Fisheries Committee on June 3rd, 2008

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Bill Matthews]

Good morning, everyone. We'll now call the meeting to order.

We're meeting this morning for a briefing on a possible cod quota reduction in the southern Gulf of St. Lawrence.

I would like to welcome our special guests with us this morning and our committee members. Our guests this morning are from an association of boat owner-operators from the Gaspésie. We have Mr. Couillard, and Mr. Cotton.

Gentlemen, you have ten minutes to make an opening statement to the committee. I don't know who's going to present the case.

Mr. Cotton, go ahead, please.

[Réginald Cotton, Fishermen's Representative, Association des capitaines-propriétaires de la Gaspésie]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

First of all, allow me to introduce myself. My name is Réginald Cotton, et I am from Rivière-au-Renard in the Gaspé. I am one of the groundfishers who have been forced to fish small, temporary shrimp quotas since the moratorium.

We have provided you with the document on which we have been working for almost a year now. I am the spokesperson for the Association des capitaines-propriétaires de la Gaspésie. I represent nine mid-shore fishermen's associations from the southern gulf. I am the spokesperson for the Association des pêcheurs de la MRC Pabok, for the Regroupement des pêcheurs professionnels des Îles-de-la-Madeleine, for the Association québécoise de l'industrie de la pêche, for the Association des pêcheurs de poisson de fonds acadiens, for the Association des pêcheurs spécialistes indépendants du poisson de fond, for the Association des morutiers professionnels de la Gaspésie, for the Northern Cape Breton Fishing Vessels Association, and for the Prince Edward Island Groundfish Association. Moreover, two governments are working in partnership with us, the Government of Quebec and the Government of Nova Scotia. I represent all those groups.

I am here today because there is an important problem regarding cod in the southern gulf. There is a huge gap between what the science is saying, and what fishers are seeing and catching out at sea. The same thing happen in the northern gulf. The gulf is divided into two parts. The northern gulf is managed separately by Newfoundland and the Institut Maurice-Lamontagne. The southern gulf is managed out of Moncton.

Several years ago, things in the northern gulf changed. Newfoundland fishermen would go fishing, catch cod, and see cod. They said so to the scientists managing the northern gulf, and things improved for them.

Last week, the fishing plan for the northern gulf was announced. Fishermen will be allowed to catch 7,000 tonnes of cod. The biomass is much greater in the southern gulf, and there is talk of instituting a third moratorium. As I said earlier, the fishers and the associations that represent them are seeing a huge gap between what they see and what science perceives. We would like to close that gap and remedy the problem to some extent. We would like to harmonize the fishery in the north and south, which would mean changing certain things.

For example, let me tell you about the tool people in the southern gulf are using to inventory stock — the trawler. They use it to catch cod and inventory cod stocks. That trawler dates back to Noah's time. Even fishermen stopped using it in the 1950s because they could not get it to work. At the same time, there are other things that I will not go into since all those details are in the document we distributed.

The northern gulf stopped using that trawler several years ago. And scientists in the northern gulf say that catches in that sector have gone up fivefold. That does not mean the cod suddenly appeared — it was already there. However, because the inventorying tool works much better, it provides a better picture of what is there. I am not going to go on too long about this, since you have the document.

We are asking the Department of Fisheries and Oceans to do something to improve the data on the southern gulf. For economic reasons, DFO dropped one of the inventorying trips several years ago, so there is no longer a spring inventory. This is the gulf, and in the Gaspé the cod come in during the spring and leave during the fall. I am fairly convinced — as are all fishers and associations that I represent, even the governments I represent — that the best way of measuring cod stocks coming into the Gulf of St. Lawrence is to measure and count the fish that come in in spring.

One major criticism we have is that DFO people — the scientists in Moncton — are measuring stock in the southern gulf in August. That is when they do the inventory. I am probably the only fisher here today, and with good reason, but if you ask all Atlantic fishers, even professionals will agree with me in saying that no one has ever been able to fish for cod in August. I am 57 now, and I have been fishing since I was 16 or 17. It has always been that way. We do not know why.

We, the fishermen, think that it is probably because the cod is living the gulf in the fall in preparation for its migration. I don't know whether this cod is in another water column or in areas where we can't find it, but scientists take advantage of this time of year to take inventory of the stocks. That is one of the main reasons why these people don't have any data. Every time they go out, there are no cod.

I can draw a parallel with the salmon fishery. In our region in the Gaspé Peninsula, there are highly ranked major spawning rivers. At the end of the 1800s, when the Canadian and Quebec governments realized that the Americans were very interested in salmon from the Gaspé, they first tried to inventory the fish stocks. They started to do that inventory when the salmon fishery opened. They realized that they could not find almost any salmon because during the salmon run, the salmon are going back into the river. So when they tried to count the fry in the salmon pools, they could not find very many. It's not that they didn't find any, it's that they didn't see them.

When the light is poor, it is impossible to see the salmon on the bottom. Most of the time, salmon hide behind large rocks. They hide under large tree trunks lying on the bottom of the riverbed. They are impossible to count. Scientists realized over the years, given the great interest in salmon sports fishing, that they could count them during the salmon run. That is why this method is still used today. In most major salmon rivers in Quebec and elsewhere, the salmon are counted during the salmon run, and that is the method that is still used today.

So, an easy way to understand what is happening in the southern part of the Gulf of St. Lawrence is to measure, as we've done in the past, the number of fish running upstream, but using modern methods.

The debate centres around this issue. Since the north has changed because of the trawler, various other things needed to be changed. Whether you are in the northern or southern part of the Gulf of St. Lawrence, even if there is an imaginary line drawn by humans, the cod don't necessarily recognize that line. We're talking about the same species, cod, in both the northern and southern part of the gulf. You can think of the Gulf of St. Lawrence as a lake. Even if it is separated into two, there is no reason to adopt such different methods in the northern and southern gulf.

That is why fishers have had a lot of questions for the past 15 years. The gap is growing exponentially year after year with scientists in the southern gulf, from Moncton. That is why we are here today. We are asking the Canadian government to closely examine this issue. Thanks to the work of scientists, Fisheries and Oceans Canada has quantitative data. But we know full well that thanks to our knowledge and our experience, we can provide it with qualitative data that is as valuable as the quantitative data provided by scientists.

Last summer, I took part in a science exchange in my region, Anse-à-Beaufils, in an old plant that had been renovated into an arts centre. Scientists and academics from all over took part in this exchange. To my great surprise, I was invited to this event as a fisherman by the Government of Quebec and the Canadian government. There were some 100 people in the room, and I was the only fisherman. I wondered what I was doing there, alongside academics with titles as long as your arm. I was a bit surprised. The exchange was on climate change.

I was the first to get questions. I was asked, first, what I thought about climate change and what I had observed at sea. I shared my observations. They all told me that I was completely right. The groundfish are the most sensitive organisms to changes or climate change.

I have been saying that since the end of the 1980s. Even at the end of the 1980s, when we were catching a lot of cod, I was telling scientists that something was happening, because we could no longer catch the cod where we used to. For years, I, my colleagues and representatives of associations have been saying that the migration pattern had changed. But, not much has changed in the southern gulf, scientifically speaking.

Mr. Chair, we are asking our government to give us a chance. In our brief, we are asking for a three-year project, with a TAC of 4,000 tonnes. You might think that 4,000 tonnes is a lot, but for the fishermen in the entire Gulf of St. Lawrence, this is not a lot. I can tell you that, with a TAC of 1,500 to 2,000 tonnes for the southern gulf, the picture will look pretty bleak.

Four thousand tonnes would be appropriate if all the fishermen went out to sea. It is easy today, every fisherman knows what he can catch, be he from the Maritimes, Quebec, the Magdalen Islands or anywhere else. If it were set at 4,000 tonnes, every fisherman would go out. We are asking the government to record and analyze each trip by each fisherman. We strongly believe that the situation would be better than with a moratorium of 2,000 or 500 tonnes.

Mr. Chair, like all those whom I represent, I believe that the worst harm done to the biomass in the southern Gulf of St. Lawrence was the result of the fishery being closed.

Here's an example that I often use when I'm asked to talk about the fisheries. If someone in my family had cancer, I would isolate them in a corner and leave them there. Because they had cancer they would be left to die in peace, even if it took two or three years. Why not take a chance and try to see other doctors or get other medication? It's the same thing with regard to the fishery. We, the fishermen, are here because of our experience, just like the fishermen from Newfoundland. If fishermen from Newfoundland have convinced scientists to change some things we should do the same in the southern gulf.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Bill Matthews]

Excuse me, but we allocate ten minutes for your opening statement, so could you try to wrap it up now, because we're going to a period of questions and answers after this. I'm sure some of the things you want to say you'll be able to say in answer to some of the questions. So could you please just finish your opening remarks, and then we'll go to the questions and answers, because we have another set of witnesses coming after you.

[Réginald Cotton]

Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have said what I came to say. The people who are around the table have all received our brief. I won't say any more. Perhaps my colleague, Mr. Couillard, has something to add.

[Jean-Pierre Couillard, Technical Advisor, Association des capitaines-propriétaires de la Gaspésie]

To summarize the problem of assessing the health of cod stocks and the gap between scientists and the industry, I would add that the bond of trust is broken. The only way to bring things back into balance and bring the two parties to talk to one another is to try for a genuinely cooperative approach through a partnership program between industry and the scientists. When I say industry, I mean fishers. When scientists assess cod stocks, they often forget about the socio-economic and socio-cultural environment, and do not take into account the impact of their findings on the fishers. In our document, we are also asking for a partnership program when the assessment structure is implemented. We want to be involved in deciding how data is gathered and what criteria are established to assess the health of cod stocks, particularly in the sector under discussion.

Lastly, DFO always takes the precautionary approach, which is extremely difficult for the industry and fishers. The precautionary approach is an extremely significant factor, just like sustainable development and the sustainable envelope and budget put forward by DFO. Scientists who apply the precautionary approach at DFO have given it a definition as “Erring on the side of caution.” However, they are erring so far on the side of caution that it is unnecessarily making life very difficult for fishers. What we do not want is erring too far on the side of caution.

Thank you.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Bill Matthews]

Thank you very much, Mr. Couillard.

We'll now go to our round of questioning, beginning with Mr. Regan, please.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

First of all, Mr. Cotton and Mr. Couillard, I would like to thank you for coming here today. This is quite an important day for the fishers of your region. I am very concerned about your situation, as are most likely all members here today.

We have received a table entitled “Captures and total allowable catch of cod in NAFO Division 4T in 2004-2007”. Do you have the table? You will be given a copy.

The table shows the total allowable catch (TAC) in each year from 2004 to 2007. The captures account for some three quarters of the TAC. That worries me somewhat. How do you explain that apparent trend?

[Réginald Cotton]

Thank for your question. I am very glad that you asked this, because I said earlier that I was primarily a groundfish fisherman, though with the last two consecutive moratoria, we were allowed temporarily to catch shrimp.

When we fish for shrimp, we cannot fish for cod. For several years, the problem with the cod fishery in the southern gulf has been that it opens at the beginning of July. So we cannot fish for cod.

Secondly, most of the time, even though this is probably not in the notes, fishers with mobile gear catch almost 100 per cent of their quota, almost all the time. The remainder used fixed gear, and there is a problem with respect to fishing seasons and fixed gear in Quebec. For several years now, I believe that Quebec and other provinces have been putting forward some demands on this issue. We have to wait for the lobster fishery in the Atlantic to be over before the cod fishery can open. But fixed gear boats and other small inshore boats have to do without the cod for that reason, when the cod does not come close to shore.

When I said that we did not get some three quarters of the captures back, that is in relation to this sort of problem, not because there was no cod.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

I see. I understand that the scientific inventories of cod stocks prepared over the past few years were done using different boats. I do not know the difference between the types of gear used, but in your opinion, does using a different boat have an impact on DFO data?

[Jean-Pierre Couillard]

What I can tell you on that is this: recently, we commissioned an assessment by a fishing equipment expert, and managed to show that when fishing gear is poorly adjusted, it does not only show the wrong readings—low readings—but might show that the catch for the assessment is zero. That is the particular reason for which fishers do not really feel that the scientific data have credibility.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

So this is not because different boats are involved. That has nothing to do with it.

[Réginald Cotton]

No, because DFO scientists have a formula—I don't know what they call it, but I'm sure some people here know—that makes it possible for them to compensate for the discrepancy between the two boats.

But that is not why we are taking action. We have a great many problems that date back many years. In our brief, there is testimony that mentions Mr. Cyril Burns, of Cape Breton.

Historically, Fisheries and Oceans Canada chartered fishing boats with skilled fishing crews and captains to inventory stock. At some point, I don't know in what year, but it is stated in the document—a fisher who presented himself with his crew would trawl 24,000 pounds of fish in a single pass. The scientists told him that he was causing them some difficulty because under normal circumstances he should not have been catching cod. So that was the end of it: scientists on the boats said that they would no longer agree to have fishers with them to inventory stock. We consider that unfortunate.

What I'm going to tell you might seem amusing, but it is as if people don't want to find any fish in the southern part of the gulf. We are not here for nothing, and we have not done all this work for nothing. It has been difficult and long. It is difficult for us to leave the Gaspé and come here three or four times a year. It is expensive and difficult, but we do it anyway because we know full well that what the scientists are saying—that in 20 or 40 years there will no longer be any cod in the southern Gulf of St. Lawrence—is not true. It is not true at all. We, the fishers of the southern gulf, are like the people of Newfoundland, we see cod and we catch cod. We are not saying that there are the 200,000 or 260,000 tonnes there were in the early 1980s, but there is some. I think that Canadians might be able to use it. With the knowledge we have today, we could allow Canadians to enjoy the little fish we catch, because otherwise, the seals get them.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

So in your opinion, the DFO trawler that did the inventory in the southern gulf did not do a good job.

What would you recommend for the system to be more efficient?

[Réginald Cotton]

Earlier, I talked about harmonizing the north and south. After all, we are inventorying the same species and the same body of water, even though that body of water is split in two by some imaginary line put there by human beings. It is the same Gulf of St. Lawrence. If things are working so well in the north, why can't we harmonize the south with the north?

Scientists at the Institut Maurice-Lamontagne who are looking at the northern gulf changed their boat for a shrimp trawler, which is called a Campelen trawler. Why could we not use one in the southern gulf? We have been asking the advisory committee for these things for years, but to no avail. People are telling us that the data in the southern gulf are not changing. The U.S. is coming to see those data. I don't believe we have anything to learn from the U.S. We should do our own work. And if the system is working well in the north, we should be applying the same system in the south. People would just be happy about it.

We are not saying that cod is present in the same numbers as it was in the late 1970s and early 1980s, but we should allow Canadians to participate in the fishery. If we can catch some, we should have the right to do.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Bill Matthews]

Mr. Byrne, do you have a question?

[Gerry Byrne, Liberal, Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL]

Thank you very much.

What you're telling us, if I am reading you correctly, is that the scientific evidence that's in place is completely false compared to the biomass reality of the southern gulf.

I'll give you some supporting evidence for that. You may be aware that the cod fishery in 4RS was shut down in 2003 because of the lack of the resource. Well, of course the cod fishery in 2007 in 4RS, in the northern gulf, was set at 7,000 metric tonnes. So it went from zero tonnes in 2003 to 7,000 tonnes in 2007. So could somebody explain to me that if the scientific evidence that led the closure of the cod fishery was accurate, how can the cod fishery now support a 7,000 metric tonne quota in 2007?

To me there seems to be a systemic problem with DFO's scientific credibility in collecting this information and in prescribing proper commercial approaches to the harvesting of this resource. You are doing a pre-emptive strike here to prevent that same mistake from happening in the southern gulf.

I want to put something to you. In the proposed new fisheries act, the powers of the minister are limited. You are here to implore the minister to use his existing powers to set quotas as he sees fit, and to have those decisions unchallenged by any court. Under the new fisheries act, the minister would actually have the requirement to follow scientific advice, as it exists, whether or not that scientific advice is responsible, reasonable, or meets the test of common sense. That requirement is in the proposed bill before Parliament today. If he doesn't follow that advice, various environmental organizations can challenge the decision of the minister in a federal court and create an injunction against the prosecution of the fishery.

Is the answer to the southern gulf's problem simply to pass the new fisheries act and to let ports decide what is appropriate or inappropriate, or would you rather have a minister with the ability to make judgments based not only on scientific evidence as it exists, but also on the evidence brought forward by fishermen from organizations that you represent, evidence that is not necessarily scientific-based, but based on generations of experience of being on the water?

Yes or no?

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Bill Matthews]

Excuse me, Mr. Cotton. Before you answer, I just want to say that we're going way over time because of the length of the question. I don't want to take time away from Mr. Blais, who I am sure we want to hear, so could you give as brief a response as possible, please?

[Réginald Cotton]

The law hasn't changed. I can give you an example. Earlier, I said that one of my colleagues, a fisher from Cape Breton Island, Nova Scotia, went to sea with scientists and caught 24,000 pounds of cod. Normally, the scientists should have said that, if the cod was present in such large quantities, the cod fishery could be reopened. I said that there is no cod at all in August, just because there isn't any. There isn't any cod anywhere.

I know that the new legislation could limit the powers of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans Canada. We believe that making such changes to the legislation or to the powers of the minister is not the issue. We want things to change. We are talking about shared stewardship. I have worked under a system of that kind. Shared stewardship and co-management are the same thing. Fishers will have to have a real voice in decision-making rather than have decisions imposed on them as they have been for years. Scientists give the orders, and we have to comply.

On the ground, like the fishers of Newfoundland, that is why we want things to change. If we find cod, we should be able to calculate how much there is, so that we can determine whether we can allow fishers to take some of it. Otherwise, the grey seal get them.

I would like to tell you that at present, in the southern gulf, there are worms—not just in cod, but also in capelin, turbot and halibut. Turbot is a lucrative fishery, in fact, it is the second-largest fishery in the Gulf of St. Lawrence in dollar terms. It brings in $1 a pound to fishers. However, when you take out one, two or three worms from fish in the net, once the fish is frozen it leaves a yellow mark that makes it unsuitable for marketing. Then what do we do? Do we let the seals catch the cod rather than have the fishers catch them? Wherever I go, I ask whether taxes get paid by seals or fishers. I think that at some point we will have to make a choice and remedy this.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Bill Matthews]

Thank you very much, Mr. Cotton.

We'll now move to Mr. Blais.

[Raynald Blais, Bloc, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Hello, Réginald and Jean-Pierre. You spoke a little bit about the impacts of a possible moratorium. For the benefit of my colleagues, I would like you to elaborate somewhat. There is some hint that there could indeed be a moratorium.

A moratorium would have repercussions on the fleet, the fishers, communities and businesses, but also on the history and gathering of data. Boats and fishing operations would no longer be in the southern gulf to tell us what is really going on, as you are today in your testimony. I would like your views on those repercussions.

[Réginald Cotton]

There is no doubt the repercussions would be enormous. For example, some 20 years ago, there were about 60 mid-shore fishing boats in the Gaspé. Today, in the Gaspé and Magdalen Islands, there are only 18 mid-shore boats with a groundfish licence. It's the same thing in other provinces. By contrast, 20 years ago, there were 63 mid-shore boats in Newfoundland, and there are still 63 there today. Those fishers were compensated through shrimp licences. For Gaspé fishers, the fishers that I represent, the impacts will be significant because we have no shrimp licences. We depend completely on temporary shrimp allocations. About a month ago, we had to go out on the streets to try to win back what we had lost.

Sales figures for a mid-shore boat are about $100,000. Insurance on those boats costs between $12,000 and $15,000 a year. Then it's over, and we can't fish for anything else. In our region, plant workers will not even be eligible for employment insurance. You cannot do enough hours to be eligible for EI with the little shrimp we get. The impacts are huge.

In our region, people fish for crab and all kinds of other species. We get calls from everywhere, from all provinces, telling us that fishers are catching a lot of cod in their crab traps. As far as I know, a crab trap is not the right fishing gear for cod. If they are managing to catch that much cod in their crab traps, it's because there is cod. We're not saying there is a great deal of it, but there is some. All these negative repercussions make no sense. Some communities depend on the fishery, and communities will die because people can't go fishing. The small amounts of shrimp we get will not make it possible for us to make ends meet. When we want to charter our boats in the spring, we go to the bank, and people ask us what we'll be fishing for. We don't know. We can't charter our boats in the spring because it costs about $20,000, and we can't borrow money to charter it because we don't know what we'll be fishing for.

Those are the repercussions, Mr. Blais. The repercussions bring death by inches. The repercussions bring the disappearance of fleets like ours. These needs have been created over the years, as they have in other provinces.

[Raynald Blais, Bloc, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Earlier, you mentioned grey seal at the end of your remarks. Grey seals are much more voracious than harp seals, with which we are also familiar. They are much larger and quite ubiquitous. There are repercussions. We know full well they eat cod. We also note that the department has not made much effort with regard to the grey seal. As you noted, we are penalizing a group of fishers that honourably fish their quota of cod, or try to do so, while we let grey seals eat an important resource.

If efforts were made to keep down the grey seal population, do you think that might eventually compensate for losses and reduce the repercussions on cod stocks?

[Réginald Cotton]

You are absolutely right. Twenty years ago, there were approximately 7,000 grey seals. Today, the herd has grown to between 70,000 and 100,000 seals. What is unique about the grey seal is that it lives within the gulf, along the coast. They can be found across the Gaspé.

Let me give you an example. At the tip of Forillon Park in the Gaspé, people have developed boating expeditions, seeing that there was some money to make there. They operate expeditions to do some grey seal watching. There isn't any cod left along the coast.

I would like to draw a parallel between the seals and the coyotes in the Gaspé. Deer hunting used to be a quite lucrative business in our area. At one point, scientists established a coyote population. They said that that would balance things out and that nature would do its work. The coyotes then multiplied and ate all the deer. That is a fact, you can verify it. The hunt was shut down for some 10 years. Snowmobilers and hunters made a concerted attempt to eliminate the coyotes. The hunt reopened four or five years ago. Things are going well, there are deer, and we are monitoring the coyote population.

As for the seals, they live along the coast, and there is no cod in the vicinity. A parallel can be drawn between the seals and the coyotes. As soon as a cod ventures close to the coast, it is eaten by a grey seal. Moreover, there is nothing much we can do about the grey seals. I think that we will have to rectify the situation and reduce the herd to what it was in the early 1970s. It just doesn't make sense. Once again, I insist, seals don't pay taxes, Canadians do. We should correct the situation. The grey seals are eating the cod we should normally be fishing.

[Raynald Blais, Bloc, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

I would like to touch on something else during this round of questions. I would like to hear you talk about the impact of the moratoriums and your current understanding of the situation in the region. If cod fishing were to be halted in the southern part of the gulf, that would mean that we would only get an idea of what's going on during a small part of the year. As well, you disagree on when the data is collected. The impact of a moratorium on operations at sea is therefore very obvious.

Could you expand on that idea?

[Réginald Cotton]

Of course. As I said earlier, fishers think that the cod biomass in the southern gulf will be greatly harmed if we stop making regular checks of the situation, especially if we close down fishing. Fisheries and Oceans Canada scientists in the southern gulf go out in August. The situation can be verified, and that is why we are here today, as I indicated earlier. Year after year, they tell us that it is harmful, that things are not back to normal, that there is no cod, etc. Why then have all crabbers in the southern gulf been catching cod in their traps for the past few years? Because there is cod in the area. Scientists are simply not going out at the right moment.

Earlier, I gave you the example of someone who is sick, and who is left to die in a corner without being given a chance. Why couldn't a project such as what we are advocating not be created? In cooperation with the scientists, we could collect both qualitative and quantitative data. I think that is how we should work from now on. We would know exactly what is going on in the southern gulf, as was the case in the north. That is where the problem lies, Mr. Blais. Year after year, we have been putting those demands forward to the various advisory committees, because no one wants to change anything.

Another moratorium would be harmful because we think that the fishers would disappear. I am at an age when I will be retiring from fishing in the not-too-distant future. There are not many young people in the Gaspé willing to take up the trade. Because of the gloomy feeling in the fisheries and of all that has been announced, people are leaving the Gaspé, the Magdalen Islands or the Maritime provinces to work in the major centres. There are not many replacement fishers, but if we lose the expertise... As you know, cod in the Gaspé is a matter of culture. All the communities were developed around that resource.