:
Good morning, everyone. We're ready to begin. I should officially rap the gavel to open the meeting. I'd like to thank everyone for coming this morning.
Perhaps we might just take a few moments before we begin to have a moment of silence to remember the one-year anniversary of the tragedy that took place on Saturday, March 28.
[A moment of silence observed]
The Chair: Thank you very much.
We're ready to begin this morning.
Once again, thank you very much for coming to meet with the fisheries committee this morning, and I apologize for being a little late getting started. There were circumstances that couldn't be helped, but we're here and we're very anxious to meet and to hear the issues pertaining to the lobster fishery in Îles-de-la-Madeleine.
Mr. Poirier, I believe you're going to do the speaking this morning on behalf of the association. Before you start your comments, perhaps you could introduce the others with you this morning and their role, and then if you want to proceed right into your presentation, that would be terrific.
Thank you.
:
Thank you very much and welcome to the Magdalen Islands. I especially want to thank you for giving us this opportunity to express the concerns of people in the lobster fishing industry and the community that depends on it.
Today, I am accompanied by the President of the Association des pêcheurs propriétaires des Îles-de-la-Madeleine, Mr. Mario Déraspe, as well as Mr. Christopher Clark. They will have a chance to answer your questions following my presentation.
It is possible that I will ask for your indulgence if my presentation goes over the 10 minutes allotted to me. We had very little time to prepare; we did not know whether you were going to be able to land.
Basically, we are going to be talking about biology, management and landings. Some of you are well acquainted with the lobster fishery. It is important that we all be on the same wavelength before starting the questions. Of course, we will be talking about profitability and vision—the aspects of interest to you—in other words, what we can do to deal with the crisis currently affecting the industry. I have tabled some tables and graphs that deal specifically with the Magdalen Islands. I will not comment on them now, but during the discussion period, we can look at them in more detail.
In the Magdalen Islands, the lobster fishery is competitive. It operates by controlling the fishing effort. In the Magdalen Islands, just like everywhere else, concentrations of lobsters are found on the rocky seabed. In terms of biology, it is significant for us, here in the Magdalen Islands, that female lobsters reach sexual maturity when they are more than 79 mm long. In the Magdalen Islands, females reach maturity when they are 83 mm long.
The federal government has responsibility, as well as the necessary tools, to ensure conservation of the resource, particularly through management plans. However, the Magdalen Islands long benefited from delegation of fisheries administration to the province, but which was repatriated in 1983.
You undoubtedly know that, since the early 1980s, with the exception of the lobster fishery and the snow crab fishery, to a lesser extent, all the other fisheries have pretty well disappeared, whether we are talking about cod, herring, mackerel, redfish or any other species. We obtained five or six permits following the transfer of fisheries administration from the province to the federal government.
I would now like to address the question of stock conservation. At our request, the Fisheries Resource Conservation Council, or FRCC, looked at overfishing of lobster stocks. This may not often have been mentioned. Previously, the FRCC looked only at the cod fishery.
At the time, the FRCC was advocating egg production, lower exploitation rates and improvement of the stock structure. The FRCC's objective was to double egg production.
In the Magdalen Islands, we achieve this by increasing the legal minimum size. Between 1997 and 2003, we increased the legal minimum size from 77 to 83 mm. This allowed us to double egg production and meet the productivity goal set by the FRCC.
In Quebec, about 600 licences are issued. Of that number, 540 are fished, including 325 in the Magdalen Islands. That is an approximate figure. In Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia respectively, 1,300, 1,600 and 3,300 licences are issued. That gives you an idea of the number of licences per province.
You have met with officials from Fisheries and Oceans. Licences are granted based on lobster fishing areas, or LFAs. Each area has its own number, but some areas are much smaller than others. In the Magdalen Islands, we are lucky to have an area that fits with the biological pattern of the lobster, which is a relatively sedentary species. We never wanted to divide our area into sub-areas, as has been done in other regions, as it would make management extremely difficult. So, we have always avoided splitting up our area into different smaller areas where every fisher is “master in his own house”. That would cause problems in neighbouring areas. We want to keep our area intact.
Generally speaking, many of the management measures used here resemble those in other provinces, but some of them are peculiar to the Islands. Our season is nine weeks long from opening to closing. Specifically, there are six fishing days per week, from Monday to Saturday. The minimum size of a catch is 83 mm. In the past, the maximum number of traps was 300; it is now 288 and continues to fall.
Of course, we release any egg-bearing females that are caught, and large traps are prohibited, which is peculiar to the Magdalen Islands. It is mandatory for the traps to have an escape hatch for small lobsters and it is prohibited to haul and bait traps more than once a day. There is a minimum number of traps per trawl, as well as a maximum trawl length—which again, is peculiar to the Islands.
The fishing season begins in early May, when the ice has melted, and ends when the lobster moult in early July. The lobster size had already increased from 64 to 76 mm. As I said earlier, it was only from 1997 to 2003 that we increased it from 77 to 83 mm.
We abide by conservation plans, which are now implemented over a five-year period.
In the United States, the size is 3¼ inches, or 82.5 mm. In terms of the general status of the stocks, I mentioned earlier that we had doubled egg production. A ten-year plan has been put in place with a view to decreasing the fishing effort. It involves two phases, and we are currently in the fourth year of Phase 1. The number of traps was reduced from 300 to 288 in 2009, and we will continue to lower that number gradually. We will be removing three traps per year until Year 10.
As regards the catch, we operate the same way as everywhere else. We use traps and passive gear. Here it is an inland fishery only. As I explained, the traps are made out of wood or metal.
In terms of landings, you are surely aware that a little more than 50 per cent of lobster comes from the United States. It is called homarus americanus. Canadian lobster represents a little less than 50 per cent. In Canada, 50 per cent of the lobster comes from the Gulf and the other 50 per cent comes from outside the Gulf. That gives you a good overview. The table shows that Nova Scotia lands more lobster here. For Quebec, it is about 5 per cent of production, 70 per cent of which comes from the Magdalen Islands. So, for Magdalen Islands, we are talking about a production level that is normally about 4 per cent.
In terms of how our landings have evolved, you may want to have a quick look at the table. We reached a peak in the early 1990s. In our view, we reached it too quickly. That was probably due to too rapid an increase in the fishing effort. There has been a decline in 1996, 1997 and 1998. That is when we really decided to bring the situation under control. Thanks to the steps advocated and defended by leaders of the Association, with the support of fishers, of course, and Fisheries and Oceans Canada, we were able to turn things around. Since then, we have seen a constant progression. We went from 4 million to 5.5 million pounds. That is a phenomenal increase. It is almost a 35 per cent increase. The important thing to know here is that, this time around, we moved slowly and gradually. This did not come about as a result of an increase in the fishing effort. On the contrary, we enforced the management plans and we controlled the fishing effort.
:
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and thank you to our witnesses, especially for the welcome you have provided us. And thanks to Mr. Blais, who, whenever he mentions a possibility of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans travelling to the Magdalen Islands, finds not much difficulty getting his colleagues to willingly and enthusiastically come on board. This is our second trip in about two years, isn't it, Mr. Blais? I'm delighted to be back again and to feel so welcome.
I'm going to share my time with Mr. MacAulay, but I have three questions I want to explore with you.
You mentioned the jurisdictional role between the federal and provincial governments, and you mentioned the pilot project, the jurisdictional devolution that occurred in the early 1980s in terms of fisheries management. Could you provide some clarity for the committee members as to whether you thought that situation was positive or negative?
In my conversations with fishers from the Gaspé area they weren't too enthusiastic about provincial control over fisheries management. It created some problems. Could you relay exactly how it impacted here in the Magdalen Islands?
My second question concerns the management measures put in place for area 22, the Magdalen Islands lobster fishery. Is this a closed fishery, in the sense that whatever you do in terms of conservation you see the benefits of? In other words, do you have any competitors or intrusions, so that sometimes your conservation efforts are not necessarily enjoyed by you? Is this a shared fishery? I guess that would be my question. Are you independent, in the sense that you see the consequences--positive or negative--independently of the measures that you put in place in this particular lobster fishing area?
Finally, one management technique that has not really been raised here yet is licence retirement. Do you see a value for the fleet you have here on the Magdalen Islands? Is there a need for licence retirement?
:
That is a broad question with three important parts to it.
With respect to jurisdiction, fisheries administration was transferred to the Province of Quebec early in the century. It was only in the 1940s that the transfer of fisheries administration from the Magdalen Islands to the Province of Quebec was finalized. Jurisdiction for Quebec as a whole was removed in 1983. As I pointed out, this was due to the fact that the Province of Quebec had no snow crab, unlike all the neighbouring provinces. In terms of proximity, which is the principle the federal government applies to resource sharing, the crab banks are closer to the Magdalen Islands—at least the largest ones that contain the best crab. The Bradelle bank, located very close to the Islands, had no crab. The province therefore decided to issue six crab fishing licences, upon which there was a general outcry, leading ultimately to the unilateral withdrawal of jurisdiction by the federal government, without the support of the Magdalen Islands, even though the member of Parliament at the time tried to secure the support of Islanders. So, that addresses your question regarding the federal role.
As I said, in the lobster fishing industry, we were lucky to have been managed for a long time by the province. Most of the measures were already in place when the federal government took control of the fisheries. I will not talk about the other fisheries; as I said earlier, it is a disaster. You could conduct a study of all the other fisheries, but today we are here to talk specifically about lobster. We were lucky to have a fishers' organization that was already well developed and well organized, and that had been solidly in place for many years. We intervened to support the federal government, at the local Fisheries and Oceans departmental office, which ultimately continued in the same vein. It was from that time on that we were able to develop our own models that are specific to the Magdalen Islands. That addresses your question about jurisdiction.
As regards LFA 22, as I mentioned, it had the good fortune not to be split up into smaller areas, as others were, because of turf wars and the like, or for all kinds of economic reasons that have absolutely nothing to do with the biology of lobster. We, however, always refused to do that and were able to work together to develop common measures. When everything is cut up in small pieces, one person may agree to do something, but someone else in the neighbouring area does not agree. And yet, it is the same lobster. There are consequences for everyone. It is very difficult to operate under such a system. Here, however, we are lucky to have a single, undivided area.
I am not here to throw stones at the federal government—far from it. We have learned to work with it in the lobster industry, particularly at the local level. On the other hand, you are opening the door. Of course, most of our efforts are productive, because we have a good area. We are producing more larvae because of the increase in the legal minimum size, which is something that was not done in the other regions, especially the adjacent regions. We are pretty certain that our larvae are drifting to the north shore of Prince Edward Island. That is why we were very unhappy to see part of LFA 22 split off not long ago, without our receiving any kind of compensation. We know that lobster is a sedentary species, and that is very fortunate. Had it been a migratory species, I am not so sure that we would be as proud of our stocks as we certainly can be today.
Because it is a sedentary species, we were somewhat isolated; we were able to work on our own and achieve our own results. On the other hand, when, fairly recently and unilaterally, part of our fishing area was split off, we found that rather difficult to swallow, particularly since this kind of effort is not being made in some other areas.
In terms of licence buyback, known as rationalization, you have certainly heard of the Atlantic Alliance for Fisheries Renewal. As an organization of fishers from the Magdalen Islands, we are members of the Alliance des pêcheurs professionnels du Québec. Along with the Newfoundland Fishermen, Food and Allied Workers Union and the Maritime fishers, the union is a member of this alliance, which is calling for the implementation of a federal action plan. This organization's request relates primarily to rationalization—in other words, licence buyback.
Today, we are saying that, if a comprehensive assistance program is implemented by the federal government, we should not be limiting it to rationalization. Restructuring must involve more than just rationalization. It must also include equalization. That is what we are interested in, here in the Magdalen Islands. We have made rationalization efforts in the past, and they did not cost the federal government a cent. We are now making efforts to conserve the resource, in terms of the fishing effort. We are in the process of rationalizing our fishing effort through all kinds of means, including by decreasing the number of traps. There again, this is not costing the federal government one cent. As far as we are concerned, restructuring should include stabilization.
Thank you.
:
Good morning, gentlemen. I am very pleased to be here today.
In his presentation and in answer to questions, Mr. Poirier said that fishers in the Magdalen Islands have no reason to be ashamed coming before you today, given their record with respect to the resource. With the FRCC, we have been to all the regions. We are a role model and that is very much to our credit.
As you said, Mr. Blais, over the years, profitability was good, but in 2008, the markets collapsed. A fisher's revenue is calculated on the basis of the resource and market prices. We can control the resource through certain measures, but we cannot control the market. Prices have declined. Last year, we lost more than $1 per pound. Since profit margins were low, that really hurt. As well, expenses are on the rise. If the price goes down and expenses go up, we will be in trouble. That is what happened in 2008.
What will happen in 2009? We do not know. We are just about to put our traps in the water. As a former president once said, we don't know whether it is bankruptcy that we are heading for when we go to sea. We do not know what prices will be like and we do not know what will happen in one month's time.
What can the federal government do? Well, it definitely has a major responsibility with respect to costs. For example, over the years, the cost of a licence went from $35 to $750, just for the lobster fishery. The cost of some other licences is also exorbitant.
In our opinion, in order to help resolve the problems we experienced last year, the licence cost could be lowered. A moratorium could be declared, which would help the fishers. We have never asked for direct subsidies from either the provincial or federal government. This year, we are asking them to help us out, either in the form of temporary relief or a moratorium, so that the market recover.
A global crisis is underway, and the fishing industry is not the only one to be in trouble. We see that on television. Consider the case of the auto industry, which is asking for billions of dollars. That is not what we are asking for. We want some assistance to help us through the crisis. The resource is there, and when the market recovers, we will be able to carry on as we did previously, without bothering anyone.
Let us move on now to the cost of licences and vessel insurance. Previously, the federal government had a free program. Could there be some relief provided there? The cost of bait is very high. We have to pay for bait, staff and fuel. Those are significant expenses. It is in that area that we are asking for some help. The federal and provincial governments must do their share. For their part, fishers have to adjust their expenses, but they can only do so much of that, given that they have to continue to operate.
Thank you.
:
According to Fisheries and Oceans' scientific assessment models, we doubled egg production by increasing the legal minimum size, which is normal. I explained at the outset that females reach sexual maturity when their shell reaches a certain length. Our lobster did reach that length, but lobster in many regions around the Magdalen Islands did not. That is the first thing that has to be done if we want to conserve the resource.
That is unacceptable. We can introduce all kinds of measures—for example, v-notching, which I referred to earlier and which does have some effect—but the fact is that these measures have too little impact, compared to legal minimum size. The federal government and fishers in the other provinces must take their responsibilities: lobsters have to be allowed to get bigger—in other words, reach the size associated with sexual maturity.
The FRCC then comes along and talks to fishers in the Islands about the fishing effort, which applies to an even greater extent everywhere else, where it is even worse. Once you have dealt with egg production, you start to work on the fishing effort. Fishing effort is a danger, but in the other provinces, it has emerged as an issue because of financial problems and the current crisis. That is what rationalization is all about.
We have rationalized our activities, not because of crises, but because of the need to protect the resource. It is time to refocus the debate on protecting lobster resources, in terms of both their size and the fishing effort, which will free up markets and address financial problems.
:
I believe we should be wary of solutions that people claim will save the industry. There are passing fads and we should be wary of them. At a given point in time, everyone starts using certain terms. When they go out of fashion, people invent new ones. This time, there is talk of an organization. Our position is that a great deal of lobbying is underway around this brand. In some fisheries—for example, the shrimp fishery—they have no choice. Shrimp is very often sold in Europe; that is already a reality in Europe—the lobbyists have done their job over there. It is a little like the lobby to ban the seal hunt: it is difficult to turn things around. I can understand that. If you want to sell your shrimp, you have to be in there.
In the lobster industry, right now it is just a matter of seeing who will be the first one to try and take advantage of this supposed saviour. The first guy to do it may benefit, but when everyone else jumps on the bandwagon, the benefit will be gone. The only result will be additional expenses for fishing enterprises.
We have major concerns. At this time, all the assessments needed to meet MSC standards are carried out by Fisheries and Oceans Canada. I am not talking about the $200,000 you have to pay just to be involved in the process. I am talking about everything that is required to meet the standards on an ongoing basis, in the third, fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh year. Right now, all of that is defrayed by Fisheries and Oceans. But, what will happen if there is an increasing movement towards government or other kinds of rationalization? We have talked about how many programs were paid for by the federal government. And there is also the matter of insurance. They have kept bait services in Newfoundland under the Constitution, but elsewhere it has been lost. Will we also lose these assessments one day, assessments that we will then have to pay for ourselves?
There is a need to exercise caution in relation to these fads. We were the first ones to introduce conservation measures, but in terms of the lobby, we are no longer involved.
:
It does not apply anywhere. In certain regions, they may even have one trap per buoy. Those measures apply only to this fishing area, LFA 22.
I would like to emphasize one point. Mr. Poirier has mentioned it twice, but it is important. In other areas, notably in the Gaspe Peninsula, there are a lot of mini fishing areas. There are risks associated with that. If one area wants to do something and the other one does not, that has consequences for the other fishers, because it is the same lobster. That is why it is difficult to come to an agreement.
Here in LFA 22, we are privileged. Around the island, the species is sedentary. Again, we are 325 fishers to have the privilege of harvesting the resource. Some people call that a licence, but in reality, it is a privilege that the Canadian government grants to fishers. However, that privilege comes with the responsibility to conserve the resource and keep it healthy for future fishers. Indeed, that is a principle we have always defended, and the associations have educated the fishers in that regard. A nice big word was invented to describe it: sustainability. I can assure you that my father and grandfather knew full well that there had to be some lobster left in the water if I was going to fish one day. That principle is very deeply entrenched not only in my beliefs and my way of life, but in those of a generation, of another time. We have placed considerable importance on these measures.
It is not always easy, but all the fishers in the small villages, in the different regions, speak the same language and can talk to one another. If you want to fish and want your children to be able to fish one day, you have to be careful and protect the resource. That is very much the mentality here in the Islands.
:
In answer to your first question, I pointed out earlier that, for the other species, repatriation had been more harmful than anything else. As regards the lobster fishery, I will just reiterate that, because it is a sedentary species, we have been able to work in a satisfactory manner with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans at the local level. In that regard, it was not harmful to the lobster fishery, but that is due in large part to the efforts of leaders and the fishers themselves.
The other question which I feel is important is your second one, relating to costs. When the crisis occurred in 1990, we went knocking on doors at the federal level but never received any assistance. The only one who came to the aid of fishers during the 1990 crisis, which looked a great deal like the current one, was the provincial government, which provided ad hoc assistance, given that there was no income security program in place such as the one for farmers, either at the provincial or federal level. It is a well-known fact that the federal government participates by transferring funds to the provinces for them to implement income security programs—something that does not exist for the fisheries—with the exception, of course, of the Employment Insurance Program. But that is something else; we could debate its advantages and disadvantages.
What I want to say is simply that, as long as the two departments—Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada and Fisheries and Oceans Canada—do not work more closely together to better position the people involved, the only option will be to rely on subsidies. There is a major problem right now. You are there, and you make much of the subsidies distributed to the communities, but there is a major problem with the distribution channel. That, too, has to be corrected; you have a role to play in that regard. There is no escaping it: everyone has a role. You need to take the time to act.
The last program to be introduced went through the Economic Development Agency of Canada. I will tell you what happened in Quebec. It was transferred to the Ministère du Développement économique et de l'Innovation. The same thing must have been done in the other provinces. From there, it went to the socio-economic organizations. Finally, the forestry sector benefited. Because we are disorganized, the fisheries received zero money. Some say that there is still $1 billion available, including some $200 or so million for Quebec. In that regard, if we are decide to operate that way, we may as well use the same channel as in the past—in other words, have the government transfer the money to its own department, Fisheries and Oceans, which would then transfer the funds directly to the industry. We are not interested in seeing our money get lost in all kinds of organizations where we are not represented, because of our lack of organization. If you want to help us, that's great. If not, what do you want?
As Mario said, his father knew this and we do as well: we know that we have to take measures. The biggest impact is financial. You have transferred funds to all the other industries.
:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Gentlemen, in 2000 I went around Atlantic Canada and asked lobster fishermen, in writing and in person, if something like a lobster marketing board would be something they would entertain. At that time, the vast majority of lobster fishermen and their families said absolutely no way; they wanted nothing to do with supply management and they liked the competitive industry they were in then.
I can't help but notice that in parts of Nova Scotia, in the media, fishermen are getting together to talk about the idea of lobster marketing boards, like a supply management system, similar to what we have in the dairy industry.
Of course, one of the challenges with supply management is that whereas we know in the dairy industry how many cows there are and how much they're producing and on what farms and everything else, in the lobster industry, as my colleague, Mr. Kamp said, we don't have an idea of what the biomass is or how many lobsters are out there. That may be a bit of a challenge.
Is supply management of the lobster industry or a lobster marketing board something you would be interested in looking at?
I have a question, Mr. Poirier. In your notes, the one thing that stuck out in my mind was that you said that stability is very important to fishermen. You're talking about economic stability when you say that, about having predictable revenues coming in. I'm looking at graph 4, which shows the net revenues for the enterprise. If we go back, from 2002 to 2006, things look not too bad.
Then you started to talk about agriculture. I'm an Albertan. You're talking about wanting to merge Agriculture and Fisheries so that you can have access to some of the income stabilization programs. I can tell you, sir, that I don't know of anybody who phones my office to say, “I am getting too much money from the agricultural support programs.” I'm going to caution you to be careful what you wish for.
However, there is one program that was gone for a while, called NISA, the net income stabilization account. It went away, and recently we put a similar type of program in place. It's called the AgriInvest account. What this account actually allows farmers to do is take some money away in a tax deferred account in good years so that in a bad year, or in a year when revenues are down, the farmer can draw down on that account to pay the taxes. That helps stabilize the farmer's income.
Is there any access to a program like that for fishermen?
:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Good morning everyone.
For the information of committee members, I would just like to say that the current study will ultimately lead to recommendations that will be presented in the House of Commons, to the government, and then to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. We are aiming for rapid intervention. We are almost at the beginning of April, and the season will begin in early May. However, there are already a lot of things being done.
I simply want to point out that the fishers' level of organization is such that they are able to come through the kind of events we have seen recently, and which may well occur again. In light of what you just said, your reorganization allowed you to be better equipped than if you had been working in different silos, with a lot of different enterprises. By consolidating, you gain strength.
I would like to hear your views on future constraints. If we have a clear understanding of the constraints and challenges that are on the horizon, we will have a better understanding of the kind of solutions that are needed. You frequently referred to transportation. That is one potential solution.
The recession in the United States will affect the market and the price of lobster. Even though lobster from here is not exported to the United States, there is a danger that the Quebec market, which is our main market, would be inundated. That would result in competition that could destabilize prices. So, I would be interested in hearing your comments on the constraints facing processors such as yourselves. It is important for us to know about them and have a good understanding of what they represent.
:
Yes. At the present time, we are even part of an enterprise in New Brunswick, as co-owner. We work a great deal with the other provinces with a view to improving our processing, but if you compare the costs of the two plants—I keep coming back to this—there is a very big difference.
Someone referred to insurance. Before 2000—in other words, between 1998 and 2000—we were paying about $30,000 to insure a plant. Today, for our three plants, we will be paying between $260,000 and $275,000 in insurance costs. That $30,000 underwent a considerable increase in 10 years.
For electricity, which is something we use a lot of, it's exactly the same thing. Electricity costs for processing are much higher. We have a system which makes it higher because the rate is such that we are unable to use as much as we pay for—in other words, there is a special rate for plants which means that our expenses are very high, even though we are not able to use the amount of electricity we pay for; it's as simple as that. The mandatory rate, when there are peaks, is exactly the same as the rest of the season.
To answer your question, we make regular comparisons and visit the other provinces, just as the other provinces visit us, in order to try and improve our costs and the way we operate.
:
I guess most of you are here for the first time on the islands, so I wish you the warmest welcome. I hope you can come when our fishermen are out at sea. It's quite nice to see when they leave at the beginning of May. We're starting to feel the excitement around the island ports. The fishing industry is very important to us.
[Translation]
I would like to thank you for being here. I am honoured to have been invited to appear before the committee. The fishery is fundamental to our economy. Our region is one of the rare regions in Quebec to be as attached to this way of life and to both be highly dependent and have a major attachment to the fishery, while still believing that the fishery is also the industry of the future. That is the message coming from the community and partners representing both the municipality and the fishing community.
I would like to extend my sincere thanks to Mr. Raynald Blais, who is our member of Parliament, for being part of this committee. He is providing strong support to the lobster industry, while at the same time dealing with issues related to the seal hunt. I also would like to convey my greetings to the Chair, the Vice-Chair and all the members of the committee. I would have liked to have a little more discussion with you, but I realize that you are pressed for time.
I am going to go directly to the heart of the matter. The Islands' economy rests in large part on the fisheries. We believe that, thanks to the fishery, we have been able to continue to live here and develop from a socio-economic standpoint. The fishery is also the present and the future of our island community. One third of all the jobs in the archipelago are in the fisheries industry, 80 per cent of which are in the primary and secondary sectors. You have noted that forestry development is a thing of the past.
In the Islands, we also say that it is difficult to escape the fishing industry and the marine world because, the further away we get from one coast, the closer we get to the other coast. We move away from one shore to end up on the other side. We are completely surrounded by the sea and the fishing industry, economically as well. Here are some figures about the fishery: 1,900 jobs, 1,100 fishers and assistant fishers, some 800 plant workers, direct spinoffs of $80 million, indirect spinoffs of almost $12 million and 300 additional jobs. Therefore, we are talking about $90 million that is injected into the economy. By contrast, the second largest industry on the Island—tourism—represents about $50 million. Those are the underpinnings of our economy. The services sector and a salt mine that employs 150 people could also be added to the mix.
The Islands are a small, fragile area with significant population density. We face the constant challenge of striking a balance in terms of the optimal exploitation rate of our marine resources, but without compromising the sustainability of the resource or our environment. This requires constant vigilance, as well as a way of life that respects the limitations of the environment. That is what we believe we are doing and what we aspire to in all the different fisheries in which we are involved.
You probably already know this, but I would still like to remind you that we have 72 per cent of all the lobster landings in Quebec, and that 71 per cent of the value of landings in Quebec is associated with production here in the Magdalen Islands. That represents 34 per cent of landing volumes in the fisheries at large. Right?
:
I think you are talking about a 30 per cent drop on the markets. In the Magdalen Islands, protecting the resource is what is important, and that seems to be well in hand. A certain volume of the available lobster biomass is landed here. That does not seem to be in doubt. It is the sale of processed products that appears uncertain.
The Local Development Centre, or LDC, works very closely with the maritime fisheries industrial processors to see how business partnerships can be developed and to maximize the positive spinoffs associated with lobster landings in the Magdalen Islands. For a long time, the spawn market had priority and that continues to be the case. For many years now, we have noted an increase in the amount of lobster being processed in the plants. The industrial processors are trying to maximize volumes and are focusing more and more on value-added.
There is no doubt that in an island community such as ours, you have to build partnerships and linkages with the outside. I believe industrial processors in the Magdalen Islands are used to developing those kinds of relationships. Do there need to be more in the years to come? That is something we may want to explore further, particularly sea farming. In recent years, seawater and mussel farmers here have developed a relationship with people in Prince Edward Island with a view to marketing their product. It is clear that there has to be close cooperation with partners in the Maritimes and Quebec in this area. No one can really afford to work in isolation under the current circumstances, in the context of globalized markets, lower prices on the U.S. market, and so on. As a result, market diversification, more value-added and business partnerships are all goals that we are pursuing.
If you don't mind, I would just like to add that the LDC is also supporting the industry's efforts. There have been a number of actions taken, including a lobster promotion campaign last year, on both the Quebec market and the domestic market in general. We made a financial contribution to that activity, along with other partners.
:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Joël, Gaby, Gerry's questions and comment are very interesting. It is true that, in the Magdalen Islands, jobs and the dynamism of the community rely to a great extent on two industries in particular, fisheries and tourism. At the same time, they function as an aggregate. We were saying earlier that a number of factors are in play and that, for reasons of isolation, transportation costs are higher. That is a very important piece of information when you're talking about development, problems or financial constraints due to a recession.
There are other elements to consider as well—for example, costs or ways of operating. It seems to me that, at the departmental level, one of those elements could be the small craft harbours—the infamous wharves. They are under repair and are more often in difficulty than anything else. However, there is a very special situation in the Magdalen Islands. In Cap-aux-Meules, for example, there is not enough space.
Perhaps you could talk about what is needed in terms of interventions by various partners, at different levels. You may want to focus more on the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.
:
I am going to begin, and Gabrielle can add her comments.
First of all, our dependency on various means of transportation is such that, for some years now, the community's priority has been to establish a marine link with the mainland that is available year-long. Of course, most people are benefiting from that as a result of a pilot project that was carried out over the last two months. The fishing industry will also benefit: it will be able to lower its costs, and shipping will be facilitated, whether we are talking about bait, refit construction materials for boats, motors or anything else that fishers may need.
It was mentioned that processing activities had increased in the Islands thanks to local supply and imports. If we can operate six, eight or twelve months of the year, the entire Island economy will benefit.
The other way to establish a link with the mainland would be through air transportation. Our landing strip is only 4,500 feet. We will be tabling a proposal with Transport Canada, probably in June, to have our infrastructure upgraded and to extend the landing strip to 6,000 feet. That will stimulate tourism and the fishing industry. So, our analysis also includes this component.
There was a time when a lot of fresh fish was exported. Nowadays, the trend is towards fresh, traceable products and enhanced protein and vitamin content in fish and seafoods. As things now stand, we are not in a position to efficiently supply our domestic markets. For example, in Montreal, it is easier to buy a fillet of tilapia from Chile than a fillet of sole or a lobster tail from the Magdalen Islands. That is highly integrated approach as we see it.
There is also the question of small craft harbours and the need to improve safety and efficiency in the catch sector. We now have a much larger fleet that can operate offshore. However, space is limited in many of the Island ports. The ports are not in deep water and therefore require recurrent dredging. However, these investments are necessary in order for them to continue to operate.
:
To answer your question, I would say that the average age of fishers in the Magdalen Islands is the same as elsewhere. Right now, our captains are between 45 and 50 years of age, on average. In the Islands, we are different from other areas in that, for the time being—and the words “for the time being” are important—we have a new generation of young fishers coming up behind. When a captain decides to retire, there are people interested in buying his fishing business. It is often an intergenerational transfer between father and son. The young people have been part of the business for some time and want to take it over. There is very strong interest on the part of young people here, and that sets us apart from other areas.
On the other hand, that positive element is fragile. The fact is that young people will be interested only if they are pretty certain they can earn a living at it. Right now, with market prices collapsing, the situation is somewhat worrisome, in terms of the future. As long as young people have the sense that there is a future in the industry, they will stay here, but first the industry has to survive these crises. That is one consideration. Furthermore, studies have shown that young people here are primarily interested in buying a fishing business because they want to be able to work at home, in their community. And, one way of achieving that is to work in the fishing industry. As you said earlier, that industry underpins development in the Magdalen Islands. By buying a fishing business, they immediately buy themselves a job. They are interested in staying in their community, which is extremely positive.
At the Local Development Centre, we decided that we wanted to help young people acquire fishing enterprises. It is said that this generation of young people will be far more indebted than previous ones. So, they need more support. Although it was possible to buy a business for practically nothing in the 1950s and 1960s, it is now clear that things have changed dramatically. The cost of buying a business is fairly high and operating costs are very significant. At the LDC, we have introduced assistance programs. They involve non-repayable contributions and start-up grants for young people who want to buy a fishing firm. We have also set up a system to provide support with business management. We believe that young people buying a fishing business need to learn the basic concepts of managing a business. That is why they have access to what we call consulting cheques. They can use these to secure support by recognized professionals over a three-year period. They can call on their own accounting firm to gain a better understanding of concepts such as financial statements, changes that affect the business, tax measures, and so on. For the time being, the younger generation is still here, and we have our fingers crossed that this will continue to be the case.
:
In terms of reducing energy prices, we would sincerely like to have a plan, but do not. You referred to fishing boats. We know that there are different ways of lowering consumption. We believe that people are more and more aware of the need to reduce their consumption, and documenting to a greater extent the steps that can be taken to lower energy expenses on a fishing boat is one of the components of the LDC's action plan for the industry.
In terms of community revenues, over the past few years, revenues from the fishery have been based on shellfish, which was not the case 10 or 15 years ago. There was a far wider breakdown of revenues between the different groundfish and shellfish—lobster and crab.
Here, like everywhere else, the mainstay of the fishery is shellfish. Therefore, any fluctuation in prices paid when the fish is landed or on the market has a direct impact on our community's revenues. So, looking at what has happened to the price of lobster and snow crab in recent years—and I am excluding 2008—prior to 2008, we saw that there was relative stability. Last year, however, that was not the case. This year, we still do not know what is going to happen. So, the community here is more sensitive to variations in the market price of shellfish than other areas or geographic regions of Quebec, because our entire economy is steeped in the sea and its resources.
With respect to energy reduction, some processing plants are currently looking at the possibility of adding equipment that could enhance their energy performance, by creating large enough economies of scale in the processing plants, according to what I have been told.
If you don't mind, since we are talking about operating costs, I would just like to digress for one moment. Earlier, Mr. Arseneau talked about sea ports. On the Islands, we had 20 or more sea ports in the 1970s. Over a period of 32 or 35 years, we have gone from 20 to 9 fishing ports. That is the absolute bare minimum for the Magdalen Islands community. These ports have to be funded by Fisheries and Oceans. So, in terms of what the Department can do, that is clearly an important issue.
And, if I can just say one more thing in passing about operating costs, it is this. Whether we are talking about the cost of fishing licences or of certain control mechanisms, these are extremely important programs, but they are programs that are very expensive. I am thinking, in particular, of the control program for other fisheries. That is not the case for lobster, but it is for crab, where there are offshore observer programs in place, and so on. Fisheries and Oceans has an obligation to look at the operating costs that it passes on to the industry to see what can be done, within the Department, to reduce those costs for fishermen, given current economic conditions.