Maybe I'll make a comment first.
First of all, I'm going to address the LIFO issue. It has been pointed out—we've pointed it out, others will point it out to you, and I'm sure you're going to hear it again on Wednesday, knowing somebody who's going to be presenting to you—that there was no consultation. It was something that was decided and laid on the people in the industry. It doesn't exist anywhere else in the fishing industry, and to keep coming back to that, it wasn't part of 1997. For me it has no connection with the allocations. It's totally separate from that. It's an artificial thing that was laid on the shrimp industry, and I think that has to be recognized by this committee. The proof is there for that, and it has to be recognized.
I totally understand that ministers have the right to make the decisions that they make. But when ministers make decisions that go against some of the principles, such as adjacency, and we're told we can go against adjacency but we can't go against LIFO, which isn't even a principle that was laid down, then I have a real problem. That's what I see happening.
I would hope that the committee would see its responsibility to bring that message to the minister. I know you can't force the minister to make decisions with whatever decision she makes, but you have a responsibility to listen to what we're telling you, which is the experience of the people in Newfoundland and Labrador. You have a responsibility to bring that to the minister. I want to put that out. I think it's essential for us to make that strong point.