Fisheries Committee on May 28th, 2010

[Dr. Mikio Moriyasu]

In terms of the way to estimate the biomass, there's no change. We always do a bottom survey. We analyze the data and show it to the managers.

The most important change occurred this year, last winter, which is the introduction of the precautionary approach. This is the major issue in terms of historical research outcomes.

For snow crab, it is the first precautionary approach introduced to the fisheries in Canada. There's probably no other precautionary approach that's been introduced to the crab fishery in the world, except for the eastern Bering Sea. They have a similar approach. This is the most important change.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Thank you very much, ladies and gentlemen.

Thank you for taking the time this morning to come and meet with our committee and answer a lot of our questions. We really appreciate your input.

We'll take a short break while we set up for our next guests.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Welcome back.

Gentlemen, thank you for taking the time today to meet with the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans to share your views and answer some questions that the members might have. We really appreciate your taking time out of your very busy schedules.

I believe the clerk has let you all know that we allow about four minutes for opening comments. We do that to allow members to be able to ask as many questions as possible in the timeframe allotted.

Mr. Basque, please begin your opening comments.

[Jeff Basque, Senior Negotiator, Listuguj Mi'gmaq Government]

Good morning, parliamentarians.

My name is Jeff Basque, and I am a senior negotiator for the Listuguj Mi’gmaq government, directed to the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans by Chief Allison Metallic to comment on your order of the day, that is, on the snow crab industry in Atlantic Canada and Quebec.

A little less than two months ago, on April 6, 2010, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, DFO, announced a 63% cut in the total allowable catch levels for the 2010 snow crab management plan in which the Listuguj Mi'gmaq government participates, with one of the largest first nations snow crab quotas. The federal government's decision directly and negatively impacts the way of life of the Listuguj Mi'gmaq and the aboriginal and treaty rights of all Mi'gmaq first nations who rely on snow crab for their social and economic livelihood.

Mi'gmaq fishing rights have full protection under the covenant chain of peace and friendship treaties and the Canadian Constitution.

The economic and social impact of DFO's unilateral decision on Listuguj, a community that has over 3,400 members and is growing rapidly, will be severe. Many fisher jobs will be lost, and families will find themselves in financial turmoil. The $1.7 million that our government uses to fund housing, health services, education, and language programming, among other public programs and services, will be lost. This decision represents a cut of over 5% of the transfer payments to Listuguj.

How could a decision of such devastating impact have been made under such an elaborate system of checks and balances? It seems impossible that the combined and cumulative knowledge and experience in the Government of Canada's Fisheries Act and the DFO regulatory regime behind these decisions could have resulted in such a catastrophe. The Government of Canada's Fisheries Act and the DFO regulatory regime, including their scientific analysis and decision-making framework, seem to be entangled in a set of conflicting interests resulting in either bad science combined with bad decision-making or perfectly good science combined with bad decision-making.

The Canadian judiciary and governments may view the involvement of the Mi'gmaq and the commercial fishery as a matter of the recent recognition of their rights by the courts. However, the Mi'gmaq were put here on earth by our creator and were bestowed sacred duties of stewardship over natural resources to guard those resources, including snow crab, as they form the basis of Mi'gmaq identity, culture, and livelihood.

This is not something we Mi'gmaq people chose or accepted. We are duty bound. Therefore, this right, framed as such under the Canadian constitutional order, is simply part of the way of life for the Mi'gmaq. We don't get up in the morning and say we will fish because it is our right. We fish because, quite simply, it's what we have done for millennia. We take what we need and no more, and we govern our fishing to sustain our future generations. Everything is connected. The state of our resources represents the state of our being as Mi'gmaq.

Now, in respect of Mi'gmaq inherent aboriginal and treaty rights, and contrary to the Canadian Constitution and case law, the Government of Canada, through the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, has acted to severely diminish the honour of the crown in several ways: first, because the Government of Canada did not in the least--either by any act or by thought of consideration--even consult the Mi'gmaq at the strategic planning level of its decision-making framework; second, through this April 6 decision, by ignoring the fact that the Mi'gmaq interest in snow crab has priority over non-aboriginal interests in the snow crab fishery; third, not having consulted and considered Mi'gmaq a priority, the Government of Canada has failed to uphold its fiduciary obligations to the Mi'gmaq, wherein the crown is duty bound to ensure priority allocation. This is all taking place while the Government of Canada goes on tour touting its policy on its duty to consult aboriginal people in Canada.

In a nutshell, the parade of Canadian constitutional order and the law and the public policy it has spawned has failed and wronged the Mi'gmaq when it could have been used to conserve and protect the resource. Yes, the Mi'gmaq believe in regulation for conservation, but not for a veil to cover the fox while he guards the henhouse. Listuguj Mi'gmaq communities in all seven districts of Mi’gma’gi, who unify with her, will not watch and sit idly while the federal government intends to cavalierly run roughshod over our way of life and our rights.

In the face of this fateful decision by Minister Shea on April 6, 2010, the Mi'gmaq are now at a crossroads. While we once trusted and put faith in the minister, the Fisheries Act, and the DFO regulatory regime, they now represent a threat to our way of life, because their decision-making framework is a threat to the resource itself, the snow crab. Therefore, as time is of the essence, in respect of the fisheries resources so vital to the livelihood of Mi'gmaq and the way of life of its people, the Listuguj Mi'gmaq government will act to take its future out of the Government of Canada's hands and put it into its own hands.

Listuguj, standing side by side with many other Mi'gmaq governments in Mi'gma'gi, will pursue its inherent right to self-governance and resolve to carry out its way of life in stewardship duties and enact its own laws on marine fisheries with a management plan and regulatory regime, and a decision-making framework that genuinely considers the conservation and protection of the snow crab resource in the long term. We will afford other governments and stakeholders an opportunity to comment on our laws, regulations, and management plans as an example of proper consultations. The resource will be used for food and social purposes. We further resolve to carry out our own scientific work to support a sustainable snow crab fishery. All this will occur aside of the commercial fishery now mismanaged by the Government of Canada.

I thank you for your time, and I'll now take your questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Thank you.

Monsieur Haché.

[Robert Haché, Representative, Association des crabiers acadiens]

Good morning, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you for inviting us to address you.

First of all, I'm a fisheries consultant. The name of my firm is Services-conseils STF Consulting Inc. My services are being retained by the Association des crabiers acadiens.

This morning, I'm speaking on behalf of that association and on behalf of the very large majority of the 150 traditional crab fishermen in area 12. They are represented by the following associations: the Association des crabiers acadiens, the Association des crabiers gaspésiens, the Association des crabiers de La Baie, les Crabiers du Nord-Est, the Association des pêcheurs professionnels crabiers acadiens and the P.E.I. Snow Crab Fishermen Association, one of whose representatives, Mr. Cameron, is here this morning.

The businesses I am talking about this morning rely exclusively on the snow crab resource. They have access to no other fishing licences in the southern gulf.

The charts I'm going to present to you this morning will be included in a request we are about to make in two or three days. We will be submitting that request to the Office of the Auditor General of Canada for an investigation to be conducted by that office into the snow crab stock and fishery in the southern gulf. I am taking this opportunity to ask the committee to support our recommendation to the Office of the Auditor General of Canada. That would help a great deal in clarifying all the confusion and problems surrounding the snow crab in the southern gulf.

As the saying goes, a picture is worth a thousand words. I've provided you with a series of charts. I won't present the charts individually because I'm going to try to talk to you in the four minutes allotted to me.

First, I will tell you that the charts are based on a historical timeline. All the data are divided between before-2003 and after-2003. They are based on eight years: from 1995 to 2002 and from 2003 to 2009. The averages in the charts are based on those two series of years. Why did we choose those two series of years? Because they coincide with the cycles of abundance and decline in the snow crab resource, which you heard about this morning. There are booms and busts. The first cycle was from 1995 to 2002. The second cycle was from 2003 to 2009.

This also coincides with the introduction of new access to the crab fishery. The first time there were newcomers to the crab fishery was in 1995. Those people stayed in the crab fishery temporarily, somewhat as you were saying this morning. The department granted crab licences while the resource was abundant and stopped granting them when it was no longer abundant. In 2003, Fisheries and Oceans Canada decided to stop following that recommendation and to include those people permanently, not taking into account the need to balance the resource against fishing capacity.

If you look at the table in Figure 3, you'll see annual snow crab catches in the southern gulf since 1995. The scientists and the department have told you they had to reduce the total allowable catch, the TAC, by 63% because of overfishing during the last biomass cycle. If you look at the period from 2003 to 2009, you can see very clearly that there was overfishing.

However, who benefited from that overfishing? Who benefited from this new crab? On the following page, you see the table on landings by the traditional crab fishermen—the people we represent—they are there. You'll see that, ultimately, comparing the period from 1995 to 2002 with that from 2003 to 2009, the quantities were roughly similar.

I'll close on that point. You'll be able to ask questions on the other tables that follow to determine where the crab was fished and by whom. What happens when you apply overcapacity to the fisheries? You have actual figures and data.

The data here are from Fisheries and Oceans Canada. They aren't from the industry. These are the department's official data.

Now let's look at the traditional crab fleets that everyone says don't want to share. That's false: the crab fishermen want to share in a context in which a balance is maintained between abundance and scarcity of the resource. That's simply what we're asking.

If you look at what's happened since 1990, when the traditional crab fishermen in the southern gulf had 85% of the harvest, you'll see that, between 2003 and 2009, their percentage dropped to 56%. There's a threshold beyond which it's no longer profitable. Our big fear now, at the start of this difficult period and for the long term, is that the traditional crab fishing industry will no longer be profitable.

Thank you. I'll await your questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Merci, M. Haché.

Mr. Hennessey.

[Frank Hennessey, As an Individual]

My name's Frank Hennessey. I've been fishing since 1967. I've been active in many associations and committees over the years. I was in the ground fishery when the cod moratorium came out, and I feel that I will be in the crab fishery when the crab moratorium comes about. I was an original member of the Fisheries Resource Conservation Council and served for nine years, from 1993 on.

Since 1995 I've been fishing in zone E. In its present state, the crab fishery is very much the same as where the cod fishery was in 1993. We all know how that has been managed to near extinction in the past 17 years. Many of the indicators are the same. There's too high a TAC, causing overfishing. Seal predation is being ignored; however, it's now recognized as one of the major factors in cod depletion in 4T. There's not enough recognition given to science's ability. There's inconsistent policy from DFO, which we the stakeholders are subject to but the department is not. And economic viability is being put ahead of fisheries conservation.

It was said four years ago that major cuts should be made in the crab quota or we would have to take drastic cuts in four years, which is where we are now. Given the issues that science addressed at their snow crab science RAP 2010, this year's cuts will not alleviate the situation. We may be looking at a full moratorium for all of zone 12 next year.

I have a few points on zone E, where I am. When the fishery came about in 1995, there were four players. The next year there were four more new entries in it. The four original players lost 50% of their quota to make room for them, which was all right. But then later on a number of these players were given shrimp to be viable, although some of the original ones weren't.

This area is the farthest in the zone to be fished for the smallest quotas. From the viability study done, it's the most expensive area to catch fish. With the new entries and the smaller quotas--we had a licence--we thought that instead of steaming 35 hours back and forth, most of us could catch it three or four hours from home. It's the same crab biologically, the same science, but there was no room for extra fishers in zone 12.

Four or five years ago they made eight new licences out of temporary permits in New Brunswick to make it more viable for rationalization. In 2008, they put 3,100 tonnes of temporary sharing into permanent sharing in zone 12. Still there was no room for us to move in.

This year we have 18,000 pounds to catch in an area where it takes 14 hours to steam one way in good weather, and in bad weather it's 18 or 19 hours. There was no room for us to go in zone 12 because of the downturn in the fishery. But this year the Quebec region issued eight more licences to the province and the Magdalens, taking them from temporary fisheries to licences. We're still there; we're still denied.

So when I'm talking about policy, it seems the department has a policy for some, which we're subject to, but the department can twist it any way it wants.

That's it. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Thank you, Mr. Hennessey.

Monsieur Lanteigne, please give your opening comments.

[Jean Lanteigne, Director General, Fédération régionale acadienne des pêcheurs professionnels]

Good morning. It will be hard to stick to the four minutes, but I'll be as brief as possible. It's unfortunate you didn't choose to go directly to a fishing community. The people of Caraquet, Lamèque and Shippagan would have been happy to share their experiences and would have shown you directly how important the industry is to us back home.

It's important to recall that Basile Roussel, from the little village of Le Goulet, near Shippagan, is the one who, together with a group of fishermen, founded this entire industry which today generates billions of dollars for the country as a whole. However, without going into the details of the history of this fishery that our fleet has been engaged in for 45 years now, it's important for me to remind you that our fishermen are the real pioneers. In the vast majority of cases, the current fishermen are the sons of those individuals who developed the industry of this fishery that has become so sought after. With its 42 years of existence, the FRAPP, which I represent, is the oldest fishermen's association in New Brunswick and no doubt one of the oldest in the country.

With all this baggage and experience, we are increasingly concerned about the survival of our midshore fleets. Policies, administrative rules and political decisions work against this group of fishermen in the vast majority of cases. This morning, we're talking about snow crab, but things are going just as badly, if not worse, for other species, including shrimp, and the shrimp industry is also in danger.

I've been part of management at the federation for three years, and the first thing I notice is the weight of the number. In the case of snow crab, our traditional crab fleet, with less than 80 boats around the Acadian Peninsula and Gaspesie, can't compare to the thousands of fishermen in the other fleets. So you politicians have a big role to play.

Changes should simply be made to the Fisheries Act, which dates back to the start of Confederation. We all know that the last two attempts failed. So we should reopen this file as soon as possible and ensure there's a better framework. The decision-making mechanism is truly obsolete because power is centralized. The power is held by a single person, who no doubt has the best intentions in the world and yet can't foresee all the possible consequences in this increasingly complex world. That power has to be taken out of the minister's hands. All the fishermen concerned urgently need to be given back what belongs to them, their fishery and their occupation. There's no room here for envy and jealousy, which are fueled by the belief that the resource belongs to all Canadians. We believe that not everyone can go out on the water to fish, just as not all of us can become woodcutters or farmers.

Over the years, the various ministers of Fisheries and Oceans Canada have all, each in their own way, tried to favour one or more groups of fishermen. The one who has the most political power and who adopts the best lobbying strategy comes out the winner, very often to the detriment of the other groups. Now we've lost so much that our industry no longer belongs to us and is quickly headed toward a major financial fiasco.

How many of you would like to be told that your income will drop by 63% and that you'll have to continue sharing 15% more with others? And if that isn't enough, someone has the gall to tell you that, in doing so, they'll be stabilizing the industry. Something really isn't working here. No business, no company can survive in these circumstances or as a result of these kinds of arbitrary decisions. The negative impact of these decisions in recent years will continue to be felt in the coming weeks and months. It's easy to rebut this argument by saying that this is the way the fishing industry is headed and that it's up to fishermen to prepare for bad years.

For the past 10 years, however, our fishermen haven't had the chance to prepare. Instead we've been focusing on surviving year after year, when our industry was increasingly in danger. What do you say this morning to a young fisherman who has taken over from his father this year, last year or five years ago? Was he able to prepare for this situation? Who's going to help him? The general public has the false perception that crab fishermen are all rich. And yet the major losses our businesses have to bear this year can't be recovered next year, unless a miracle happens. Do you have a plan? Does DFO have a plan? The answer is no; there isn't a single penny. Over a period of 15 years, DFO, which advocated sharing and viability, has driven an entire fleet into a precarious financial situation. It's enough to bowl over any accountant or financial analyst.

Are there any ways to support our fishermen? The answer is yes. For example, our crab fishermen pay large amounts of money for their fishing licences every year. They're required to pay $137.50 a tonne. This year, the average is around $5,500. Let's hand those amounts back to them. We aren't going to ruin the Canadian government that way. So let's start with that.

Second, support the request made by all the associations of crab fishermen to the Auditor General of Canada for an investigation into the management of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, which we think runs counter to the concept of a sustainable fishery.

In closing, we appreciate your effort to look into the difficult situation of the crab fishery in area 12 this year. However, as you will all agree, not all Canadian fisheries are on the Canadian government's agenda. The current economic crisis confirms that state of affairs. Attention has been focused on the crisis in the automotive sector, and the purse was immediately opened: billions of dollars were given to multinational corporations. Our colleagues in the lobster fishery have been luckier than we have because, after a few weeks, they managed to get a slim $65 million for all of eastern Canada. The entire fisheries file as a whole must be reviewed. The survival of hundreds of communities on the Maritime coast of the country is at stake.

Thank you for listening, and I'll be pleased to answer your questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Thank you, Mr. Lanteigne.

Mr. Cameron.

[Doug Cameron, Executive Director, P.E.I. Snow Crab Fishermen Inc.]

Thank you, Chairman Rodney and members of the committee. I'll introduce myself. My name is Doug Cameron, and for the last 14 years I've been the executive director of the licensed snow crab fishers of the Province of Prince Edward Island. I only learned of the meeting on Tuesday, via a colleague, and after a few phone calls I managed to wiggle myself onto this committee.

I've been impressed with the line of questions you've asked our predecessors, and I look forward to answering any of the questions you may have.

I've enjoyed these 14 years working with the fishermen, and while the relationship with them has been rewarding, I'm afraid to say--or want to say--that the relationship with DFO, while it started off to be a good relationship, and fruitful at times, for the last seven to ten years has been frustrating and indeed at times exasperating.

My major concern is the financial viability of our 28 members. I see it just going down and down. I'm concerned with the sustainability of the resource and the way that science has been providing information. I'm concerned about the process of ministerial decision-making, how that happens and how we're left out of it. I could talk about that.

I'm also interested to make sure you realize that while sharing has been imposed upon us, the Province of Prince Edward Island did not object to the sharing. Our objection really is to when the stocks go down, the pressure that's going to be put on the resource. But as I say, we're not objecting to the sharing.

I was present in the office when Minister Thibault, at the time, announced that a 15% sharing would be given to non-traditionals and that it would be contingent upon...the associations that were going to enjoy this 15% for a period of one or two years had to come back with a plan so that they would get rid of their sharing and have a system where the licences would be given out on a permanent basis to fishermen. What that means to us, really, is that instead of having 800 or 1,000 lobster fishermen putting pressure on the minister, 15, 20, or 30 fishermen would be welcomed into our organization on a permanent basis. We're not trying to recover the sharing; we just want to see it better controlled.

The lobster fishery has been a successful fishery. Why? Because it has a limited access; the numbers are limited.

As I said, I'll be pleased to answer your questions, and I hope you will ask some that enable me to expand upon some of my remarks.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Thank you, Mr. Cameron.

Mr. Byrne.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to our witnesses for appearing before us and providing us with some sound and significant advice and an overview of the industry as it affects not only yourselves but the members of your associations and organizations.

Perhaps I could ask Mr. Haché and Mr. Lanteigne if they can provide us.... The cuts have been extremely difficult, and we recognize that. It has been a problem not only for the harvesters but for the processors and everybody in the industry. Could you provide some insight to the committee? When the new entrants came into the fishery, of course--let's call a spade a shovel here--it caused certain concerns among your organizations. Did you ever have an understanding, a feeling, either explicitly or implicitly, that if and when stocks declined, the decline would be shared equally by everyone, or would it be done on a process of the relatively new entrants being removed from the fishery first? What has been your understanding for the last number of years? As the stock was increasing, did you have an appreciation or understanding of what the method would be in times of decline?

[Robert Haché]

This was the formula that we favoured and that existed between 1995 and 2002. There was sharing when the stock and the viability of the industry could sustain it. When the stock was going down, the viability was going down. The last-in, first-out principle was applied, and the new entrants were not part of it.

This has been our understanding all along, and this formula worked very well.

If you go to figures 16 and 17--it's a very useful exercise. For the decrease of the stock in the first cycle, on figure 16--you will see 1997, 1998, and 1999. In 1997 the TAC was 15,400. There was some sharing and the crabbers got 13,000 tonnes. But in 1998 and 1999 it was judged that the viability of the traditional fleet needed this amount of crab, which is close to 12,000 tonnes, and there was no sharing and no crisis. There was no problem. Nobody criticized DFO for that. It worked well, and the industry as a whole was totally capable of going through that phase.

If you look at figure 17, and you look at how things work when you have overcapacity installed in such an important fashion.... In 2008, in order for the traditional fleet to get 13,000 tonnes, we needed to support a TAC of 20,000 tonnes to 21,000 tonnes. That's the problem with overcapacity.

People have a tendency to think you just set the TAC. That's not the way it works in real life. You have to provide a sufficient, sustainable amount of quota for people to be viable. Sustainability has two prongs: the stock and the viability. Sustainable development is two words. You have “development” in there, and you cannot have development without having an economic viability that is independent of the taxpayers' money. So here you have a good example.

In 2008 we supported a quota of 20,000 tonnes, because we were at that level. We were right there. We needed 13,000 tonnes. If the overcapacity had not been there, we would have supported much less, as we did in 1997, 1998, and in 2009. Then in 2010, all of a sudden we're down to 5,000 tonnes. This is the problem. I showed you that the crabbers did not benefit from that excessive fishery between 2003 and 2009. They were the ones who in the 1990s invested millions of dollars, $10 million in the science and management of the fishery. They built this beautiful fishery, this beautiful stock. Then, after 2003, when there were good grapes toamorcer, the department said, it's not going to go to you, it's going to go to your neighbour. So they gave it to the neighbour. Worse, now that we're going down, when we're in the bottom hole, we're penalized. The fleet would normally need 13,000 tonnes and it's down to 5,000 tonnes.

We're not against sharing. We have said that many times. We're totally for sustainable development principles and policies. DFO does not respect the Government of Canada's sustainable policy, and they don't even respect their own policy for good management. We need a good third-party analysis of this. That's why we support the Auditor General's intervention. If the Auditor General shows us that we're in the wrong, we will accept that. But we need that.

I just want to finish. The problem we have now is this year. The department told you, “We gave them flexibility.” That's a blatant lie. I'm sorry. Crabbers in the southern gulf have no access to anything else: no lobster, no herring, no scallops. Ask any DFO people in the gulf. If you're a crabber, try to get a lobster licence.

They say, “We gave them flexibility to join together.” Listen, we have family enterprises that date for generations, where they have employees on their boats. These boats take four to five crew members, regulated by Transport Canada. This is not an amateur fishery. The department says, “Okay we're going to cut you down, we're going to give the quota...allow the fishermen's organization to launder money from their crab to pay for their own things, and you're going to lay off your crew members and join another fisherman.” That type of joining together might be good for a very small inshore fishery.... I'm sorry.

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

I would like to get to Mr. Lanteigne. Your points of view are very important and valid.

[Robert Haché]

Okay. That's basically it. Sorry.

[Jean Lanteigne]

My colleague Robert Haché has illustrated the situation. I would add that, in 2005, a report by Gardner Pinfold Consulting on the crab and shrimp fisheries, commissioned by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, very clearly informed the department at that time that the viability of the crab fleet was in danger. However, no administrative policies were changed. The industry continued to be gradually stripped, and today fishing businesses are in trouble.

Mr. Byrne, in response to your question about sharing, Mr. Haché described the situation very well. Our fishermen aren't opposed to sharing, provided they have the financial capacity to do so. However, without that capacity, it's absolutely impossible. This year, those fishing businesses—you'll be speaking with the fishermen shortly—are losing $50,000 to $200,000.

How are you going to recover those kinds of losses in the coming years? There are no miracles. There won't be 25,000 tonnes of crab to fish next year. They won't be able to climb out of the hole with that.

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

Mr. Chair, I'll share my time with Mr. LeBlanc.

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

How much time do I have, Mr. Chairman?

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

You have 30 seconds.

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

I have a very specific question for Mr. Haché and Mr. Lanteigne. You talked about sharing. We may never agree on this, but let's set this question to one side.

Apart from the sharing arrangements, in 2007, 2008 and 2009, the scientific opinion identified some major problems. The government chose not to act, not to cut back fishing in a responsible manner, and today, questions of sharing notwithstanding, everyone has to deal with a 63% cut in the harvest rate.

My question is simple. What would you have liked the government to do in the last three years to try to prevent the current collapse for everyone?

[Robert Haché]

I'll answer your question in two ways. First, we and the departmental scientists don't have the same reading or the same fears about the crab stocks in the southern gulf. For a number of years, we've been telling the department what we see, and that's fortunate because we've always said that, if there's enough crab, that's fine, because, in that case, the entire industry can survive.

We supported the proposals concerning the stocks. The department even said at the outset that it was the traditional crab fishermen who had wanted to overfish. I explained to you why we were forced to support the 20,900-tonne quota. It was so we could have the minimum we needed, that is to say 13,000 tonnes, but we didn't do that unthinkingly, Mr. LeBlanc. We've been monitoring this fishery for many years. Until the mid-1990s, the crab harvests were consistent with the analysis done by the department's trawl survey. Then the scientists came to see us to say that the situation regarding stocks looked a certain way for the following year. That was consistent with what our fishermen themselves had forecast.

I don't know what's happened in the past few years, Mr. LeBlanc, but there is a complete contradiction between the stock assessment by the scientists and what we're seeing in the fishing industry. Take this year, for example; it's abnormal. This year, the catches per unit effort by fishermen have been absolutely incredible. While they say they've used the precautionary approach to reduce the quota, the department's precautionary approach is designed to harvest big crab, to keep big crab in the water. Mr. LeBlanc, we've never seen these kinds of monsters in the water before this year. Apparently everything we did in the previous years to fish them was wrong. However, there's a problem somewhere. In short, the facts aren't consistent with what Fisheries and Oceans Canada is saying.

I'm asking the committee to help us in accordance with this other recommendation: we'd like the committee to ask the minister to put a serious task force in place together with the traditional fishermen and the first nations to solve the crab stock assessment problem in the southern gulf. This afternoon, fishermen will be explaining these matters; we divided up the task.

There are two things: if the stock can't support the harvest volume from recent years, from 2003 to 2009, our efforts absolutely have to be rationalized. That's where the overcapacity problem comes from. If the stock can support that, the problem is a smaller one. I hope the stock is sufficient. However, you can't always say that it's the traditional crab fisherman who will pay the bill, that they'll pay the bill if it can't be supported. That's really not right.

The snow crab industry is the best example of a fleet of fishermen who have become accountable over the years. Now we're really

on the brink of destruction, or death by a thousand cuts.

There is overcapacity in the snow crab industry, considering all the sub-areas and all that. That's what's happening.

I don't know whether I've answered your question.

We accept the department's official opinion, Mr. LeBlanc, but in accepting it, we have to ask you to conduct an investigation to see what is going on because it's going badly. Furthermore, in our opinion, the stock may not be doing as badly as that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Monsieur Lanteigne.

[Jean Lanteigne]

I'll close by saying that the fishermen's observations were all excellent this year, the harvest, the crab quality. On this scientific opinion matter, I had a discussion with scientists in Moncton during the season, and I asked them whether they had gone to the docks and whether they got on board the boats to see the situation. I told them to go and talk to a fisherman to get his observations. They answered that they didn't have the time. So what's being done? Is the only scientific survey this trawl survey that's done once a year to assess what's in the water?

The fishermen on the water are excellent scientific partners, but their knowledge isn't being used and their observations are being disregarded. The scientists have to be allowed to come and work as a team, to be on the docks, to go to sea. We tell them to come and see what's really going on at the wharf, what the actual situation is.