Fisheries Committee on March 30th, 2009

[Léonard Poirier]

I would like to make a comment in response to what you said. In 25 years, I have noted just how totally disorganized the industry is. In Canada, the lobster industry is one of the most disorganized. If this industry was organized along the same lines as the dairy industry, it would have a huge amount of power. For the time being, it is every man for himself, from the wharf to the consumer. That was obvious when we recently attended meetings that an organization called the Lobster Roundtable has been attempting to organize; that roundtable came out of the Seafood Products Roundtable. They are related to the Value Chain Roundtables set up by Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. So, that is one initiative. There is total disorganization, and in my opinion, it will be impossible to organize anything only from within. I don't want to be pessimistic.

If I had one suggestion to make, it would be to try and merge agriculture and fisheries in order to build on these three forms of capital: food products capital, meaning sea and land; human capital, meaning fishers and farmers; and, income security capital, meaning all the support programs that are already in place. If that is too cumbersome, the Coast Guard could be split off and possibly brought under National Defence. Another idea would be to take away the port infrastructure and possible transfer responsibility for that to Public Works. There is a need to bring human capital and food products closer together. That is what needs to be done. A department was set up to look after the wharves, but no similar department was set up to deal with the products. Instead of focussing on conservation, we are focussing on other things. If we don't, talking may end up being the only thing left for us to do.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Thank you.

Monsieur Lévesque.

[Yvon Lévesque, Bloc, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Mr. Poirier, you amaze me.

[Léonard Poirier]

Do you want solutions?

[Yvon Lévesque, Bloc, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

That is great. At one point, the Bloc was accused of complaining but never bringing forward solutions. I would not like to see fishers being accused of the same thing.

Earlier, you talked about a minimum number of traps and a maximum trawl lengths. Are you talking about a maximum trawl length of 56 meters with no more than eight traps?

[Mario Déraspe]

If you don't mind, I would like to answer that question. It may seem innocuous, but it is an action that was very important in decreasing the fishing effort.

In my opinion, that action and reducing the size of traps are the two main measures aimed at reducing the fishing effort. It is important to understand that previously, every fisher had complete freedom. Some fishers even had 75 four-trap trawls. It is important to understand that when you have more trawls, you have fewer traps, but you also cover more ground. That was brought down to a minimum of seven traps per trawl. In addition, we imposed a maximum distance of eight fathoms, or 48 feet, between traps, and total trawl length is not to exceed 56 fathoms.

[Yvon Lévesque, Bloc, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Is that specific to this fishing area or does it apply to all of them?

[Mario Déraspe]

It does not apply anywhere. In certain regions, they may even have one trap per buoy. Those measures apply only to this fishing area, LFA 22.

I would like to emphasize one point. Mr. Poirier has mentioned it twice, but it is important. In other areas, notably in the Gaspe Peninsula, there are a lot of mini fishing areas. There are risks associated with that. If one area wants to do something and the other one does not, that has consequences for the other fishers, because it is the same lobster. That is why it is difficult to come to an agreement.

Here in LFA 22, we are privileged. Around the island, the species is sedentary. Again, we are 325 fishers to have the privilege of harvesting the resource. Some people call that a licence, but in reality, it is a privilege that the Canadian government grants to fishers. However, that privilege comes with the responsibility to conserve the resource and keep it healthy for future fishers. Indeed, that is a principle we have always defended, and the associations have educated the fishers in that regard. A nice big word was invented to describe it: sustainability. I can assure you that my father and grandfather knew full well that there had to be some lobster left in the water if I was going to fish one day. That principle is very deeply entrenched not only in my beliefs and my way of life, but in those of a generation, of another time. We have placed considerable importance on these measures.

It is not always easy, but all the fishers in the small villages, in the different regions, speak the same language and can talk to one another. If you want to fish and want your children to be able to fish one day, you have to be careful and protect the resource. That is very much the mentality here in the Islands.

[Yvon Lévesque, Bloc, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

I could listen to you talk all day long, Mr. Déraspe; I know you have a lot of things to tell us, but I have to interrupt you. Since I only have one minute left, I will ask my two questions one after the other.

Mr. Poirier talked about the fact that Quebec had control previously and the transfer of jurisdiction to the federal government. To some extent, that seems to have adversely affected efforts made to extend the controls that you had in place here. At the time when Quebec had jurisdiction, did you have more power than you do now? That is my first question.

My second question has to do with costs. Have you come up with or proposed a mechanism to the government whereby you could to be compensated for your increased costs—even a recurring solution that could apply in the current circumstances?

[Léonard Poirier]

In answer to your first question, I pointed out earlier that, for the other species, repatriation had been more harmful than anything else. As regards the lobster fishery, I will just reiterate that, because it is a sedentary species, we have been able to work in a satisfactory manner with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans at the local level. In that regard, it was not harmful to the lobster fishery, but that is due in large part to the efforts of leaders and the fishers themselves.

The other question which I feel is important is your second one, relating to costs. When the crisis occurred in 1990, we went knocking on doors at the federal level but never received any assistance. The only one who came to the aid of fishers during the 1990 crisis, which looked a great deal like the current one, was the provincial government, which provided ad hoc assistance, given that there was no income security program in place such as the one for farmers, either at the provincial or federal level. It is a well-known fact that the federal government participates by transferring funds to the provinces for them to implement income security programs—something that does not exist for the fisheries—with the exception, of course, of the Employment Insurance Program. But that is something else; we could debate its advantages and disadvantages.

What I want to say is simply that, as long as the two departments—Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada and Fisheries and Oceans Canada—do not work more closely together to better position the people involved, the only option will be to rely on subsidies. There is a major problem right now. You are there, and you make much of the subsidies distributed to the communities, but there is a major problem with the distribution channel. That, too, has to be corrected; you have a role to play in that regard. There is no escaping it: everyone has a role. You need to take the time to act.

The last program to be introduced went through the Economic Development Agency of Canada. I will tell you what happened in Quebec. It was transferred to the Ministère du Développement économique et de l'Innovation. The same thing must have been done in the other provinces. From there, it went to the socio-economic organizations. Finally, the forestry sector benefited. Because we are disorganized, the fisheries received zero money. Some say that there is still $1 billion available, including some $200 or so million for Quebec. In that regard, if we are decide to operate that way, we may as well use the same channel as in the past—in other words, have the government transfer the money to its own department, Fisheries and Oceans, which would then transfer the funds directly to the industry. We are not interested in seeing our money get lost in all kinds of organizations where we are not represented, because of our lack of organization. If you want to help us, that's great. If not, what do you want?

As Mario said, his father knew this and we do as well: we know that we have to take measures. The biggest impact is financial. You have transferred funds to all the other industries.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Could you wrap up, please?

[Léonard Poirier]

Do what you can to ensure that the little money set aside for the fisheries actually gets into the fishers' hand. Otherwise…

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Thank you.

Mr. Stoffer.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Gentlemen, in 2000 I went around Atlantic Canada and asked lobster fishermen, in writing and in person, if something like a lobster marketing board would be something they would entertain. At that time, the vast majority of lobster fishermen and their families said absolutely no way; they wanted nothing to do with supply management and they liked the competitive industry they were in then.

I can't help but notice that in parts of Nova Scotia, in the media, fishermen are getting together to talk about the idea of lobster marketing boards, like a supply management system, similar to what we have in the dairy industry.

Of course, one of the challenges with supply management is that whereas we know in the dairy industry how many cows there are and how much they're producing and on what farms and everything else, in the lobster industry, as my colleague, Mr. Kamp said, we don't have an idea of what the biomass is or how many lobsters are out there. That may be a bit of a challenge.

Is supply management of the lobster industry or a lobster marketing board something you would be interested in looking at?

[Léonard Poirier]

If every province does its own thing, that is fine, because this is not an area of federal jurisdiction; however, at the federal level, there are certain prerequisites. First of all, the departments concerned must be merged—in other words, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada and Fisheries and Oceans Canada. Otherwise, we will continue to be part of a department where there is an organized lobby. Fishers do not stand a chance against the Fisheries Council on Fisheries. A simple structure, like the Fisheries Roundtable that I referred to earlier, is controlled solely by that council, and fishers are not welcome there. At the very least, these organizations need to be strengthened. Otherwise, at the pan-Canadian level, I see no point in having them.

There are two aspects to this: supply management—such as in the dairy industry—and price negotiation. We do not have to opt for supply management, which would be increasingly challenged. When you introduce supply management, you have to know the volumes that are involved, and so forth. Fishers could follow Quebec's lead: set up a marketing board and do nothing more—and this is already quite a lot—than negotiate prices, to ensure that prices are adequate. That does not mean a price that jeopardizes the enterprises; it means an adequate price.

With the Union des producteurs agricoles, the agricultural industry is very well organized in Quebec. Our fishers' association cannot even afford to pay for one permanent employee. There is simply no comparison to the Fisheries Council of Canada lobby. We cannot even make representations in Ottawa on behalf of the fishing industry. We were offered money for staff, but we do not have the right to make representations on behalf of the fishers. We can only provide training to them.

So, where is the fishers' lobby to counter these other lobbyists?

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Mr. Chairman, maybe it was the translation, but I heard Mr. Poirier say there were no fishermen on the FRCC. I just want to let you know that we met with the FRCC and two of them admitted that they were fishermen. I just want to verify that.

[Léonard Poirier]

I am not talking about the FRCC; rather, I am talking about the council that represents the industrial fish processors in Canada.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Okay. Thank you very much.

Sir, what is the total cost of an enterprise right here, including the boat, the traps, and everything? What is the total cost with the licence and all that? I just want to do a comparison as to what it would be in, say, Southwest Nova, Prince Edward Island, or New Brunswick. If a person wanted to get into it with a boat, the licence, the gear, etc., what would be the average cost on the Magdalen Islands?

[Léonard Poirier]

The cost of an enterprise has gone from $25,000 in 1983 to $300,000, some 25 years later.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

I do agree with you. Although I would disagree that you would move Agriculture and Fisheries and Oceans together, I would agree that the coast guard should go to Transport and that maybe the aquaculture department could go to Agriculture and Agri-Food. To move the two departments together, as you have indicated, I think would be quite a challenge down the road. But I thank you for that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Thank you.

Mr. Calkins.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Thank you, Chair.

I have a question, Mr. Poirier. In your notes, the one thing that stuck out in my mind was that you said that stability is very important to fishermen. You're talking about economic stability when you say that, about having predictable revenues coming in. I'm looking at graph 4, which shows the net revenues for the enterprise. If we go back, from 2002 to 2006, things look not too bad.

Then you started to talk about agriculture. I'm an Albertan. You're talking about wanting to merge Agriculture and Fisheries so that you can have access to some of the income stabilization programs. I can tell you, sir, that I don't know of anybody who phones my office to say, “I am getting too much money from the agricultural support programs.” I'm going to caution you to be careful what you wish for.

However, there is one program that was gone for a while, called NISA, the net income stabilization account. It went away, and recently we put a similar type of program in place. It's called the AgriInvest account. What this account actually allows farmers to do is take some money away in a tax deferred account in good years so that in a bad year, or in a year when revenues are down, the farmer can draw down on that account to pay the taxes. That helps stabilize the farmer's income.

Is there any access to a program like that for fishermen?

[Léonard Poirier]

No, unfortunately. It may seem like an innovative idea in the static environment of the fisheries, but the fact remains that in some countries, these two departments have been merged. It has also been done in some of the provinces—for example, Prince Edward Island and Quebec. In Quebec, fisheries and agriculture have been brought under one roof. Things have improved, but the financial integration has not been completed. At this time, we do not have access to any kind of stabilization program. And, as you know, federal participation is a must. As a general rule, when the provinces introduce programs, federal participation is required. That is when they shut the door on us—at least, that is the province's convenient excuse for shutting the door. It is connected to the fact that the industry is poorly defined.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Okay.

Mr. Allen has a few questions.

[Mike Allen, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Thank you very much. I am very pleased to be here today. This is my first visit to the Magdalen Islands.

It's great to be here in your riding, Mr. Blais. Thank you very much.

I have a couple of questions I'd like to ask. The first is about the buyback program and the self-rationalization of the fishing fleet through the buyback program. Mr. Poirier, can you talk about that? Did that start in 2006 or thereabouts? Just exactly what were the mechanics of that buyback, and how did that work among the fishermen?