Fisheries Committee on April 2nd, 2009

[Raynald Blais, Bloc, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Do you have any figures to give us on currently stored inventory?

[Christian Brun]

We've had an enormous amount of difficulty getting figures for New Brunswick. We initially held a number of meetings. The province of New Brunswick also took some steps to obtain the information. It's very hard to get information on our province.

We know that there is a large inventory of popsicle lobster, whole cooked lobster and what we call baby boil lobsters. We've all heard the figures on the air here and there. It's a big concern for people.

We are equally concerned about the fact that consumption of our lobster is in free fall in its target areas, since the Americans are choosing to go to the American version of the Atlantic Superstore instead of going to restaurants to eat at low-cost buffets. In view of the value chain, the share that goes to the fisherman when his products are bought at the Atlantic Superstore or another store is well below the average income a fisherman needs in order to survive.

[Raynald Blais, Bloc, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

In your brief, you refer to an amount of $233 million that the federal government could invest in rationalization over a five-year period.

I'd like to have some details on the amount in question. How did you come up that amount? Who might manage that rationalization fund?

[Christian Brun]

As I explained a little earlier, the idea is to create a fund in order to arrive at a lobster rationalization solution. The details on that amount are obviously substantiated in the document.

We developed a calculation based on the Atlantic Canada fleets that are having viability problems and that feel the need to proceed with a lobster rationalization. We simply used this figure to provide a brief explanation of the needs expressed. We are relying on that fixed figure to buy back licences and prevent new price inflation—we've learned our lessons. Through this process, the industries, associations and fishermen's groups will be able to submit requests that have to meet the two or three criteria set out in the document in order to be able to access this funding.

[Raynald Blais, Bloc, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

That's fine.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Kamp.

[Randy Kamp, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Brun, for coming in and helping us with this issue.

I have a copy of the full action plan. It raises some questions that certainly are stimulating, and I want to thank you for it.

I think it's fair to say that in the course of our hearings over the last several days, and even before that, we've heard what perhaps could be described as contradictory testimony. It's quite a diverse industry, even just the lobster industry. I think you would agree with that.

We're hearing different perspectives on a number of these questions. For example, on the question of the need for additional government involvement in this industry, we've heard comments ranging all the way from “Stay out of our business” to “We want the government to pay us in some way, either buy us out or top up the price”, or various other things. These are the kinds of things we'll certainly have to give some thought to, as we consider recommendations for the minister.

Another thing we've heard contradictory testimony on is the whole issue of overcapacity. I think you've made the point in your comments and in your brief that the average return on investment, or the average before-tax income, is relatively low. There are one or two LFAs that seem to buck that trend. But when we've come right out and asked if they think there are just too many fishermen chasing too few fish—or lobsters, in this case—we've often heard that they don't think there are, that everything is going fine.

So I guess my first question is, do you think overcapacity is the heart of the problem? And related to that, would the alliance be bringing forward this proposal if the shore price of lobster had, say, consistently stayed at $7 a pound—had in 2008 and looked like it would in 2009 and ongoing? Would you still be bringing forward this proposal then? I guess the substance of both of these questions is whether this is about ecology or economics. Is it about the sustainability of the resource or the inability of the economics to really work for these fishers?

[Christian Brun]

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.

[Randy Kamp, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission, BC]

Let me try to understand a little more of what you are proposing. The document actually doesn't just refer to lobster, but refers to snow crab as well. Are you thinking it would apply to all Atlantic fisheries somehow, or just to lobster and snow crab? Is it only inshore fleets that you have in mind? I guess that's one question.

And what are the mechanics that you would see? Is it the elimination of entire fleets? You talked about one-third. So is it more of one than another? If I were a fisherman who was still there and didn't get rationalized—however that's going to happen, perhaps through some sort of buyout, I assume, where I would not leave unless I were bought out by somebody—how would my situation be any different if I still had 300 traps? Should I assume I'm going to make more income because there are fewer people, or do I get more traps? How do I improve my economic situation, as well as meeting the goal of greater sustainability of the resource?

[Christian Brun]

The associations that have joined together in this alliance have mostly concentrated on the lobster industry. There are implications for other industries, and other industries might join or prepare some form of proposal in light of, or inspired by, this. But these associations are mostly the ones that have been in difficulty around lobster. I think that's quite clear in the document.

The way this would work is difficult to say. There are different ways that programs are already working in Quebec, for example. We have a licence retirement program. We do other things also to offset the effort on the resource and have a snow crab quota at this time. A lot of these programs are already set and in place. What's missing is the necessary capital for them to have the necessary impact.

What is the impact necessary? That was your other question. In the document, you'll see that we're talking about 25% to 35% of our fleets. That is where the price tag mentioned earlier comes along. What we need to do at some point, if we do have a fund of capital available, is to go back to our membership and analyze this group by group, community by community, and then ask what exactly is the reduction in people needed in your area so that those who remain will be able to take the pie and divide it up with enough revenue left for you—and with everything else remaining equal, and that's another challenge—so you will be able to have decent earnings from this fishery? That is the exercise we're willing to do.

Those who would remain, actually, would be willing to invest some of what is needed to be able to access this seed capital. They could borrow some funding for 25 to 30 years and pay it off every year. There are mechanisms, and quite an elaborate program in Quebec by O'Neil Cloutier and the guys, that show some very practical ways of how to do this.

[Randy Kamp, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission, BC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Thank you very much, Mr. Brun.

On behalf of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, I'd like to thank you for taking the time to come to meet with us today to share your organization's views and recommendations for this committee. It's really very much appreciated.

Before we adjourn, on behalf of the committee, I'd like to say thank you to the staff who have travelled with us throughout this process. It's certainly made our lives much easier, and we do appreciate everything that everyone has done throughout these committee hearings. Thank you.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear!

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Also, we'd like to say thank you to the community of Alma for hosting us here today. Thank you very much.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear!

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Once again, thank you all for coming today.

The meeting is adjourned.