Fisheries Committee on April 2nd, 2009

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Thank you very much, Mr. Brun.

Mr. MacAulay.

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Brun. I'm pleased you took the time to come here, and I appreciate your presentation.

It's obvious from your presentation that there's been difficulty in the fishery before now, let alone what's taking place now and possibly in the future. I've been following it, of course, in the news. The MFU has been supportive of a reduction in the licences of fishermen across Atlantic Canada, as far as I understand. I see there are four main points in this proposal you have. So I just want to give you the time, and I wish you'd address that on how important it is to take the fleet out of the system. Even if they go broke—and you can explain this—it still leaves them in the system, and they will still fish, keep the pressure on the stocks, and also on the market.

So I'll give you time to elaborate on this.

[Christian Brun]

Thanks for the opportunity to mention that I did make available some copies of a proposal we've been developing with this alliance. It would be made available to you shortly, I suppose, or on your way back. There is a short brief that was circulated, so that gives you at least a short synopsis. There is the larger version that gives you some details, so you'll have the chance to read that.

Bankruptcies in this type of context are only going to keep licences in the game. You're absolutely right. In my view, what's going to happen is even worse than just keeping licences in. You're going to have perhaps some older folks who have spent the greater part of their lives in the fishery, sometimes second or third generation, losing their licences to bankruptcy near retirement. This, on its own, in our view, is quite catastrophic. We have to find a way to have these fish harvesters, who might have spent 50 years in the fishery, to respectfully leave the fishery.

On the other hand, we also have to find a way for some newcomers to come in, but not in this way. They'll have to borrow quite an important amount of money to be able to get in and will fish much harder. It will be that much more difficult for the resource to renew itself. So in my view, you have a no-win situation with bankruptcies.

The only way you can do it, which is what we're proposing in this document, is for the federal government to find a way to create some form of fund where you will correct the errors of the past--and not a 100% government-led buyback program where you have an inflation in prices, etc., and all sorts of consequences to that, but a fund. The different fleets have different ways of seeing this, but the industry proposes a way of being able to rationalize the fleet to the level they find acceptable and be able to contribute to that and do what is necessary in exchange for the resource to be more sustainable than it is.

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

Are you suggesting an Atlantic proposal, like the Maritime Fishermen's Union or the PEIFA, or would it be local? There are a lot of different scenarios in a lot of different areas. Would you be proposing that there could possibly be different scenarios in different areas?

[Christian Brun]

Yes.

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

If there was funding available, I think that would be much more acceptable, but I just want you to get that on the record.

[Christian Brun]

That's exactly what we're proposing. We're suggesting that the FFAW or the MFU could propose a way to go forward, come up with a solution for rationalization and access this fund. This fund would have two or three criteria to be able to get this capital. They would explain how they're going to do it, what the industry will be using to do it.

So it would not be a government-led program; it would be an industry-led program. You're actually submitting a proposal to get the capital funding to be able to do the job.

And yes, you could have different versions of this throughout Atlantic Canada. We have found it very difficult to find common ground with other associations on the ways of being able to rationalize, but we've all said we're trying to do the same thing; it might be different for what is acceptable in one area and another, but let's just create some form of fund. The basic criteria we found that we could all agree upon was that, one, it should be aiming at rationalization in some formal way, and, two, it should have some way to be able to sustain itself.

In other words—and I think this has been documented in literature—buyouts in the past have often proven that there's an effort creep-up afterwards. In other words, if you eliminate some fish harvesters or participants, the people who remain get better gear or better equipment, fish harder, and actually end up fishing relatively somewhere around the same amount. However, if in exchange for receiving some capital to do what you want to do you are able to improve the conservation elements, you are able to sustain that; you are able to keep that effort reduced throughout the years. That's the sacrifice that our alliance is proposing.

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

Thank you very much.

I took more than my time, actually, and I'll give the rest to Mr. Byrne, if it's okay with you, Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Mr. Byrne.

[Gerry Byrne, Liberal, Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL]

Christian, thanks very much. That's very helpful to the committee. You've actually put forward some very concrete ideas about the economic circumstances, but also about some of the economic solutions, those public policy solutions that are required to be able to adequately confront the downside of 2009 and hopefully create a sense of hope and light for harvesters and for the industry in general.

Have you been able to express these ideas in a format called the Atlantic lobster round table? If you are a participant in the Atlantic lobster round table, how has that experience been, and do you want to see that format continue?

[Christian Brun]

We felt that it was very difficult to express our short-term and long-term concerns at this round table. We found it very valuable in terms of bringing the industry together for once. I think that hasn't been done in quite a few years. I think that was very beneficial.

We've also been able to talk about some of the challenges I mentioned earlier on, like certification and other elements, so it was very good to be able to share opinions, but it wasn't in terms of coming up with a solution for viability. We found it very difficult to express this, although we have. It's just not been something that has taken up much of the round table's time. I would suppose that in time it might have developed to that, but the more global challenges have taken up much of the time.

[Gerry Byrne, Liberal, Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL]

What's the constraint on that? I'll put it to you bluntly. We understand that the round table may wrap up soon. There are some issues about CCFI, one of the organizing partners to that--

[Christian Brun]

That's a shame, because I think we were--

[Gerry Byrne, Liberal, Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL]

What's a shame?

[Christian Brun]

To have the organization not being funded. I would suppose that is what has happened.

I think this was a way to bring the different sectors of the industry together to express their views on many aspects. That's probably going to disappear. I hear there's a subcommittee in some form, which will have difficulty being maintained because of the resources not being there.

[Gerry Byrne, Liberal, Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL]

So it would be the position of the Maritime Fishermen's Union that the Atlantic round table process should indeed continue and that you as an organization would like to see the CCFI continue to have a leadership role in that respect?

[Christian Brun]

We feel that it's an essential piece in this puzzle. It has been driven and led, in our view, by a lot of the processing sector concerns, but there's always a process, you know, and you change that process along the way. You begin with a very large view. I think we were heading toward some of the harvesting concerns.

[Gerry Byrne, Liberal, Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL]

Okay. I really wish and hope that you have an opportunity. If the chair consents, if you have any further documentation.... You've mapped a lot of very, very constructive ideas regarding economic and policy tools. As an addendum or an addition to your testimony or your presentation here today, if you want to forward your proposals to the committee through the chair, I think that would be extremely helpful in the preparation of our report.

We'll include that as formal testimony, if that's okay, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

All right. I would appreciate it if you have anything at all. Do not hesitate to send it.

[Christian Brun]

There are copies of the larger proposal document floating around. I think you'll find a lot of details in there that could generate some discussion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Thank you.

Monsieur Blais.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Good afternoon, Mr. Brun.

I think it's important to look at short-term actions as well as medium- and long-term actions. I'm going to start with very short-term actions. We are really about to start the next fishing season in some areas. In the region I represent, Gaspé and the Magdalen Islands, it's a matter of days. Based on the information you're giving us, we can reasonably fear that there will be some lay-offs. They won't necessarily be reflected in the number of boats or the species harvested because, if there are fewer deckhands, that doesn't necessarily mean there will be fewer catches.

You expect that there will be 300 fewer deckhands this season. Do you think that's a situation that will spread everywhere, or does that depend on the areas or locations?

[Christian Brun]

I do think there will be more lay-offs by the start of the season. The fishermen have done their best, with the means at their disposal, to communicate with all those people and to convince them of the situation that could arise. I don't think the fishermen yet realize what could happen.

That number could quite easily double, not necessarily by the end of May, but perhaps by the end of the year. If the same thing occurs, or even more, the fall fishermen might react. They might realize the scope of the situation much earlier and have the time to prepare. They also have to travel a little less far to fish.

So we could see a further decline in the number of fisherman's helpers from 600 to 700, at least for this year.

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

In the very short term, what are the prospects for the lobster market in 2009? Do you think there is a risk we may once again find ourselves with an even lower lobster price than last year's average?

[Christian Brun]

That's what we believe. That doesn't mean that will happen. Obviously, market forces are at times very hard to predict. We've experienced that in recent years.

We think there is an enormous inventory. There is also what we call a glut or bottleneck of lobster coming out at the same time in May. That has had a negative impact on prices in the past. We expect this bottleneck will have a very negative impact this year and will cause a sharp drop in prices.

Fishermen who fished before December or until December didn't fish as they wished, whereas they could be coming out in force shortly. Consequently, this bottleneck will be even more pronounced than in past years.