I'm sorry to interrupt, as my time is limited.
I did want to talk about that as well, because I think all of you have used the word “permanent” with respect to that, and I think some of my colleagues have as well. To be clear, the word is “regular”. There's no such thing, I think, as a permanent licence in the DFO world, but those licences that were temporary permits became regular licences. I think that's the right terminology.
In fact, both in the press release at the time, and then in the integrated fisheries management plan that followed, it said this:
To address the structural problems in the harvesting sector, fleet rationalization was implemented as part of the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Fishing Industry Renewal Initiative. This provided vessel owners with sufficient quota to extend their fishing season. To support the fleet rationalization initiative, DFO converted the temporary shrimp permits to regular licences. Converting permits to licences increases the economic security, thereby giving stability to enterprises and allowing the industry to be more attractive to financing arrangements. This initiative does not affect current allocation principles that have been in place since 1997. These principles include a “last-in, first-out” (LIFO) provision that ensures the current offshore shrimp licence holders will be protected at the 1996 quota levels for six Shrimp Fishing Areas should the quotas fall in the future.
I also have a letter from Minister Hearn, written in April 2007, in which he explains basically the same. It says in one paragraph, “It is important to note that the conversion of the inshore licences will not have an effect on current allocation arrangements.”
It seems clear to me that the intent in 2007 was not to change the basic approach in how the allocation arrangements—some call it access—were going to be applied if the stock were to decline, as it has now.
Can I get your comments on that?