Thank you, Mr. Chair. I don't think it will take me any longer than 10 minutes, anyway.
On behalf of the Southern Kings and Queens Fishermen's Association, we would like to thank you for the opportunity to meet with your committee and share a number of our concerns. We would like to extend a warm welcome to you and hope your visit to P.E.I. is both pleasant and productive.
Before we begin to outline a few of our issues, I would like to take this opportunity to correct some of the incorrect notions of fishermen and their industry.
When the normal person hears that one is a lobster fisherman, they immediately think of a fisherman who has lots of money, a big house, a four-wheel drive, and is living the high life. Nothing could be further from the truth. We had a few seasons in which we were fortunate to earn a decent living. In the past 15 years in our area, the bottom has dropped out of the fishery, and there are few alternatives to make a living.
Let me give you a few examples of how our costs have increased and how our income has shrunk to dangerously low levels, a few examples of costs, say, 10 years ago and today.
Item one is bait. Ten years ago it was 15¢ a pound; today it's 75¢ to 90¢ a pound. We use approximately 1,500 pounds a week. Multiply it by nine. Labour was $400 a week 10 years ago and it's $800 to $1,200 a week now, average 10 to 12 weeks. Fuel 10 years ago was 20¢ to 25¢ a litre; now it's 70¢ to $1.40 per litre. We use 200 to 400 litres per day.
Insurance rates 10 years ago were $400 a year; today they are $3,500. For docking fees most of us paid nothing 10 years ago; today it's $700 to $1,000. Maintenance 10 years ago was $2,000; today, it's $5,000 to $7,000. A new propeller 10 years ago would cost $500; today it's $1,500 to $2,000. You could build a trap 10 years ago for $20; it's $60 now.
Our lobster prices have been shrinking. In 2005-06, we received $5.50 a pound for canners and about $6 a pound for markets. In 2008, we received $4.25 a pound for canners and $4.50 for markets, with no rebates. In 2009, we have heard of prices of less than $3 a pound for canners and maybe $3.50 for markets. If Nova Scotia has a good season in April, this will shrink to even lower levels.
What is the reason we are covering these items? Quite simply, fishermen are not living the high life a lot of people think they are. We have exhausted most of our credit limits and are on the verge of collapse. If we do not receive some assistance this season, we'll see quite a few of our colleagues go bankrupt. That's the position we find ourselves in.
I'd now like to take you to unemployment insurance. We want you and the members of this committee to know that we appreciate the government's vision in allowing our members to draw down unemployment insurance benefits. Without this assistance, we would not have been able to survive as long as we have. We are grateful for this program, for without it we would not be able to continue on in our fishery.
There is one problem we will be facing that has not come up before. With the reduced prices for lobsters, the possibility of having fewer buyers and the problem of not being able to sell our entire catch each day, a large number of our fishermen may be facing the problem of not qualifying for EI benefits this year. Combine this with the lower lobster prices and the increasing harvesting costs, and we will be faced with the possibility of not qualifying for these benefits. If this happens, we will have an even more critical situation on our hands.
We have a suggestion on this topic for you to consider. Seeing that a very real outcome is that a number of our fishermen will not qualify and also given the reduced income from lobster, we would like you to consider recommending to your colleagues in Parliament the concept that they pass policies or regulations that will allow fishermen to qualify for EI benefits based on their earnings or income earned in 2008. This would be applied to the years 2009, 2010 and 2011.
This would allow the fishermen to have a financial safety net in place, and they could concentrate on working with the government on improving the long-term stability of the fishery. We are willing to discuss this further if you wish.
Regarding rationalization of the fishery, first, what is rationalization? To us, it is putting programs in place that would reduce the number of fishermen in the industry while allowing those who are willing to exit to do so with some funding.
We are fully aware of the negative feelings generated when fishermen suggest licence buybacks or some type of financial assistance. When we look at the automotive industry, we hear the term “billions” being mentioned. In agriculture, the list of subsidies and assistance has been more than generous. Are we complaining about these expenditures? No. We are proposing some consideration for fishermen and their plight. We are not asking for assistance for nothing. We have prepared a document, “Planning for the Future”, which is attached to this document.
In short, the fishermen in our lobster fishing area have offered to reduce the number of traps from 300 to 250 in the spirit of being partners with the federal government. This would mean 65 fewer lobster licences in our district. We would reduce our trap numbers if the government would buy out an equal number of traps. To do this, we think the cost would be 65 licences times $200,000 each. This single action would reduce the trap fishing effort by one-third of the total fleet in our area.
We understand that the Prime Minister has a $3 billion fund to assist in such stabilization programs. We're asking for $13 million of that $3 billion. It's a very small investment to save our industry, and not only that, but our organization has offered to operate the program to reduce the costs to the government. We would like to explore this proposal.
Regarding wharves and infrastructure, we will not dwell on this topic other than to say we really need some upgrading to our wharf and infrastructure facilities. In some of our ports, we don't have adequate fresh water. Electrical circuits are deteriorating. The wharf structures are decayed and falling in. We need dredging as well. We do not have any washroom facilities.
We met with your committee last fall and put forward a number of proposals. We would recommend that Fisheries and Oceans work with each port authority and plan a list of needs and rationales for their use. As money is made available, it would target the most urgent needs in the area. We would be willing to further discuss this issue.
We have two final items that we would like to put forward for your consideration. The first is to have our lobster products certified as being sourced from a highly managed fishery in an environmentally sensitive manner. Many consumers are demanding this type of certification before they will purchase a lobster product. We need the assistance of both levels of government to make sure our industry is a world leader in having their products certified.
Our final item deals with the needs and resources of our conservation and protection efforts by DFO and the industry. We feel that more resources have to be funnelled to the field activities of the fisheries officer division.
In addition, we would like to suggest that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans instigate a program of having reserve fisheries officers who could be trained and employed as required. Is this a new idea? No. The RCMP has such programs, and the Canadian Coast Guard has a whole regiment of people trained and ready to be employed in a time of need. Why couldn't Fisheries and Oceans follow a similar plan?
In summary, we want to again thank you for the opportunity to share our concerns with your committee and to lay before you some of our critical concerns. We would be willing to discuss these topics, or other questions you may wish to pose.
Thank you, on behalf of the fishermen from the Southern Kings and Queens Fishermen's Association.
