I was very disappointed. I thought this was a hell of a good career for me right now to start with.
First of all, we really want to thank the federal government and the provincial government for the announcements about the funding to help the lobster fishery seek new markets. That happened last fall. It was introduced to us by Mr. Kerr and Mr. Keddy a few weeks ago. The depressed lobster prices last fall showed the importance of dependable market information in a region that is critically dependent on the lobster fishery.
Instability in the lobster fishery has repercussions in all offset sectors of the western Nova Scotia economy. The negative impact was felt in construction, car sales, housing, and service sectors, which is just logical, I would say. This not only affects the regional economy but also results in lower government taxation revenues in the depressed regional economy. Furthermore, this can depress the economy of other lobster-dependent communities of the maritime provinces, as we know we have affected the lobster fishery in P.E.I. by what we did last fall.
This is to propose for your consideration an expansion of your recent initiative with the objective of strengthening the industry over the long term. This, I might add, is a concept that I've been working on with Senator Comeau since December. It's proposed by industry people and members of Parliament--Mr. Kerr and Mr. Keddy--who also agree this initiative has merit.
We will, I guess, get into questions of what the prices are we pay for licences, but we propose that a portion of the considerable yearly licence fee paid into the general government revenues by licence holders in LFA 34—and I do want to specify in brackets 33, as there is an another option to work with them too—be directed to an industry-developed agency in southwest Nova Scotia. The agency would hire paid research staff who would report to a board of directors made up of industry representatives. The board would set overall policy and research objectives. An agency directed by the industry would have the trust of the fishermen and the buyers as well and might therefore have access to valuable industry information not readily available to government.
The goal of the agency would be to gather local lobster harvest projections from the industry, to research price and market data, to research transport issues, etc. Staff would analyze the data and propose plans to react to market and economic forces sometimes beyond industry control, as was the case last year. It is vitally important to identify these new diverse market possibilities and enhance the possibilities of shipping live lobsters to market.
Some of the advantages would be--and I have another list in the first document I presented to Senator Comeau--an industry made more stable by dependable research and perceptive analysis, resulting in better revenues for the industry, a more robust local economy, and an increase in government tax revenues.
You may wish to have your economists evaluate the impact, but I am confident they would conclude that a more stable and profitable lobster industry would result in increased total tax revenues and make up for the forgone licence fees.
There should be no Treasury Board difficulties, because the funds would come directly from industry to the agency, rather than from general revenues redistributed to the industry. Government and industry would determine an appropriate amount to go directly to the agency or board. There would be no subsidy issues raised with NAFTA partners or taxpayers, because funding would come directly from the licence fees paid by the industry, rather than from general taxpayer revenues.
Areas 34 and 33 could serve as a test area. If successful, the initiative could be expanded to other areas.
We hope you will agree that this concept is, at the very least, worthy of consideration. I understand that this was hand-delivered to Greg Kerr, Gerald Keddy, and Minister Gail Shea by Senator Comeau.