Fisheries Committee on May 28th, 2010

[Daniel Landry, Fisheries Advisor, Association des pêcheurs professionnels membres d'équipages]

Good morning. My name is Daniel Landry and I'm a fisheries advisor with the Association des pêcheurs professionnels membres d'équipages. My members are currently on the job. So I'm going to represent them.

The Association des pêcheurs professionnels membres d'équipages is an association of midshore shrimp fishermen, small pelagic purse seiners, ground fishermen and, mostly, crab fishermen. Most of our members have extensive fishing experience, that is to say 20 or 30 years, and excellent training acquired at the New Brunswick School of Fisheries. Over the years, our members' incomes have melted like snow in the sun, from $35,000 to $12,000 a year, as a result of new costs and cuts by DFO to the captains' historic fishing levels. Every time DFO cuts our share of the fishery, our income follows that curve. In other words, all the department's fisheries management decisions have a direct impact on the crew.

It's been said that the fish resource belongs to all Canadians, and we agree. However, we would like someone to remind the department that we on the decks of the boats are also Canadians, that we also have a right to a decent wage to support our families and one day to hope to send our children to university. Unfortunately, the revenues we were sharing are no longer there as a result of fisheries management that has been politicized to death by Fisheries and Oceans Canada. I say “to death” because that management is killing our traditional industry and the entire community of interests that depends on it, that is to say crew members, plant workers, processors and all related employees. DFO's dogged attitude toward the traditional crab fishing fleet in area 12 suggests the worst economic scenarios. It's scaring away the skilled labourer on the boats and ruining all our efforts to develop the next generation, both on board the boats and on the decks of the ships.

In the past 40 years, we have worked with our federation to implement social benefits for our members. We've gotten to the point where we can no longer use them. Our members are finding it difficult to pay their $300 premium. They're looking for small insurance policies to replace their group insurance plan. They can't foresee the day when they'll be able to take part in the group RRSP program that we've created.

We are not opposed to the idea of sharing the resource with distressed fleets, but only when our own viability is not jeopardized. Our fleet is currently in distress, but we have to continue sharing the quota with organizations that are leasing quota at 35¢ a pound to their fishermen, who don't really have the knowledge or equipment necessary to fish across area 12 as a whole and, what is more, are not accountable for the resource because they probably won't be in that fishing area next year and don't have a permanent licence.

Is it normal to wind up in these conditions, with 130 traditional fishermen and 300 casuals? Well, that's the scenario in 2009, with the results we've seen and that we know in 2010. While Transport Canada is renewing the Marine Act and increasing the qualification criteria for seafarers, it will become impossible to do the 12 months at sea in 5 years necessary to be eligible for Transport Canada's fishing master, fourth class examinations. In addition, if our crab captains are still allowed to fish only crab and that fishery continues to be shared without regard to its profitability, it will become impossible to recruit new fishermen interested in getting training and trying to meet Transport Canada's requirements.

We hope that a serious investigation is conducted into the snow crab management in area 12, that a management method that is honest and fair toward our fleet is implemented, that peace returns to our communities in management meetings with DFO and, especially, that our relationship of trust is restored with Fisheries and Oceans' science sector.

It is not normal for Canadian fishermen to have to go to court to make themselves heard. This is becoming too frequent, much too frequent, with Fisheries and Oceans Canada.

Thank you for listening to me.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Thank you, Mr. Landry.

Mr. Brun.

[Christian Brun, Director General, Maritime Fishermen's Union]

Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, committee members and members of the public. Thank you for inviting us. I'm going to speak to you today on behalf of André Martin, our president. He obviously can't be here as he is fishing for lobster.

I'm going to provide you with some brief background on the Maritime Fishermen's Union to enable those who don't know us to get to know us better. The organization represents 1,500 inshore fishermen in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. They own and operate their own fishing businesses. They employ more than 3,000 fishermen's helpers. The MFU advocates multi-species fishing and our objective is to combine the licences for lobster, herring, groundfish, scallop and other species. The organization is legitimately established under provincial legislation and is subject to an official recognition process every four years—it is important to mention that—in order to be accredited in New Brunswick.

Over time, the organization has tried to establish a balance between the current interests of its member fishermen and those of future generations. It is very important to emphasize that. We work with our members today, but also for future generations of fishermen. With regard to snow crab, the MFU's history mainly starts in 1991, following the cod moratorium. The MFU had made a request to share the very lucrative snow crab fishery based on the following three essential arguments: first, there is snow crab near the coastal regions where the inshore fishermen work; second, the inshore fishery has a multi-species fishing strategy designed to diversify resource management risk, in view of the fact that there is more than one licence and fishery and that, when times are tougher for one fishery, you can rely on another; lastly, the inshore fishermen wanted a fair distribution of profits from sea resources for the largest possible number of participants in the fishing industry and the largest possible number of rural communities in New Brunswick and elsewhere.

In response to those requests, the federal fisheries minister Mr. Tobin, who was in the position in 1995, authorized the inshore fishermen to fish for snow crab. In his documents, he said he wanted to ensure a fair sharing of that common public resource. Subsequently, in 2003, Mr. Robert Thibault, the federal fisheries minister at that time, in turn proposed to maintain the sharing of snow crab, but talked instead about new access. He said he wanted to enable fishermen to plan these fisheries for the longer term.

Mr. Hearn also opted for this continuity. He even said he wanted to make the sharing agreements permanent and stable by 2010. This year, the current federal minister, Gail Shea, will be moving toward stability and ensuring it until 2014. In fact, by 2014, the inshore fishermen of the MFU and others will already have been involved in the snow crab fishery for 20 years.

With regard to the recent decline in the snow crab biomass, which seems to be the most pressing issue today, in view of the cyclical behaviour of snow crab, scientists began to present evidence of biomass decline already in 2006, for the Gulf of St. Lawrence. In 2007, scientists were also recommending lowering the overall quota. In the wake of those recommendations, MFU recommended a cut to the overall snow crab quota. In 2008, MFU recommended a 20% reduction in the quota allocated to the fishery.

In 2009, the industry in general disregarded the advice of the scientists, and the traditional fishermen even intensified the political lobbying in Ottawa to preserve the status quo. In 2010, the minister had the courage to accept the opinion of the department's scientists and cut the quota by 63%. In our view, the rate of landings in the Bay of Chaleur during the 2010 season seems to show that the minister was right.

I'm also going to speak briefly about myths and realities. For a few months now, it has been suggested that the decline in the snow crab biomass was caused by too many fishermen or traps at sea. In MFU's view, that seems quite illogical, for the following reasons. The total crab fishing fleet consists of approximately 400 boats. If we assume that every boat has an average of 100 traps, that means a total of 40,000 traps at sea. By comparison, the lobster fleet in the southern gulf, with its nearly 4,000 boats, which have an average of 275 traps each, has a total of 1.1 million traps at sea. If we compare the two, the lobster fleet currently has 10 times as many fishermen and 27.5 times as many traps as the snow crab fleet. The lobster fleet has been managing to gradually increase its biomass in the past few years. However, the biomass is still inadequate and the economy is inadequate for the fishermen, who depend on a number of species.

I'm coming to my conclusion. It's quite clear that the number of fishermen does not seem to be the cause of the problem in the case of snow crab. What then is the problem? We asked ourselves that question. And we've come to a conclusion. This morning, I listened to Joel Gionet's remarks. We agree with him: the cyclical nature of the stock seems to be a much more logical explanation and to be the main reason for the decline in snow crab biomass. It is therefore important that DFO managers continue to be very attentive to the advice of the department's scientists, as has been the case this year. In MFU's opinion, in the past few years, there has also been an issue of monitoring and protection that has had a very negative impact on that fishery. We would like to emphasize this point.

In our view, MFO's protection and conservation section, which has to patrol an enormous fishing area in the gulf—an area that is very hard to cover—for lack of human and material resources, too often focuses on monitoring activities close to shore or in coastal areas and too often neglects the frequent practice of selecting crab based on quality. In our view, this practice seriously undermines the crab biomass, since selected crab causes large volumes of rejects. There is also a high mortality rate. Special attention should therefore be focused on this practice.

Since time is passing quickly, I won't do a review. I believe our points have been addressed. Thank you for your attention.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Thank you, Mr. Brun.

Mr. LeBlanc, go ahead, please.

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you for your presentations, gentlemen. I'd like to ask Mr. Brun or Mr. Comeau a question.

I'd like to go back to what you talked about at the end of your presentation. The word “selected” is a technical term. I'd like you to explain that point a little more. For example, some people who work in the processing industry say that the crab delivered to the plants by the inshore fishermen is of lesser quality than the crab provided by the midshore fishermen. I'd like you to explain that point a little more. I'd like to understand what you said at the end of your presentation because time was short.

I'm going to ask another question. I'm also asking you not to take my 10 minutes to answer.

[Christian Brun]

We've often heard that the crab supplied by inshore fishermen was of lesser quality. We've often wondered why. Plant managers claimed that the quality was lower. We wanted to check to see why. In doing that, we realized that practice of some fishermen was to select the highest quality crab and to reject the crabs that were missing a leg, for example.

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

Mr. Brun, what does the word “reject” mean? The crab is dead? Does “reject” mean that it's put back into the sea? Explain to me what the word “reject” means?

[Christian Brun]

It means they're put back into the sea. Very often a large percentage of what is put back into the sea won't survive.

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

Thank you very much.

I have another question, Mr. Brun. This morning, we talked a lot—and rightly so—about economic issues and the viability threshold. We want a fishing business to be profitable. And I think everyone wants fishermen, the businesses, their crews and the processing plants to be able to make money. Profits aren't a negative thing when you're doing business, on the contrary.

However, we're talking about the viability threshold for a fishing business. Earlier today, we heard about the problems finding that viability threshold in view of recent cuts for traditional crab fishermen. You represent 1,500 inshore fishermen. I'm somewhat familiar with area 25, which is a lobster area, because that's the region I represent in Parliament.

Tell me a little about the viability threshold for your members. I'm talking about the current economic situation of lobster fishermen. We call them lobster fishermen because I get the impression—you'll correct me if I'm wrong—that the vast majority of their incomes come from lobster fishing. With regard to economic viability, I think it would be useful to have a picture of the problems your members are also experiencing.

[Christian Brun]

Studies were conducted by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans over the period from 2004 to 2007. They showed the net incomes of inshore lobster fishermen. And you're right, Mr. LeBlanc, the lobster fishery represents the largest share of fishermen's incomes. There's also the secondary fishery, such as herring and certain other fisheries. On average, net after-tax incomes on the east coast of New Brunswick for those years were $12,000 to $15,000 a year.

That's really not an enormous amount if you have to support a family and all the rest. The goal of our organization is clearly to improve the standard of living and ensure greater viability. The prices are $2.75 for the smallest lobster and $3 for the market this year. That clearly won't improve the situation; the situation will remain very bad.

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

Thank you for your answer.

Let's go back to the sharing issue. We've turned around this issue a lot today. If your members are generally in the economic situation you just described, why is reasonable access to snow crab so important to ensure the viability of your fishing businesses?

[Christian Brun]

As we mentioned at the start, the goal of inshore fishermen is to be able to fish a number of species. The 1,200 fishermen in New Brunswick want more opportunities for a reasonable standard of living. Over the years, the snow crab fishery has clearly proven to be crucial to achieving those objectives. The idea is to take the first steps toward reducing the number of fishermen in the lobster fleet. There are enormous numbers of fishermen in very small areas. This makes it possible to do this gradually pending assistance from the government. We've clearly been able to do it to date, as a result of snow crab and other things. This makes it possible to develop our fishery, to ensure greater viability and thus better conservation of our fisheries.

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

I'm going to continue on another topic. A little earlier, there were other guests, just before you. I'm entirely of the view that a major solution to the economic viability problems our members are facing will come from a funded government program. There's no point in squeezing out the last drop of juice from the lemon in the case of snow crab or other species. We will have to accept responsibility, as we did in the case of the Marshall decision.

Obviously, when the Supreme Court gives the government an order, it's easier to go before cabinet looking for money. The answer isn't yes or no; it's how much money will it take to comply with the Supreme Court decision? The dynamic changes in the case of that kind of decision.

We currently don't have that luxury. In fact, there's currently a need to go and buy licences. We're not talking about lobster licences because, if we buy lobster licences, we'll have to buy all the licences the fishing business owns and cancel them, tear them up, as one of the participants said earlier. Then we would be giving your members, that is to say the youngest fishermen, a real chance to improve their economic situation and to invest in equipment. That's a whole other issue. I entirely agree with the people who said it's virtually impossible for a fishing business to borrow money. If we have Farm Credit Canada to assist farmers, why wouldn't we have a similar arrangement to help fishing businesses, a way to seriously finance those purchases?

How would you view a licence buy-back plan in the context of ensuring the long-term conservation for future generations that you referred to? We have to reduce the pressure on resources, whether it be snow crab or lobster.

[Christian Brun]

There have been a number of licence withdrawal programs in the past. Normally, licences are withdrawn and the resource returns. So we have to be very careful. As a number of studies show, you have to make sure you have conservation measures in exchange for improving what you leave in the water. If we withdraw licences and have conservation measures, we have a better chance of achieving a long-term effect. As regards the fishermen's economy, you reduce the number of fishermen. This improves the economic pie for those remaining. We've made some concessions on species conservation. That's our perspective, and that's what we encourage. Some tools were recently put on the table, but we're far from achieving the desired objectives. In fact, what was recently put on the table for our fishermen was merely a percentage of what is necessary in order to achieve a reasonable viability threshold for inshore fishermen.

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

This is an interesting question. What kind of change or option could you propose? I agree with you that this should be combined with a licence withdrawal plan. What kinds of measures are on your wish list?

[Christian Brun]

That will definitely depend on circumstances and the type of program proposed. With regard to lobster, for example, conservation measures have proven to be very effective. There is the minimum size question, for example. There are all the conservation measures that would leave more lobster in the water and would be combined with economic improvement. Lowering the number of fishermen would make it so fishermen would not suffer economic losses and a larger volume of the species would be left in the water. So this is a trade-off, in other words, to improve the future of the fishery and the economy of the fishermen engaged in this fishery over the long term.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Thank you.

Mr. Blais, go ahead, please.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Good afternoon, gentlemen.

Mr. Landry, earlier you talked about overpoliticization at Fisheries and Oceans Canada. You referred briefly to what has occurred in past years. I would like you to explain to us how we could somewhat move away from the politics of all this. There's a bit of a little of the politician in all of us. Some are more full-time politicians, others are better paid, and still others aren't paid at all, but we all engage in politics in various ways. We all engage in a little politics.

When I say politics, I mean that in the sense of wanting to play both ends against the middle; we want to make decisions that will in a way please everyone; we want to try to please the entire community, and, ultimately, we in a way displease everyone in the short, medium or long term. How could we steer away from politics in all this?

[Daniel Landry]

First of all, there's the minister's discretionary authority. In our view, it's now being used in all kinds of ways. At first, the focus was resource preservation. We see how the current situation is, but we knew that the biomass would be very low this year. As a result of the decisions made, there was more pressure, more fishing for this resource. So one may well wonder what the logic is in this kind of management.

At one time, around 1996, there was co-management in our fishery. That worked well for a while. Then we realized there was no umpire. The party that had the power was therefore free to comply or not to comply with the agreement, which resulted in a lot of frustration. It also resulted in a loss of trust in the science, even though all efforts were made to be honest with the fishermen.

I think the fishermen themselves have to be more involved. There should be neutral committees to hear the complaints of fishermen, scientists and managers. There should also be management umpires along the way to determine whether the interests of all parties are being met.

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

Is that one way to solve the problem? Does the FRCC nevertheless have its limits?

[Daniel Landry]

Management is done on an annual basis. The FRCC is sporadic but is interested in crab, its management and the crab fishery in certain years. In other years, we see less interest on its part. It will focus more on other fisheries.

I think there should be another mechanism.

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

I'd like to know one thing, out of mere curiosity. You're a fisherman in area 12; you're a traditional crab fisherman.

[Daniel Landry]

Yes, I represent traditional fishermen.

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

I suppose this isn't the organization that the other person who testified a little earlier, Mr. Robert Haché, talked about.

[Daniel Landry]

They represent owner-captains and I represent crew members. They're the employees of those captains.