Well, I guess the really short answer is that it's about both. I think it's about an equilibrium. When we look at sustainability, I think we've all learned that it's difficult to divide and economize on the individual participants, the fish harvesters, and the resource.
I would tend to agree there are many areas in Atlantic Canada doing rather well in the lobster industry, and probably not interested in rationalization. I could understand why they'd probably say, “Stay out of our business”.
But I don't think we can afford to overlook the areas that are really going through difficult times. If we look at the chart of landings in the last 100 years, I don't think we are going to expect higher landings in the future. We'll probably expect lower landings, right? So I don't think these areas have any solutions to be able to get through what they have to get through.
Basically, I was explaining that it's both. It's an equilibrium. What we've attempted to propose to you today, and what we have been proposing as an organization—maybe not as an alliance, but as the Maritime Fishermen's Union for the last five years, all the way back to 2002-03, long before there were any problems in terms of this crisis and when there might have been a better price—and what we have consistently tried to get decision-makers to understand is a necessity in these areas, is a solution that permits improved sustainability in exchange for coming up with a solution to the economics. In other words, it's an exchange.
What we're trying to say is that for the fish harvesters in these areas who require this intervention, or at least this support in capital—not necessarily a program set up and prepared by governments, but at least the capital funding that can be accessed—what is ready to be exchanged here are some very important changes in the way they harvest. We want to be able to bring them to a level where they can respond to certification challenges and traceability, and where they can adapt, because they would in fact be getting a minimal amount of revenue from which they could take some of these necessary hits. Also, it goes to the point of their willingness to contribute to this financially. This is what is being proposed.
I say this because it's gone to a point where there are no other solutions. The solutions that have been proposed—self-adjustment mechanisms, flexibility, etc.—don't work for these people. To say that you are near bankruptcy and are going to borrow $100,000 to buy out your neighbour is just a ludicrous proposition, right? But that's what's been on the table, and it's the only thing that's been on the table for these people.
What we are saying is that there should be oversight in terms of these most difficult, hardest hit areas, and these are the people who are proposing this document.