Madam Chair, there is no doubt that this industry in eastern Canada is in crisis. The history or the evolution of this crisis comes on the back of the 1990s' groundfish cuts and declines.
Where groundfish fishermen once found themselves in peril, there was some light at the end of the tunnel for some involved in the shellfish industries. Lobster, crab and shrimp soon supplanted in landed value and export value some of the losses that occurred in the groundfish industry.
Today, however, we have a very bleak situation. Groundfish never did recover, and the light at the end of the tunnel offered by the shellfish sector is now a dim and fading light. We have resource cuts and we have significant economic pressures on price. This is contributing to factors which are creating unparalleled poverty in many communities and regions throughout Atlantic Canada and Quebec.
The minister spoke relatively eloquently on certain aspects of her duty. What she did not actually describe, however, was that she has failed not only in her duty to protect fish, but also in her duty to protect fishermen. She says that there is always a cause or a concern that fish populations fluctuate. There is no cause and no predictability to it. According to her, it just sometimes happens.
Unfortunately, fishermen know the difference. What they want is leadership. They want a minister who is capable of providing that leadership, not only for the good and easy decisions of increasing quotas but also for the decisions of when they need to be cut.
Specifically, there is a situation in the southern gulf of St. Lawrence where, amazingly, 63% of the quota was cut in just one season. Fishermen are scratching their heads. Plant workers are just amazed. Provincial governments are aghast at the fact that a 63% cut had to occur in one season.
They are not against cuts. They are not afraid of the tough decision. However, what they know, because they apply a factor called common sense, is that a cut of 63% in one year was not manufactured in one year. It was created over a series of years with which leadership and management should have dealt. That got blatantly exposed.
While the minister may say to herself and to others, whoever might try to listen, that this was just a circumstance beyond her control, Department of Fisheries and Oceans shellfish scientist, Marc Lanteigne, who works in Moncton, told the real story on CBC New Brunswick. He said:
The decline has been quite dramatic over the last few years and this is why the management aspect of that fishery has had to make some difficult decisions.
The Department of Fisheries and Oceans own scientists have been saying that they have been providing information to the minister that populations have been in decline over the last few years and this is why the management aspect of that fishery has had to make some very difficult decisions this year. These are the minister's own officials.
What that is saying to each and every one of us is this stock of southern gulf crab has been in decline and scientists have been advising the minister that it has been in decline for several years and the minister has not exercise her fiduciary responsibility to do something about it.
It is all well and good to raise quotas when it is easy to do so. However, the minister's responsibility was to provide ease to the industry by doing what was right when it was required.
Had quotas been cut on an incremental basis, as suggested by science, we would not see a 63% cut in just one year. We would not see an industry in turmoil today. What we would see is an industry that was capable of adjusting over the course of time to the realities of its industry. That is not the case we are seeing right now.
Then we have the turmoil the minister caused in area 23 and area 24 on the east coast of Nova Scotia and Cape Breton. A management plan was put in place in 2005 with the consensus and co-operation with the entire industry, not necessarily the agreement of the entire industry, whereby the quota would be shared on a fifty-fifty split. What did the minister do in 2009? She tore up that management plan.
The management plan said that as soon as the resource went over 9,700 tonnes, an agreement was struck that there would be a split of the quota on a fifty-fifty basis between the traditional fleet and the core company fleet. That quota went over 9,700 tonnes. The threshold was reached.
What did the Department of Fisheries and Oceans say on February 18, 2009, one month before the minister announced her plan? It said:
It is expected that due to the strong recruitment, a TAC exceeding 9700t may be approved in 2009, thus triggering the permanent 50%:50% sharing agreement recommended by the Advisory Panel on Access and Allocation...
This letter went to every crab industry stakeholder in area 23 and area 24, issued by none other than the acting director of DFO for eastern Nova Scotia, Ms. Joan Reid. Every member of the crab industry was told by the officials on the ground that the management plan would be enacted on a fifty-fifty basis. One month later, the minister came in and tore up the plans. It is absolutely disgusting. That is not stability for this industry.
Then we have the issue in Newfoundland and Labrador where a very serious problem is occurring because of price and an industry looking to rationalize and restructure itself. There is nothing coming from the minister who has the fiduciary responsibility to set this industry on a proper course. She is the industry minister and the conservation minister for the fishery, but we have nothing.
It strikes me odd that when we have a lobster industry in crisis, there is much fanfare about a $15 million program that is to provide aid for a $1 billion, normally, annual industry to be spread over 10,000 lobster licence holders who are spread over five eastern Canadian provinces: Quebec, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, P.E.I., Newfoundland and Labrador. That $15 million some may consider a significant amount of money. To put it in perspective, that is for 10,000 fishermen.
Hon. members opposite are saying that is $15 million more than what we provided. What they are saying right now is that when prices of lobster were at $6.50 a pound in 2005, we should have been subsidizing the lobster industry. However, the industry was in crisis in 2009 when prices were at $3 a pound. They were at $6.50 a pound in 2005. Now when they hit $3 a pound in 2009, a $15 million program is provided, and the reaction from the industry is that this will not be enough.
When the eligibility criteria was unveiled for the program, the reaction from the industry was that this would never be spent. The eligibility criteria was so discriminatory, exclusive to the real needs of the industry, the industry knew that the money would never be spent because nobody would be eligible. Guess what? Only 50% of the $15 million was spent, $8.5 million was disbursed to the fishermen and the government got an additional $1 million back from them anyway because it was all taxable. Therefore, of the $15 million program that was supposed to support them, only half was spent.
I would like to know if the hon. minister would actually see fit to take the $7.5 million that went back to the government treasury and introduce a program, at least this year, and augment that which needs to be done for the people of New Brunswick, P.E.I., Nova Scotia, Newfoundland and Labrador and Quebec. I do not think we will ever see that happen.
Then we have the shrimp fishery. In shrimp fishing area 6 on the northeast coast of Newfoundland and southern Labrador, we are seeing a rather similar circumstance occurring in the southern gulf of St. Lawrence. There is a recommendation now for a 30% cut in one season. That tells me one of two things. Either scientists were not doing their job over a succession of several years, or scientists were providing advice to the minister and she just failed to accept it and failed to act on it. To have a 30% cut in one year means either the stock was not being monitored properly on a year to year basis over the last number of years and suddenly a 30% cut was required.
What we have is an industry in crisis because the leader of the crisis is the leader of the fishery.
