this are appalled that the minister has absolute discretion here. I know that there are policies and there is a framework and everything else, but it seems that although we're talking about adjacency principles—and you heard the representations about the adjacency principle—these are add-ons to the original development of the fishery. But it seems to me that this part of it is set in stone.
We're talking about whether LIFO comes in as an add-on. But is there not a way to look at the matter holistically and see that maybe there is a way of imposing another level of fairness on this? I understand what happened in 1997 and what was said then and what has been said now, but it's not written in stone and it's not written in law; it's a matter of policy over time. Can that policy not evolve into different principles along the way?