Fisheries Committee on May 28th, 2010

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

We'll call the meeting back to order.

Gentlemen, thank you for coming this morning to address the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans. We really do appreciate you taking the time out of your busy schedules.

I believe you've all been made aware that we allot about four minutes for opening comments, presentations, and then we'll proceed into questioning by the members of the committee. If there are no questions at all, we'll proceed right into the opening comments.

Monsieur Blanchard, if you would like to begin....

[Serge Blanchard, As an Individual]

Good morning, my name is Serge Blanchard, and I'm a crab fisherman. I started in 1987 as a deck hand. I became a captain in 1991 and I've been the owner captain of the JPF since 1995.

In 1995, if my memory serves me, I had an allocation of 240,000 pounds, and that was my best year because we got $3.75 a pound. From that moment, we were labelled millionaires. The co-management agreements started the next year. After that, it always varied. I had tough years in 1998 and 1999, with quotas of 165,000 pounds and 180,000 pounds, but there was no sharing in those years.

Twenty years on, it's worse than it was at the start. I have to pay all kinds of fees that previously didn't exist: licensing costs, at-sea observers, black boxes, dockside weighing, all kinds of travel for meetings with the department. We even have observer planes flying over our heads. Ultimately, there are fewer resources because there are too many fishermen.

In fact, [Editor's Note—Inaudible] to fish, Fisheries and Oceans Canada doesn't let us buy other kinds of licences. I have a groundfish licence, but, as a result of the 1992 moratorium, I only have crab to support myself.

I bought my boat and licence in 1995 with that kind of allocation, but since then Fisheries and Oceans Canada has come and taken some of it and given it free of charge to other fishermen, allegedly to rationalize. I paid for crab that I've never fished. With all that, even if I could buy other licences so I could become profitable again, I have no guarantee that Fisheries and Oceans Canada won't start up again and give my allocations to someone else free of charge.

This year, I think I lost about $80,000. If I had gotten my full quota, I would have lost less. I can't continue losing money this way for long. In addition to all this injustice based on the false idea that I'm a millionaire, I find it increasingly hard to pay my crewmen honourably. It makes no sense.

This year, it's the worst of situations: new access fishermen got more quota than I did. Up to this year, they had to choose between fishing crab or lobster. This year, they're doing both at the same time, crab and lobster. According to what Fisheries and Oceans Canada originally told us, we had to cut back the lobster fishing effort. They've simply added other fishermen to our fishery.

Thanks for coming to listen to us. To get a real idea of my situation, I invite you to come and see me on my boat. If you have any questions, I'll try to answer you to the best of my knowledge.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Thank you, Mr. Blanchard.

Mr. Duguay, go ahead, please.

[Marius Duguay, As an Individual]

Good morning. My name is Marius Duguay, and I'm a member of the ACA and a crab fisherman-owner. I started fishing in 1988, in the early years of the crisis. Now it's 2010 and we're in a full crisis. It's quite something. When I started, there was a competitive fishery and we used individual quotas to protect ourselves, so we wouldn't have to experience the same situation as the industries for cod, redfish and other species.

We've now wound up in a situation like today's, and yet we believe we've done everything, as my colleague Mr. Blanchard said; we followed all the fishing procedures, monitoring white crab and protecting females. Today we realize that it's produced no result and that the industry is in poor shape. As was said earlier, politics has created the current situation. We can't get around it; we're right in it. Those who don't want to see it are putting their heads in the sand, and that's too bad.

I'm going to talk to you about the quotas recommended in 2009. According to the recommendation by DFO officials, the 2009 quotas were 19,200 metric tonnes. The traditional industry recommended 20,900 metric tonnes, as you can see on the first chart. A departmental spokesperson told the CBC that the fact the traditional fishermen requested too large an increase in quotas last year caused a 63% cut in quotas in 2010. It's really disheartening to hear that. In fact, they always blame the fishermen, especially the traditional fishermen.

When my father started fishing, he was one of the early ones, around 1968. Today, when you hear these kinds of things... My father's no longer here, but I know he wouldn't have liked to see what's going on today. I'm glad he doesn't have to go through what we're experiencing because my father worked hard for the first 15 years to develop a fishery that the Acadians of New Brunswick and Quebec started to operate. Seeing where we've come today is really disheartening.

The department blames us for requesting a quota of 20,900 tonnes, whereas it recommended 19,200 tonnes, and it justifies a 63% cut in the media by blaming us. We have broad backs and this has been going on for a long time. The situation on the peninsula right now is disheartening. The region's main economy is being blown apart. Some politicians say they agree with us, but not on certain sharing arrangements because they have to take electoral considerations into account. It's disheartening that people use the industry like a life buoy for everyone in the fishing sector, whether they're lobster fishermen or cod fishermen.

As a result of this situation, we hope you'll support our demands as fishermen, as our representatives have asked you to do. We are here to represent the traditional fleet, but we also represent crew members. In 90% of cases or more, these are family businesses. Plants are lacking supply as a result of certain decisions. We haven't arrived at this pass in one year; it's the result of a number of years of political decisions. The elevator can go up, but one day or another, it goes back down. We told Minister Thibault that in 2003.

Today, we're in the basement.

We made the same presentation to you in Ottawa. Today we're here doing it again. We predicted what was going to happen. In 2010, it will be even worse.

Thank you very much for listening to us today.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Thank you, Mr. Duguay.

Mr. Gionet.

[Joel Gionet, As an Individual]

Good morning.

My name is Joel Gionet. I've been fishing for crab since 1983. I started as a crewman on the family boat and, in 1990, became a captain among the crew. I'm still captain in 2010. So I've lived through the last three cycles. I saw the bottoms of the three cycles. The first—the worst—was in 1989-1990, the second in 1999-2000, and we're now in the third, this year, in 2009-2010.

At the end of each of the last two cycles, we never cried out; we never said anything. We knew we were going to take advantage of every effort we made for the resource. This spring, when the minister announced cuts in harvest rates of more than 60%, I believe all the guys were expecting cuts. Starting in the early 2000s, everyone around the table knew we were going to exploit the stock a little more extensively than in the last cycle. However, I don't think anyone was expecting such draconian cuts.

At the same time, to throw a little oil on the fire, the minister announced the “stabilization of new access” until 2014. Scientists are ringing alarm bells, and the minister makes a nice statement that she's stabilizing new access until 2014. Two or three weeks later, she announced cuts of 63%. This is an enormous problem for the traditional crab fishermen.

Then the department pulled itself together and found a solution: lay off the members of our crews and group together two or three on the same boat to fish so that we can make room for newcomers. That's the solution they found. Pinch me, someone! I don't think there's any logic in these kinds of decisions.

Thank you very much. I'll be pleased to answer your questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Thank you, sir.

Mr. Haché.

[Donald Haché, As an Individual]

Good morning. I'll introduce myself: my name is Donald Haché, and I've been fishing since 1983 as well.

Everything that's going on in this industry and that DFO is doing makes no sense. In economic terms, I won't last long in this situation if it continues. I've been a captain since 2001, and we're all discouraged. It makes no sense.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Thank you, Mr. Haché.

Mr. Godin.

[Aurèle Godin, As an Individual]

Good morning. I've been fishing for 34 years, as a crewman and an owner. I'm going to talk about the human aspect, since my fellow crew members have pretty much said what there was to say about politics, research and so on.

I have four crew members on board, and they are all members of my family. When I arrived this morning, I told them they were going to die. Those are the exact words I used. I told them I couldn't give them what I didn't have. I've only been an owner for five or six years. I told them I could only give them 12 employment insurance stamps, $1,000 a week, which totals exactly $12,000. Who here can live on an annual income of $12,000? Not a lot of people, isn't that right? That's the reality.

These men have been fishing with me for 25 or 30 years. I'm speaking generally, about all the boats. On average, all the men in the fleet have about 20 years' experience. When we tell them they're going to die, what do you think those men think when they go to bed at night? I put myself in their shoes. We talk about this and I feel sick. It's unrealistic.

In life, you do a job, and it's so you can earn a living. Then we're told that tomorrow morning we're going to die. I don't know but if you have a shred of humanity, you're going to think that what has happened makes no sense. It's hard to talk about that. I look at all the fishermen. I've been in this occupation for 34 years and in two or three years we'll be putting it all in dry dock. Already 10 or 20 of them are up on blocks. The northeast will become like Newfoundland: a ghost country.

I hope you understand the situation with the fishery and fishermen. People no longer know what to think. When a father tells us he won't even be able to pay his daughter's university tuition fees, I say like the other guy, “It's all on the chopping block.”

Thank you for listening to me. If you have any questions, I'll be able to answer them. I'll be pleased to speak to you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Thank you, Mr. Godin.

Mr. Noël, go ahead, please.

[Hubert Noël, As an Individual]

Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. How are you?

My name is Hubert Noël and I'm originally from Lamèque, New Brunswick.

I belong to a family of white crab fishermen. I've been doing this job for 20 years. The announcements in the spring gave me the impression of going back 20 years. I'm part of the new generation. As a result of the political decisions such as the announcement on March 8, in which the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans maintained the fishing effort at approximately 400 boats, I no longer know what kind of future I can anticipate as a father.

In the last collapse, in 1989-1990, we had 130 boats facing the challenge of increasing and stabilizing that resource. We managed to do it by investing tens of millions of dollars in cooperation with DFO. In 2003, the federal government thanked the traditional crab industry for investing millions of dollars and for properly managing and protecting the resource, but notified it that the surpluses generated wouldn't fall to it. They would go to fishermen with so-called problems in other fishing industries.

I dared to believe that Canada was a country where a free enterprise employing five or six individuals was entitled to be viable and prosperous. Don't forget that crab and lobster aren't inextricably connected, in our case. If we hold a licence for area 12, we aren't entitled to hold other licences, for lobster, scallops or herring, for example, which are the private preserve of the inshore fleets.

Now I'd like to tell you about my fears about the unexplained losses—according to the scientists with the trawl raft. This is very important. On the first page of the documents, reference is made to commercial biomass that was harvested for 2009, that is 44,700 tonnes. That doesn't count juveniles, females, small fish or babies. These are all crabs of 95 mm or more, with big claws. This is real commercial crab.

In the other column, it states that 20,900 tonnes were fished. According to the survey subsequently conducted, approximately 25,000 tonnes should have been left in the sea, but only 9,300 tonnes were found. That means that 14,500 tonnes were lost. We don't know where they are. They disappeared. Did someone steal them? We don't know.

The second page deals with annual estimated crab losses in area 12 since 1998. As you can see, those losses have been significant. Two thousand and five was a very good year for crab. The tonnage was high in the gulf. We didn't find 26,000 tonnes. That's equal to the total biomass for this year. In 2005, we lost that.

In the first column on the last page, it states that the quota landed by traditional crab fishermen was 13,622 metric tonnes, which made it possible to operate the entire traditional fleet and the plants in New Brunswick and Quebec. The entire industry operated on that last year. This year, we're told we've lost 14,500 tonnes. That's equal to last year's production, and even more. That means that there is a problem with the survey and with the scientists. We have to ask ourselves some questions.

Thank you for listening to me. I hope some light will be shed on all of DFO's actions. If you have any questions, I can answer them.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Thank you, Mr. Noël.

Mr. LeBlanc.

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you for your presentations, gentlemen.

I have two questions, and perhaps my colleague, Mr. Byrne, will ask other questions if we have any time left.

Here's my first question. Apart from the issues of sharing and newcomers to the fishing industry, what do you think the industry, or rather the department, since it is responsible for this, could have done from 2006 to 2009 to avoid or limit the current crisis you're facing? Setting aside the sharing issues, is there anything else that could have been done to avoid the 63% reduction? That's perhaps one thing we will agree on: a 63% cut in one year makes no sense.

I come to my second question. Mr. Bevan, and Mr. Blanchard earlier this morning, tried in a way to rule out the economic profitability argument that you advocate somewhat eloquently. According to that argument—and this is something we often hear—if you had gross revenue of $800,000 for one year and had a loss of $80,000 or $100,000 that year, over a period of five of 10 years, and not for any single year in particular, the balance is nevertheless positive. Any other business has a certain obligation to retain its undistributed profits.

How do you react to this argument that Mr. Bevan advanced this morning, that a lot of businesses go through cycles in which income may be $800,000 one year, fall in other years and increase again? I won't conceal the fact that this is an argument that has often been used and that has a certain public appeal. Here's a chance to explain to us why that argument is not valid.

[Joel Gionet]

I'll try to answer you.

Thank God we can make $800,000 in a year because, if we couldn't do that, we wouldn't be here before you. Mr. Bevan, this morning, the only figures that he presented... The message to the public and in the media is always the same: they say crab fishermen earn gross revenue of $800,000. It's lucky that happened once in 10 years.

In 2006, we were paid $1.10 a pound for crab. In 2007, that increased to nearly $2. This year it was nearly $2 again. The prices of $3, $3.50 or $4 that were offered in 1994, 1995 and 1996 no longer exist. You have to stop dreaming in colour. The Canadian dollar is virtually at par with the American dollar. Most of the crab is sent to the United States. The “crab Klondike” no longer exists. I'm not saying it didn't exist. For a number of years, it was very good, but I believe that time is passed and over, particularly in view of the current number of fishermen.

In the gulf, I calculate that there isn't a single square mile where fishing isn't carried on, even in places where, 20 years ago, no one would ever have thrown a trap into the water because there weren't enough crabs for the fishery to be viable. Currently, every corner and square kilometre is full of traps. There used to be large areas where there was virtually no fishing. I believe that enabled stocks to replenish. Today, there are a lot of areas everywhere. There isn't a single sector where there aren't any traps.

If you can make money one year in 10, I think you deserve it. I don't understand why people attack specific fiscal years. It's always the same thing. Mr. LeBlanc, it was the same thing in 1995. To justify the sharing agreement in 1997, they once again stated that crab fishermen had earned $800,000 in income. There was one year when that occurred between 1990 and 2000, and another between 2000 and 2010. Thank God, because, as I said earlier, we wouldn't be here.

With an average income of about $175,000, as is the case this year, depending on the quotas, it's impossible to manage a fishing business such as ours. You need revenue of $300,000 or $350,000 gross. Otherwise it's impossible. How am I going to build a new boat? How am I going to change my engine, which costs $150,000?

Obviously someone who's been fishing for the past 30 years has accumulated some money, and so much the better for him. It's like everyone here around the table: you work, you reach retirement, and you've accumulated some funds. I believe a fishing business also has to accumulate funds. However, it's always the same thing with Fisheries and Oceans Canada and with politics. We're told we made $800,000 and we're condemned for that.

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

I don't want to interrupt; you're quite eloquent, but I asked two questions, and the chairman's going to interrupt us soon. You always come back to sharing issues, and I understand that. Perhaps we'll always be in disagreement on that subject. However, apart from sharing, are there any other things that the department could have done in previous years to prevent the reduction that everyone suffered this year?

[Hubert Noël]

I may have an answer to give you. It concerns sharing. In 2005, I believe, we submitted a plan to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. It was a gradual plan that offered something for everyone. When a newcomer had 30,000 tonnes, he had more quota at the outset than he does now. At a certain threshold, they would have let the quotas rise. In lowering the quotas, they let the resource breathe. Do you understand what I mean?

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

I remember that plan, which had some merit. However, you went back to the sharing issue.

Can someone offer another option, apart from changing the sharing arrangements, that might have prevented the current crisis?

[Joel Gionet]

I think that a crisis like the one we're going through today may be foreseeable. I think we'll be going through a crisis every 10 years. In fact, there won't be crises all the time, but there will always be a year when the biomass will be extremely low. For example, Mr. Moriyasu said this morning that, in 1995, the commercial crab biomass in the gulf was assessed at 150,000 tonnes. We had a quota of 20,000 or 22,000 tonnes. In those years, we were accumulating crab on the bottom: we fished it very little. However, in 1999, at the end of the cycle, the crab that had accumulated by hundreds of thousands of tonnes was dead. We had accumulated all that for nothing. We weren't able to fish it because it was dead. That's why, starting in the 2000s, everyone agreed that, in the next cycle, we would engage in slightly more intensive fishing. It's good for the economy because it provides work for people. It's good business.

At the end of the cycle, we realized that the levels were similar. If you compare the total biomass from 1999 to that in 2009, you'll definitely see that the 2009 level is slightly lower, but the levels are nevertheless similar. There's a difference of a few thousand tonnes, but it's nevertheless similar. I think that, in the period from 2009 to 2010, we fished for crab slightly more intensively—perhaps even too much so. I nevertheless think we were right to do so. If we had accumulated the resource, that doesn't mean that that crab would be at the bottom of the sea today—it might have all been dead.

I think that answers your question.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Thank you.

Monsieur Godin, you wanted to make a brief comment?

[Aurèle Godin]

The second question concerned the solution for protecting the resource. I can't help but laugh. I wonder why you found a solution for the aboriginals so that they could have crab. You freed up $500 million and bought licences for the aboriginal fishermen. I have nothing against that. You bought up quotas that didn't affect mine.

I'm going to answer your question on the way to solve the overfishing problem. I spoke to three lobster fishermen. It's not because the lobster fishermen come into my fishing area that we are at each other's throats. They told me last week that the solution to this problem would be for the government to release some funding, as it did for the aboriginal fishermen, and buy out the licences of fishermen who want to retire. They can tear up those licences. How many are there? One hundred in one fishery and 66 in the other? They'll live on what there is in the water and each will preserve their resource. I think that's the best solution to the problem. It's better than testifying before the committee, fighting to try to find solutions and saying that we have to prohibit others from entering our own fishery. You all heard what my fellow crew members said about the fishery. This is a solution that can be considered.

When the government released funding for the aboriginal fishermen, they approached my father to ask him to sell his licence, but he thought about us. He said that, if he sold his licence to the aboriginals, he didn't know what would happen to his children and his grandchildren. I talked about that earlier, with regard to fishermen. I answered that I was going to buy it, that I was going to put my head on the chopping block. I knew what was coming with sharing. I put my head on the chopping block. Half my head was cut off.

We talked endlessly about solutions. There are solutions, but you have to find them; that's all. I believe that, to solve everyone's problem, the government should draw on citizens' money, tear up licences and ensure that we limit ourselves to our own fishery and that we take care of it. That's what we've done. I'm not boasting. We've already seen crab decline. In some years, we weren't able to reach our quotas. No one came and helped us; no one found funding to support us. As one fisherman said, there were 50,000 pounds of crab in the water. We didn't cry; we took charge of our situation, and we decided to set quotas per boat, to pay observers, to pay for everything if necessary and to be profitable. Once we were profitable, the government kills us off. It's illogical.

There's a solution to every problem. We have to talk about it. The suggestion I'm making, that the government find funding for the fishermen, is hard to hear. The fact remains that, if there is no more resource, it's not the fault of the traditional crab fisherman. Even if you told me we're the ones who destroyed our resource, I would answer that's not true. It's the crab fishermen who constituted it. When we said we were going to set quotas per boat, there was enough for 130 fishermen. Today, the government has authorized 400 boats and 38,000 traps in the water. Joel Gionet said there isn't a single square mile where fishing isn't being carried on; that's too much. I would limit the perimeter from here to the chair. You have to tell the truth.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Thank you, Mr. Godin.

Mr. Blais.

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

Thank you very much, incidentally, for all kinds of reasons. What you're telling us is quite moving. I'm sure you also share your confusion and dismay with others. We're going to be hearing from other people; we've already heard from some, from real fishermen, and plant workers. When I think of them, when I see them, I am sensitive to their situation, and I believe you are as well. These people are a bit stuck—we'll be able to verify that shortly—they don't have a lot of room to manoeuvre.

Lastly, you're telling us you're currently at a point where it's a little more difficult to change direction. The solution was to cut the number of boats, and that had a harmful effect on fisherman's helpers. That made it possible to stabilize incomes, but it had a harmful effect, which was very hard to accept.

I'd also like to hear from you on other topics so we can retain that information. I'd like you to tell me a little about seal and Atlantic wolfish. As you know, that's a file that I very much defend, that our committee will also continue to defend. I would like to hear what you have to say on that subject. Someone will definitely have something to say on that subject.

I understand from what you're telling us—you'll tell me if I'm right or wrong, and probably we'll hear the same thing this afternoon—that trust has disappeared. That's serious; it's more than serious, and I'm at that point as well. I'm putting questions to the people who make decisions and, at some point, I wonder about the trust I can give them. A decision was made, the quotas were cut by 63%, but we're not correcting the effects, we're not cleaning them up, we're not talking about them anymore; we're talking about the species, but we're no longer talking about the human impact this can have or about the amounts of money we should allocate to it. The human impact was observed in the automotive industry, the forest industry and other fields, and it's a double standard, a triple standard. It hurts, and it undermines trust.

I'd like to hear you say a little more about the seals, but more about this matter of trust.

[Aurèle Godin]

With regard to seals, I monitor this situation constantly. Some guys earn their living hunting seal. It's an animal, but what are you going to do, they have to hunt them to sell and eat. They eat seal; it's food.

I was watching Le Téléjournal from Montreal and they were saying that seals have to be killed on Sable Island. Why? To drill oil wells? Fishermen are told they aren't allowed to kill seals because blood spreads over the snow. Something's not right. It's not normal to hear that. Yesterday, in the report, they said seals should be sterilized, that there were too many on Sable Island, but why? There are hunters asking to hunt seals because there are seven million of one species and 650,000 of another and they don't want it. Why?

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

Seals eat the traditional small crab, the snow crab?