Fisheries Committee on June 18th, 2009

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

Thanks very much.

Mr. Chair, I know we're very rushed, and my colleagues want to get a question in, so I'll turn it over to Lawrence MacAulay.

Is there certainty that there is a consensus that you would like to base it on 2008 earnings to apply to 2009? I'm seeing heads nod, so I'll take that as a consensus.

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

Thank you very much. I appreciate that.

In any sector, if you could go back to the previous year, it can be used as a pilot project, and that would relieve a lot of the financial stress in the fishing industry and in other industries across the country.

Mr. LeClair, first I'll ask you about rationalization. My concern about rationalization is that there has been a lot of discussion here on it and the industry involved. It's awfully difficult for me to understand somebody who's going broke being able to help financially in rationalization.

I'd like your opinion, but I just want to give you where I am coming from. I think that each LFA can vote. I don't know...in LFA 24, which probably has the lowest carapace size in the country--we hear of carapace-size talk--it's the most successful fishery in the country. But each area has different problems.

I'd like to have your view on rationalization and how it should be done--possibly trap reduction. That's where I'd like you to go, and I would like the other ministers to respond, too.

[Neil LeClair]

Yes, thank you, Lawrence.

That's exactly right. As I said earlier, industry has to be involved. If rationalization takes place, the commitment from industry and from each LFA is different. But they have to look at the situation, whether it be trap reduction or to lengthen the season so the processors can get the product in the right product form for the market and get it sold, instead of producing for inventory.

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

But I'd like you to refer to loans to the fishery, large loans to each LFA.

[Neil LeClair]

I like the concept that's been out already where the federal government is going to put in an amount of money in the form of a grant to get these LFAs started. I think once they're started, and if they get the ability to get a couple of years.... I don't think they have to take all the gears out of the water overnight, but if they can come with a long-term plan and they get input from the federal government to start this plan, in my area of P.E.I. we would probably look at helping them out with a low-interest loan as a part of the program, or maybe no interest on the loan to get them started. Then later on, when the catches go up when they increase the number of landings and the amount of money they make, they could put money back in to continue this process and continue to buy some gears.

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

Thank you very much. I have many more questions, but no time.

I'll pass to Mr. Andrews.

[Scott Andrews, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Thanks.

I have another question on a fisheries-related issue. This week the government tabled the NAFO treaty for the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization. I'd like to hear each minister's concerns, if they have any, about this particular treaty, and in particular if they have concerns with the treaty allowing European and other vessels inside our 200-mile limit, which was in the treaty.

In my view, we didn't ask to have this type of management outside of the 200-mile limit. I would like to hear the thoughts of each minister on their concerns with this particular treaty.

[Tom Hedderson]

Again, to the honourable member, I appreciate the question, because it's been a long-standing thought and it's a direction that we would like to see. We have asked a number of governments to make sure that we have custodial management of the 200-mile limit around our coastline. We fear that in its absence we cannot properly manage the resource.

When we look at the conventions that are moving forward now, we're expressing concern that there might be, according to the language, the possibility of monitoring, I guess, or even enforcement from outside countries within the 200-mile limit. We see that as not being acceptable. As well, we're one of 12 in that whole regime, and we find that it is very, very difficult to push back. Any change in conventions that would allow any intrusion on our 200-mile limit is just simply not acceptable.

[Scott Andrews, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Are there comments from other ministers on that issue?

I have one final question, unless my colleague has anything.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

You have 30 seconds.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

If I may, I'll return to that issue for just one moment.

Alastair, on these particular amendments to the convention at NAFO, before it comes up for a vote, do you see this as a precursor, then, as a vanguard, towards something you can attain through custodial management?

[Alastair O'Rielly]

I think I have your question correct. The question you're asking is whether or not these amendments, these changes, are in any way leading towards a greater level of opportunity for Canada to extend jurisdiction. Really, they're not. They're moving in the opposite direction.

What's happening in terms of constitutional reform and within NAFO is an attempt to fix NAFO and address some of its shortcomings. Of course, as the minister expressed, there are a lot of reservations about whether or not that will be done. Canada's approach has been to work with the other NAFO members and try to effect reforms that will provide for an effective regime. As we all know, NAFO has never been an effective regime for management outside the 200-mile limit. There's a lot of apprehension about whether or not that's going to work. It's by no means, under any shape or form, a substitution for an extension of jurisdiction and adoption of custodial management.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Thank you very much.

Monsieur Blais.

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

Gentlemen, welcome to the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans.

I want to say that even though there are no representatives from Quebec at this table, they are still here to a certain extent. We are representatives of Quebec here in Ottawa. I am fully aware that the Oceans Act is a contentious issue. In theory, that is why representatives from Quebec cannot be here today to appear before the committee. However, I think they stand in solidarity with you today.

Accordingly, I would say that the people of Quebec want adjustments made to the plan that has just been announced to help the lobster industry. This plan should not be implemented across the board, but only in certain places that have had a lot of difficulty. In Quebec, rationalization efforts have been made with respect to conservation. Those efforts need to be recognized and rewarded.

Now, I would like to use this opportunity to talk about another issue that concerns you and that certainly concerns the people in this room today. We also have members of a delegation of cod fishermen from Quebec and New Brunswick here today. They want to know your opinion on the recent announcement regarding the lobster industry.

We saw that it took time before an assistance plan was finally announced. There is a moratorium on cod fishing in the southern Gulf of St. Lawrence. We will not necessarily go into all the details of the dispute over the assessments. But in terms of the impact, the loss of income is devastating for these people.

How are you responding to the situation in New Brunswick, Minister? No doubt, you are concerned by this issue. I found it unthinkable to announce a moratorium without introducing an assistance plan. We help people—and that is perfectly normal—who are going through hard times. When you cut off their resources, the most responsible and respectable thing to do is to introduce an assistance plan. What do you think?

[Rick Doucet]

We met on this topic just a couple of days ago. It was a turbot issue, and then a day later there was a cod issue. In my workings with the federal minister and departments, we've drawn a line in the sand. We cannot lose any more traditional share, because this is affecting the viability of communities and fishermen. This practice has to end. We're going to stand behind the fishermen. We're going to work with them to see what we can do. Yesterday, when we arrived, I brought this issue up with the minister and I was able to clarify some details. But we'll be discussing it more later.

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

Does the gentleman from Nova Scotia who is not the minister, but who will soon have a minister, have anything to say?

[Paul LaFleche]

That is a policy issue, and I am not able to give you an answer. If you do not mind waiting a few days, I will send you a decent answer by email. Would that be okay?

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

Fine.

When you have a fishing sector that is in trouble and you decide to impose a moratorium, the least you can do is to give people support like they do in other sectors. I think that everyone would agree on that.

One aspect of the lobster issue that everyone agrees on, which could also be discussed in the cod context, is a plan to buy back licences. Such a plan would provide a medium- and long-term approach to treating people who are being cut off today honourably, in my opinion. But in the short term, we need an assistance plan.

I would like to hear your thoughts on a licence buy-back plan.

[Joseph LaBelle]

Our province is continuing to help groundfish fishermen. That is a problem that we have been trying to solve since 1993; it is a long process. Clearly, the decisions that were announced this week caught us a bit off guard. For a few years now, we have been working with people at home to create a rationalization program, a reintegration program. The simple solution would be a licence buy-back program.

However, there are businesses and contractors and fishermen that are important to the communities and that could continue to contribute to the fishing sector. We would like to find a way to incorporate those interests. Allocations vary depending on the type of fish and access clusters. We try to put them together to have a process that allows businesses to be profitable, all the while knowing that the various species have a tendency to fluctuate differently. We have not succeeded in finding a solution that allows businesses to move forward and to look to the future.

Before the end of the season, it was pretty negligible. Now that the cod is disappearing, it will be quite a challenge. The only licence buy-back would take away people who are important to our industry. We want to find a way to establish viable business plans with accommodations. There are other people, other sectors trying to change the situation. The question is, can we put them together?

[Tom Hedderson]

With respect to this rationalization you are talking about--taking licences out or quotas out--to make the industry more viable, in our jurisdiction, of course, we have many species of fish. Generally, we have indicated to the federal government that we are prepared, under our fisheries renewal, to partner with them up to 30% to bring about rationalization. But it would not be rationalization by taking some players out. It would be making sure that the restructuring also takes place so that what we are left with is a viable industry.

For most species, you have some equity in your licences, because you have quotas, and other fishers are interested in getting your quotas, because it would increase their catch. The difficulty we have in Newfoundland and Labrador is that we have small lobster enterprises--small boats--and there are only licences. There are no IQs. So here we have, as I pointed out, 5% of the value and 30% of the licences, and it is really narrowing down so that fishers are getting something, as I mentioned, like $4,000 a year. We have to find a way to take out that capacity. In that case, it's not self-rationalization, because they have nothing to offer. A licence is of no value to other fishers. On those we are hoping to partner with the federal government to find a way. Going forward, with the money that has been announced now, we hope there is some way we can do that. The lobster fishery is different from the crab, from the cod, and from others, because you have quotas there. Fishers can self-rationalize, because they can sell those and get out of the business and someone can purchase them and make good on them.

I hope that answers your question or gets to some of the information you needed.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Thank you very much, Minister.

We'll go to Mr. Stoffer.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.

To each and every one of you and your respective governments, thank you very much for what you did yesterday in exposing Ottawa to a wonderful eating experience, as Clearwater says, regarding lobsters. A few people I spoke to this morning had never tasted lobster before, and they thoroughly enjoyed it. Thanks to each and every one of you for doing that.

Rick, if I may call you Rick, you are absolutely bang on. This is a crystal opportunity for the five provinces and the federal government to work together to develop a long-term strategy and to also develop short-term relief for the fishermen and their families.

This is unprecedented in many areas. I am sure I speak for the committee. We are very pleased to see the cooperative nature of what you are all trying to do. I know, deep down, that it's the fishermen and their families and their communities you are concerned about. But as you know, if there is only one fisherman catching lobster, and he can't sell the lobster, we still have a problem. Marketing concerns are very important, and the eco-labelling, as you indicated, is going to be a serious challenge. I honestly believe that if everybody sticks together and works together on this issue, we can solve this issue, the shrimp issue, the crab issue, and everything else.

I will ask my question and then turn it over to my colleague, Jack Harris, from Newfoundland.

Some fishermen are very concerned about the possibility down the road of an ITQ system or a quota system on lobster. I would just like to have your personal perspective on that, because as you know, we don't know the biomass of the lobsters. That's problem number one.

Mr. LeClair said that we don't really know much about the fishery of lobster in the Northumberland Strait. After all these years, that is a disturbing thing to say.

My question is whether you are looking at or discussing in any possible way an IQ system or an ITQ system, or are there other alternatives you are looking at in terms of the restructuring of the industry?

Again, thank you all very much for your time in coming to Ottawa today.

[Rick Doucet]

Maybe I could just fill in here, Peter.

Thank you very much. I'm glad that everyone had a great experience last night. We have to talk to those people who are first-time buyers of lobster because that's where it is; we have to get them back in the business.

In terms of discussions on ITQ, we haven't had any, whether it be departmentally or provincially. We want to make sure that the resource overall is sustainable. That is the key to this, no matter how we boil it down. Whatever decisions have to be made have to be grounded in the best science. It has to be solid scientific information, not something that's pulled out of a hat just because we want to do it. We have to make sure that whatever moves we make are for the sustainability in the long term of where we're going to fit into this array of what's happening with the marketplace. The marketplace will probably dictate that. As far as ITQs are concerned, there have been no discussions with us; it hasn't been thrown about yet. If we properly, strategically rationalize the industry and change the management practices, I don't think we'll see an ITQ.

I think the bottom line is that we will be harvesting the resource in a sustainable manner, we'll be getting the price that's needed, and we'll be avoiding what's happening in the marketplace right now, the spiking and cratering. The spiking and the cratering is not what the market reacts to. If you buy stocks today, what do you do? You wait until the stock price goes down to its lowest. This is the unfortunate thing that has happened in the marketplace today. The eyes and ears around the world are on what's happening in the marketplace in lobster. We're connected very well with the international marketplace, and they're wondering when it's going to drop again. I'm saying “Look, it's not going down, it's going up.”

We're pulling together to do what's right, and we want to make sure it's done right. Yes, we could discuss the market and all of that activity and build on that, but if we're not sustainable to that marketplace, then we're done.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I do join with my colleagues in welcoming you all to our committee. I'm delighted--I'm sure we all are--to see the five provinces work together on this very complex and important issue. I suppose in one way there's probably less competition. We're not talking about fishing in each other's backyard here; it's inside the provincial waters for the most part.

One of the intriguing things that I learned today is that the science is not well known, yet I don't see an interest in science as part of the solution. It seems that ought to be emphasized a little bit more.

I wanted to ask about the idea of increasing the size of the lobster, as was mentioned in P.E.I. and a number of places. I know Minister Hedderson from Newfoundland and Labrador would be aware of some voluntary efforts by some individuals on the northeast coast who say they're going to keep these lobster in the water at their own personal expense until next year or the next to ensure they're going to make a sustainable product and build up the industry.

Where you have the gluts and the ups and downs in the market, is there room for a significant program to support this effort to keep the lobster in the water and use it maybe counter-cyclically or something like that? Is there thought of a program like that? I know you're working together, and I hope you'll continue to work together, but there needs to be something that everybody's agreed upon and that hopefully the feds will support.

Mr. Hedderson, do you have any comments?

[Tom Hedderson]

My colleague is going to answer, and then I'm going to follow up.