Thank you, Mr. Chairman,
Good day to all of the witnesses.
I have a question for you, Mr. Timmins. In your opening remarks, you draw a distinction between the various categories of fees. On the one hand, there are those fees for which the amount charged normally cannot exceed the cost of what is provided.
On the other hand, there are fees such as those charged for commercial fishing licenses, tied to the use of resources. With respect to the latter category, you stated the following: “For these fees, the amount that is charged is normally related to market value rather than cost.”
I nonetheless have some serious concerns about the cost of these types of fishing licenses. Consider, for example, the cost of a crab fishing license which is now approaching $24,000, or approximately 10% of a fisher's income. The cost of the license hasn't really changed, whereas crab prices have fluctuated a great deal. They have dropped from 90¢ to 45¢ per pound over a period of ten years. So then, while the price of crab has declined, the cost of a license hasn't changed. This amount represents an important share of fishers' income. How do you explain this situation? Basically, you're saying that fees should be related to market value, but at the same time, the cost does not decrease when prices drop.
In the case of the example that you gave in the report, the opposite is true. You wondered why prices do not increase when the market value of catches increases, as in the case of crab. However, there is no logical explanation possible for that happening.
Can you tell us why you failed to mention this fact?