I thank you for this opportunity to meet all you gentlemen. I haven't met very many before, other than Mr. Weston, so thank you for coming to us.
I am president of the Fundy North Fishermen's Association. It represents fishermen from St. Martins to Deer Island and along the north shore of the Bay of Fundy. We have roughly 40 to 60 members, probably slightly fewer than half of the fishermen in that area. The rest do not belong to any association. Our association is a volunteer association. We charge dues of $200 to be a member. Most of the work is done by volunteers, although we have been able to hire an office person to deal with some of the issues--paperwork and so on--that are required.
I am also a member of the Fisheries Resource Conservation Council, but I'm not appearing here today in that capacity. You've already spoken to Jean Guy and Gerard and had some of the denial. I am speaking on behalf of Fundy North and, I might say, a bit for myself as well.
I am also a member of the Gulf of Maine Council on the Marine Environment, the provincial round table on fisheries, and the Scotia-Fundy round table, so I spend a lot of time going to meetings, primarily on my own time and at my own expense, but fishing is my life and I am very interested in it.
When you represent an association--and I'm sure I'm telling you people nothing you don't already know--there are a lot of diverse views. I have a good friend in the association, a fisherman, who is quite adamant that we need to be exploiting the lobster stock less. I have another good friend in my association, also a fisherman, who says that the lobsters are there to be fished as hard as we can fish them, and if they won't stand it, then we go drive a truck. I have views from one end to the other and everywhere in between, so for me to come representing a group is a difficult task.
In Fundy North we have tried to stress working with the people with whom we have conflict in order to try to move things ahead. I would say Fundy North was strong on working with the aquaculture industry to try to resolve some of the conflicts we've had with them. We worked with the Irving group on the LNG terminal to try to resolve the conflicts we had with them. Many of our fishermen said, “Just oppose it. Don't do anything. Just fight them”, but our approach has been to try to work through some of our problems.
That's the tone I bring here today, because we have problems we need to work through, but we don't have any mechanism to do it. I'll get on to that a little later, and maybe I'll be a little hard on you fellows, but I guess I'll give it a try.
Science tells us that in the Bay of Fundy it takes seven years for a lobster to grow to a size so that it enters the fishery. This fact has two major implications. First, all the lobsters that will be landed in the next seven years are currently crawling around the bottom of the ocean. Second, it will be eight years before we know the success of this year's spawning.
The current plan to deal with the lobster harvest is to catch as much as possible each season within the conservation rules. This does not seem to be a prudent business plan for seven years of stock. The great fear in a competitive fishery is that someone will catch the lobster before I do, and that's what drives this push to get as much as you can.
There is no mechanism in place to look at long-term economic planning. Global marketing and the rapid worldwide growth of aquaculture has increased the competition for the consumer's seafood dollar. The lobster industry is putting too much product on the market to maintain the high prices we have come to expect. Demand, and hence prices, had begun to decline even before the current economic downturn made matters worse. The charts--I have some here--indicate that 2005 was the peak year for sales and price for lobsters. It's been declining since then.
Traditionally, half of the lobster landings go to processing, half to the live market. The processing price is lower than live market price, but the live market seems to have reached a ceiling, as landings are at a 100-year high.
Now, some in the industry feel that the fishery would be better served in this situation if lower-quality lobsters were left in the water, if landings were streamlined to reduce glut situations, and if a way could be found to reduce price fluctuations so promotions could be planned in advance. Others feel that any movement in that direction may impair their competitive advantage. Some feel the industry is overcapitalized and inefficient. Others feel that those who fish hard will be rewarded and those who do not will have to leave. The Department of Fisheries’ position is that these are economic concerns and, without unanimity on an action, the status quo will prevail.
In terms of the long-term health of the lobster stock, industry is also divided. Some say that the current high landings prove that our management regime is sufficient to guarantee a healthy biomass. Others say that beginning to fish a stock two years before it is capable of spawning, with no knowledge of what percent of the spawning stock we are removing, is a recipe for disaster.
Now, if one were to google the words “sustainability framework”, one would get over three million hits. These would range from sustainability of the Toronto waterfront to sustainability of the Wisconsin forest. This indicates how important the concept of sustainability has become to our society. It is also informative that all definitions agree that social and economic considerations are right up there with ecological needs.
One thing our industry agrees on is that better marketing of lobster must occur. What we seem to miss in the industry is that better marketing implies a change from what we are doing. Japan wants better knowledge and management of PSP in tomalley. Europe wants traceability and third party certification that the fishery is sustainable. Environmental groups want more protection for species at risk in fishing plans. Several large stores are demanding MSC certification.
Now, the lobster resource is the property of the people of Canada. It generates about a billion dollars a year in income, primarily in rural communities. In many areas it is the major economic driver, as other fisheries continue to struggle. Meeting the challenges facing this important industry is possible, but it requires change and it requires money. And this is the point that I wanted to drive home: our present regulatory regime allows us to do neither.
I’m going to digress here. Years ago, when I started representing fishermen, I’d say about 30 years ago, we were trying to save our drift net salmon fishery coming into the Saint John River. We had a meeting with our then MP regarding this. At that time the government had just brought in what are called community service officers. They had people in the community to try to help the fishermen work with the Department of Fisheries and solve their problems. I remember the MP saying, “I don’t like these community service officers”. He said, “I remember the good old days when, if a fisherman had a problem, he got in a plane, came to Ottawa, and we straightened it out.” Those times have passed, but unfortunately the regulations have not changed to allow us to make decisions any differently. We can’t make decisions on our own. I don’t know how to handle it, and that’s why I’m coming to you.
This industry needs a decision-making process that does not define consensus as 100% agreement. And just two examples: if we were to ask for 100% agreement from the public that they'll pay income tax before we implement it, it wouldn’t happen; if we were to ask for 100% consensus in Parliament before anything went forward, it wouldn’t happen. But that’s precisely what’s asked of the fishermen.
The industry needs a way that money can be collected to finance things like market opportunities, product development, and additional science and technology changes. The idea would be to enhance rather than replace government contributions. But there are things that the industry should be taking on. Nothing implies ownership like contributing to the cost. There's the old saying, he who pays the piper calls the tune. If the fishermen want a voice, there should be a mechanism whereby they can contribute to some of the issues that are facing them.
Government is pulling back on funding commitments to the fishery and demanding that we do more, but it will not allow any initiative that requires all to pay. I've run into this many times in the 30 years I've been representing fishermen, and I'm going to give you an example.
Our wharves were turned over to local harbour authorities. By and large, this has worked pretty well, but the harbour authorities were given no authority to collect dues. It's basically on a donation basis. If a fisherman refuses to pay his dues, there's nothing we can do about it. We've gone to government people many times and asked if they will correct the situation by attaching it to a licence or doing something so that the people using the wharves will have to pay, but all we receive is refusal. In that sense, the government is encouraging non-compliance and non-cooperation when they reward those who will not ante up.
It's the same way in requiring consensus. The government gives a veto to any contrary person by defining consensus to mean there were no dissenting votes. As an example, three attempts were made to pass a new fisheries act. It was brought in by Liberals under Regan, and it was brought in by the Conservatives under Hearn--
