FOPO Committee Meeting

Notices of Meeting include information about the subject matter to be examined by the committee and date, time and place of the meeting, as well as a list of any witnesses scheduled to appear. The Evidence is the edited and revised transcript of what is said before a committee. The Minutes of Proceedings are the official record of the business conducted by the committee at a sitting.

For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.

If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at accessible@parl.gc.ca.

Previous day publication Next day publication

37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION

Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Tuesday, April 8, 2003

1105

The Chair (Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough Southwest, Lib.))

1110

Mr. Joël Gionet (President, “Association des crabiers acadiens”, New Brunswick)

1115

Mr. Peter Noël (Vice-President, “Crabiers du Nord-Est Inc.”)

1120

Mr. Joël Gionet

The Chair

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy (Matapédia—Matane, BQ)

1125

Mr. Joël Gionet

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy

Mr. Joël Gionet

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy

Mr. Joël Gionet

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy

Mr. Joël Gionet

1130

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy

Mr. Joël Gionet

The Chair

Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP)

The Chair

Mr. Joël Gionet

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy

Mr. Joël Gionet

1135

The Chair

Mr. Georges Farrah (Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Pabok, Lib.)

Mr. Joël Gionet

Mr. Georges Farrah

Mr. Joël Gionet

1140

Mr. Georges Farrah

Mr. Joël Gionet

Mr. Georges Farrah

Mr. Joël Gionet

Mr. Georges Farrah

Mr. Joël Gionet

The Chair

Mr. Yvon Godin

Mr. Joël Gionet

Mr. Yvon Godin

1145

Mr. Peter Noël

Mr. Yvon Godin

Mr. Peter Noël

Mr. Joël Gionet

The Chair

Mr. Yvon Godin

The Chair

Mr. R. John Efford (Bonavista—Trinity—Conception, Lib.)

1150

Mr. Peter Noël

Mr. R. John Efford

Mr. Peter Noël

The Chair

Mr. Peter Noël

The Chair

Mr. Peter Noël

The Chair

Mr. Peter Noël

Mr. Joël Gionet

Mr. Peter Noël

Mr. R. John Efford

Mr. Joël Gionet

Mr. Peter Noël

Mr. R. John Efford

1155

The Chair

Mr. Peter Noël

Mr. R. John Efford

The Chair

Mr. Daniel Desbois (“Association des crabiers de la Baie”)

The Chair

Mr. Carmen Provenzano (Sault Ste. Marie, Lib.)

Mr. Peter Noël

Mr. Carmen Provenzano

Mr. Paul Boudreau (“Regroupement des pêcheurs professionnels des Îles-de-la-Madeleine”)

Mr. Carmen Provenzano

Mr. Doug Cameron (Executive Director, P.E.I. Snow Crab Fishermen Inc.)

1200

Mr. Carmen Provenzano

Mr. Doug Cameron

Mr. Joël Gionet

Mr. Carmen Provenzano

The Chair

Mr. Peter Noël

The Chair

Mr. Peter Noël

The Chair

Mr. Joël Gionet

The Chair

Mr. Peter Noël

Mr. Joël Gionet

Mr. Peter Noël

The Chair

Mr. Peter Noël

The Chair

Mr. Peter Noël

The Chair

Mr. Peter Noël

Mr. Joël Gionet

The Chair

Mr. Joël Gionet

The Chair

Mr. Joël Gionet

The Chair

Mr. Peter Noël

The Chair

Mr. Peter Noël

1205

Mr. Doug Cameron

The Chair

Mr. Joël Gionet

The Chair

Mr. Peter Noël

The Chair

Mr. Joël Gionet

The Chair

Mr. Joël Gionet

The Chair

Mr. Yvon Godin

Mr. Peter Noël

Mr. Yvon Godin

Mr. Peter Noël

Mr. Yvon Godin

1210

Mr. Peter Noël

Mr. Yvon Godin

Mr. Joël Gionet

The Chair

Mr. Bill Matthews (Burin—St. George's, Lib.)

Mr. Joël Gionet

Mr. Bill Matthews

Mr. Joël Gionet

Mr. Bill Matthews

1215

Mr. Joël Gionet

Mr. Bill Matthews

Mr. Peter Noël

Mr. Bill Matthews

Mr. Peter Noël

Mr. Bill Matthews

Mr. Peter Noël

Mr. Bill Matthews

The Chair

Mr. John Cummins (Delta—South Richmond, Canadian Alliance)

Mr. Paul Boudreau

1220

Mr. John Cummins

The Chair

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy

Mr. Paul Boudreau

Mr. John Cummins

Mr. Paul Boudreau

Mr. John Cummins

Mr. Paul Boudreau

Mr. John Cummins

Mr. Paul Boudreau

Mr. John Cummins

Mr. Peter Noël

1225

Mr. John Cummins

The Chair

Mr. Peter Noël

The Chair

Mr. R. John Efford

Mr. Peter Noël

Mr. Paul Boudreau

Mr. Daniel Desbois

Mr. R. John Efford

Mr. Peter Noël

The Chair

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy

Mr. Joël Gionet

1230

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy

Mr. Paul Boudreau

Mr. Daniel Desbois

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy

Mr. Daniel Desbois

The Chair

Mr. Georges Farrah

Mr. Joël Gionet

1235

The Chair

Mr. John Cummins

The Chair

Mr. John Cummins

Mr. Peter Noël

Mr. John Cummins

The Chair

1240

Mr. John Cummins

The Chair

Mr. Georges Farrah

The Chair

Mr. Georges Farrah

The Chair

Mr. Joël Gionet

The Chair

CANADA

Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans

NUMBER 028

2nd SESSION

37th PARLIAMENT

EVIDENCE

Tuesday, April 8, 2003

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Á (1105)

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough Southwest, Lib.)): I call the meeting to order.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), we are conducting a study on the snow crab fishery. We have with us today a number of people, and let me see if I can get them all correct here.

We have, from the Association des crabiers acadiens, Joel Gionet, président; from the Association des crabiers de la Baie, Daniel Desbois; from the Association des crabiers gaspésiens Inc., Marc Couture,president; from the Crabiers du Nord-Est Inc., Peter Noel;from the Regroupement des pêcheurs professionnels des Îles-de-la-Madeleine, Paul Boudreau; and from the P.E.I. Snow Crab Fishermen Inc., Doug Cameron.

Welcome to everyone. I understand two of you will be making your presentation--Mr. Gionet and Mr. Noël. Then, in the usual form, we will have the committee members take questions.

Before we start, gentlemen, I have just two very small items of business for the committee. Just so you know, a few minutes ago I tabled our committee report on the federal role in aquaculture in Canada. Many of the members may not know--and this is rather unusual for our committee so I want to note it in particular--that four dissenting opinions are attached to this report. It's interesting who they are.

There's an official half-page Canadian Alliance dissenting opinion; there's a 20-page dissenting opinion from Mr. Cummins, in his personal capacity as a member of Parliament; there's a longer dissenting opinion primarily about jurisdictional issues from Mr. Roy; and there's also one from Mr. Stoffer about some of the things he mentioned in committee. Even though we didn't achieve unanimity, it is a good report, and I don't think we're all that far apart on many of the issues.

Second, as soon as we have a quorum of nine members, gentlemen, we have to do an item of business that pertains to our upcoming trip to the east coast. So as soon as I see nine people here, my clerk has asked me to just do a very quick item of business. So I'm going to interrupt you, not in mid-sentence, but possibly at the end of a paragraph if you're still going, and we'll take care of that business. Nobody has to get up from their chair or anything. We'll conclude that business and then carry on with your presentation.

In the meantime we'll start. Of course, there is every possibility—although hopefully not a probability—that we won't see nine people here. If that's the case, then we'll just keep going.

With that, I'll call on Mr. Gionet to begin.

Á (1110)

[Translation]

Mr. Joël Gionet (President, “Association des crabiers acadiens”, New Brunswick): Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee. I would like to start by thanking you for the opportunity to meet with you today. Allow us to introduce ourselves, my mane is Joël Gionet, I am a fisherman and President of the Association des crabiers acadiens in New Brunswick. Today, my colleagues and I represent the six Mid-Shore Snow Crab Fishermen Associations from Area 12, in the south of the Gulf of St. Lawrence. I would like to introduce you to my colleagues from the other Associations by province.

I would like to introduce Peter Noël who is also from New Brunswick, representing the Association des crabiers du Nord-Est, Marc Couture of the Association des crabiers gaspésiens, Daniel Desbois from the Association des crabiers de la Baie and Paul Boudreau of the Regroupement de pêcheurs professionnels des Îles-de-la-Madeleine and from Prince Edward Island, Doug Cameron of the PEI Snow Crab Fishermen Inc.

Following our presentation we will be more than happy to answer any questions the Committee Members may have.

The snow crab fishery in Area 12 began in the sixties. The fishery was developed by mid-shore fishers who chose to reorient their activities towards this new crustacean species. Today, the fleet has 160 permanent licenses and 806 fishers which includes captains and crew members.

The snow crab fishery industry in Area 12 is unique by the fact that these businesses are all family operated and have solid roots in their respective coastal communities. The fishery provides employment for close to 4,000 people in four Atlantic provinces - New Brunswick, Quebec, PEI and Nova Scotia.

After having survived difficult and modest beginnings, the southern Gulf of St. Lawrence snow crab industry, grew significantly. Landings grew consistently and reached their highest levels in 1982 at over 30,000 metric tonnes. However, soon after, the number of catches declined rapidly to a few thousand tonnes in 1988.

Confronted with the possibility of a complete collapse of their fishery, the vast majority of mid-shore snow crab fishers voluntarily ceased fishing. In 1990, the traditional industry, in an effort to rebuild the stock and ensure its longevity adopted conservation measures all of which are still in effect. These are independent verification of crab landings, control of white crab captures (crabs that are moulting), program of individual quotas, establishment of an annual scientific inspection cruise of Area 12, and input respecting the control of the fishing capacity.

I will gladly expand on these measures during the question period following our initial remarks.

In 1994 when federal funding for scientific monitoring and evaluation measures ended, crab fishers did not hesitate to take over the financial responsibility in order to ensure that the annual scientific inspection survey, data accumulation and evaluation of stock be maintained. Between 1997 and 2001, the traditional industry invested over $6,000,000 in scientific research activities, conservation and stock management practices.

In 2002 alone, crab fishers invested close to $2,000,000 for the same activities. In addition, between 1995 and 1999, during the period of decline of the biomass, the fishers supported the advice of Science and accepted significant reductions in their annual quotas from 20,000 metric tonnes in 1995 to 12,600 metric tonnes in 1999.

Many scientists believe that other species that declined significantly, such as cod, will never rebuild themselves. In order to avert such a disaster, crab fishers have collaborated with department scientists for years in order to better understand the crab species population. The fishers are highly sensitive to any signs that may suggest that the stock may be suffering.

I'll now give the floor to my colleague, Peter Noël.

Á (1115)

[English]

Mr. Peter Noël (Vice-President, “Crabiers du Nord-Est Inc.”): This brings me to the reasons why we are sitting here today. All six southern gulf snow crab fishers associations are worrying about the future of their industy. Fishers also fear that the department will ignore their own scientific advice and impose a fishing plan that would put the crab species at risk, as is the case with other species in other areas of the Atlantic.

We are confronted by the wish of the Minister of Fisheries to impose a permanent sharing concept, which means he would allow the issuing of new permanent crab fishing licences in area 12 during a period when the department has not yet completed the aboriginal integration to comply with the Supreme Court decision in the Marshall case. We agree with DFO scientists, who gave severe warnings against any increase in the fishing effort and have deemed it necessary to take action to protect our livelihood, such as we are talking about today.

Since 1994, there has been a sharing of the resource between permanent fishers, who we represent today and are in the vast majority single licence-holders, and temporary fishers, who in most cases also have permanent licences for other species. However, the sharing occurs only when the resource is abundant and allows for it. This system has worked well, and we are in favour of a sharing agreement when the stock is abundant. If the system isn't broken, why fix it?

We strongly believe that adding new permanent licences would go against the principles of sound management, as stated in the mission of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, which has as its first priority conservation and protection of the resource; the review of the Atlantic fisheries policy, which is also based on the principle of conservation; and the Auditor General's recommendations, which expressed concern that DFO was repeating the same errors of the past with regard to fisheries management.

In their annual report on the state of the crab stock, submitted in March 2003, department scientists warned the government that the state of the stock was worrisome and a long-term management plan based on conservation and sustainability should be established. Meanwhile, the minister is looking to increase the number of permanent licences. We firmly believe this would have a disastrous effect on the stock.

In the short term, it is possible that new licence-holders will be able to be profitable without affecting the stock. However, the danger to the species will appear in two to three years when, according to predictions, the biomass will be reduced by half and these new fishers will not have sufficient quota to make their operations profitable. Therefore, pressure will come from every party to try to convince the minister to maintain the crab quotas at levels that are too high for the health of the resource. This pressure of destructive overcapacity is being felt all over the Atlantic as we stand here today.

In the last few weeks we have learned from the media that many fishers strongly oppose scientific advice recommending necessary quota reductions in order to protect the stock. For example, on the northern and west coasts of Newfoundland, crab stocks have been noticeably reduced, according to the scientific community.

The traditional licensed snow crab fishers are profoundly concerned that if the minister issues new permanent additional licences this year, he will be opening Pandora's box. How will he then be able to justify not issuing new licences next year, the year after that, and into the future?

The more fishers there are, the more manipulations will occur, which will harm the resource. Scientific research demonstrates that crab are currently in a cycle of regeneration, with a vast proportion of young crab. This is indeed what we saw on our vessels last season. The younger crab are much more fragile and can be destroyed when manipulated too much. As an example, during the past two to three years fishers have witnessed an unexpected exhaustion of the stock. Last spring we had to lift 554,000 traps in order to catch 22,000 tonnes of crab, while in 1982 we used the same level of effort to capture 31,600 tonnes.

Á (1120)

The collapse of the cod fishery is proof that responsible stewardship is key to managing a decline in stock. The crab is a cyclical species; if we increase fishing effort while the crab is still young, the stock could be affected permanently.

A few weeks ago the minister announced 2,500 permanent licences in Newfoundland. At the same moment, we learned with great astonishment from DFO's Stock Status Report 2003 for the Newfoundland and Labrador region that the exploitable biomass index, as determined by the multi-species survey data from the fall, decreased steadily by 94% from 1988 to 2002, consistent with a decline in the commercial CPUE since 1998. Spatial distribution of the exploitable resources has been contracting since 1998.

The public is certainly entitled to question the minister's reasons and motivation in making such a decision.

I'll pass it over to Joël.

Mr. Joël Gionet: Thank you, Peter.

[Translation]

Thank you.

So we're proposing two things. We're proposing that the fishers of other declining species continue to have temporary access to the resource only when the stock is sufficiently abundant to ensure long-term conservation and long-term stability of the industry. We also propose that the necessary measures be taken to reach a joint multi-year co-management agreement with the snow crab fishing industry in Area 12, which will encourage our fishing businesses to continue to put a priority on the ethics of resource conservation on behalf of all Canadians.

I would like to point out that a large number of other stakeholders have voiced their support to the Minister for our proposed solutions, notably the Canadian Council on Fisheries wrote to Minister Thibault to warn him against any increase in permanent licenses in Area 12. An exhaustive list of supporters has been tabled with the Clerk of the Committee for your information.

I would like to conclude my remarks with a quote from a speech that the Minister gave at the Deuxième conférence sur les pêches semi-hauturières du sud du Golfe du Saint-Laurent in Gaspé in October of 2002:

And as we look towards 2003, the Atlantic fishery once again finds itself at an important crossroads. How do we build the fishery of the future? Do we return to the days of top-down, paternalistic fisheries policy? Or do we find ways to move towards a more co-managed fishery, in which all participants have a say, especially fishermen?

He continued:

Whether we're from government or industry, we all have the same objective — a sustainable, conservation-based fishery. Indeed, conservation is in everyone's best interests. It's not just something coming down on high from Ottawa. It's a commitment to the future of this resource, shared by all.

These comments are those of the Minister and not from Area 12 fishers. If the resource in Area 12 is, as he points out, healthy, it is because fishers have been involved in its management and because they have invested millions in conservation. This has not happened merely by chance. It is necessary to repeat that the Scientists Report warns us about any increased effort that could damage the resource.

We hope the Minister will resist the paternalistic ways he himself denounced and will revisit his intention to impose a new permanent sharing agreement which would have disastrous effects on the resource.

Thank you. We are happy to answer any questions you may have. Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you, gentlemen, for your excellent presentation.

Mr. Roy, you'll be the first to take the floor. You have 10 minutes.

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy (Matapédia—Matane, BQ): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

First, I would like to thank all our witnesses for attending this meeting.

Mr. Gionet, in your presentation, you referred to the millions of dollars that have been invested by fishermen in your industry. In a previous presentation you made to us, you said that, since 1994, you had paid $10 million to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans to fund the measures you referred to on page 4. But you also expressed the wish that measures be developed including independent verification of crab landings, the moulting crab control protocol, the program of observers at see and input respecting control of fishing capacity.

I would like to give you a chance to elaborate on those measures, to explain them to us, to tell us how they work and perhaps to assess their quality and performance in a resource-conservation perspective.

Á (1125)

Mr. Joël Gionet: Mr. Joël Gionet. Thank you very much.

First, what does independent verification of crab landings mean? It means that, when any ship arrives in port, its landings are monitored. So every crab is monitored. The boat must call three hours before entering port. At that point, a person from an independent firm is hired to verify every landing.

If I want to take a crab home, I have to weigh it, and it's removed from my annual quota. All the catches of every person are accounted for every day. That's independent verification.

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy: Excuse me, who does those verifications?

Mr. Joël Gionet: The verifications are done by private companies next to the industry. In New Brunswick, it's Pèse-Pêche. In Quebec, it's Res-Mar Inc. They're independent companies.

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy: Do those companies depend directly on the department?

Mr. Joël Gionet: Yes, they depend on the department, and they are managed by boards of directors.

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy: It's somewhat as though the Department of Fisheries and Oceans gave them a contract.

Mr. Joël Gionet: That's correct.

Á (1130)

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy: Very well, you may continue.

Mr. Joël Gionet: As for the control of white crab catches, you know that the main concern is to protect the small crabs that change shells every year so they can grow. It's a bit like lobsters. That's when the crab is most vulnerable.

We monitor the white crab very closely. We fishermen have established a protocol with Fisheries and Oceans. We divided the Gulf of St. Lawrence into thousands of little areas. Every time people catch more than 20 percent of white crab in an area, that area is closed. That's what is called the white crab or juvenile crab protocol, for crabs changing shells.

As for the individual quota program, you have to go back to 1987 or 1988, when the resource collapsed. In the mid-1980s, all the fishermen fished. There was an opening date and a closing date for the fishery, and profit was what counted. Fishermen caught everything they could. The resource naturally collapsed.

Starting in 1989, after the stock collapsed, fishermen met and said something had to be done. First, they thought they would establish individual quotas. Every fisherman had his own share or his own quota. How did people come to an agreement and how was the division done? Eighty percent of the quota was divided into equal parts. The remaining 20 percent was assigned based on historic catches. A fisherman who had caught a lot had a slightly higher quota than one who had caught less. That's how the quota was divided.

We also talk about establishing an annual scientific inspection cruise. We're currently cooperating with the scientists. The department's scientists rent a boat to go on a scientific cruise. They conduct bottom trawl surveys. They have what's called a small rock lobster trawl and they stay within the Gulf of St. Lawrence and do tows. The scientists decide where they want to do them. I think they do 200 or 250 tows a year. Every year, at the end of the fishing season, they go to sea to assess the quality of what's left on the bottom and the recruitment for the preceding year. During that scientific cruise, they determine whether the biomass is declining or increasing and whether the number of females is declining or increasing. That gives a good indication of the health of the stock.

What's meant by input respecting control of the fishing capacity? It means limiting the number of fishermen. That's what we've done since 1989. I was young then, but I remember that a lot of people were asking if we had to eliminate boats. We preferred to establish individual quotas and kept the same number of boats.

Starting in 1989...

The Chair: Mr. Gionet, excuse me. There are now nine committee members present.

[English]

Okay, folks, regarding our trip to the east coast, the clerk has advised us that some of the witnesses who are coming to see us from outlying communities will incur some expenses to do so. I would like to be able to present a supplementary request to the liaison committee for an additional $9,600 for witness expenses. I have to do that on Thursday in order to get it passed, because there might not be another meeting before we actually travel.

So could someone move the operational budget request of $9,600?

An hon. member: I so move.

The Chair: Thank you.

Monsieur Godin.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Mr. Chairman, at the start of the meeting, you said a study was being conducted on the snow crab fishery and that you wanted to welcome the groups. Will the other speakers be able to take part in this study? We know there are a number of groups. We're saying today that there shouldn't be any permanent division, but I believe the committee should hear other speakers. We should hear both sides of the story.

[English]

The Chair: The answer is that the committee hasn't decided. Once we hear from the witnesses, then the committee as a whole will talk about where we want to go, based on the evidence we've heard.

Thank you, Mr. Godin.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Gionet, back we go to you.

[Translation]

Mr. Joël Gionet: Thank you, Mr. Wappel.

I would like to continue talking about input respecting control of the fishing capacity. The idea is to limit access to a certain number of boats, to a certain number of fishermen. I repeat that all these measures were put in place jointly by the industry and the Government of Canada. The industry pays all these costs.

I believe we are one of the few industries doing this right now.

These are the management measures we currently have.

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy: If I've correctly understood, as my colleague Mr. Godin said, you're telling us that it would be extremely dangerous for long-term resource conservation to grant new permanent licenses. You're telling us that that means that, when the resource is declining, there will be pressure to maintain the fishing effort, which will endanger the resource. That's what you're saying, isn't it?

Mr. Joël Gionet: Precisely, and I'm going to give you a very specific example.

In the early 1990s, when we decided to bring back the stock after the collapse, we fished 30, 32 or 34 percent of the exploitable biomass. We had 160 boats, and the stock came back to approximately 20,000 tonnes around 1995.

Two years ago, we fished 50 percent of the biomass and, last year, 60 percent. We know that there have been more boats in the past two years. Consequently, the resource will decline. The crab fishery is cyclical, as everyone knows. When the resource declines, it will fall so low that no one will be able to break even.

The idea is not to add permanent licenses today, when the integration of Aboriginal fishermen is not complete. The government has been telling us for two years that the Aboriginal fishermen will operate like we do, with percentages. When the resource rises, allowable catches will rise, and when it declines, catches will decline. Today, we realize that nothing has been done. They have fixed quotas, which rise every year. We don't know where we're headed at all.

Perhaps we should start by solving one problem before solving everybody's problems. In the Gulf of St. Lawrence, the resource is as big as my hand. There are three or four good years out of 10. I believe we have to watch out for future generations and for everyone.

Á (1135)

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Farrah, you have 10 minutes.

Mr. Georges Farrah (Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Pabok, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

It's my turn to wish you a warm welcome to the committee.

I want to continue talking about protecting the resource. You say that the resource may be jeopardized in a long-term perspective through an increase in the fishing effort. I would like you to provide further explanations on the subject.

For example, you can fish 1,000 tonnes of crab with 100 traps or fish the same quantity of crab with 200 traps. You have always said that fishing the same tonnage with more traps was more harmful for the resource. I know they've been asking questions on this at the department. I would like you to show us scientifically that, if more traps are put into the water to fish the same tonnage, that will affect the resource's viability much more than if you put fewer traps in to fish the same quantity of crab.

Mr. Joël Gionet: It's easy to understand. Crab is fished using traps. We put a trap on the bottom of the sea, and the crab goes in. To catch my quota, I have to pull the traps and put the crab on board my boat. In the trap, there are all kinds of classes of crab: juveniles, babies, medium-size and large. I sort them because I have to meet a standard. I keep a certain quantity and I put the rest back in the sea. The more crab fishermen there are, the more crab is handled, particularly during periods when the juvenile crab biomass is enormous, as is currently the case. That would be the worst time to add players because we would destroy our future recruitment.

Mr. Georges Farrah: You say you aren't necessarily opposed to temporary allowances being given to struggling fishermen, but you are against permanent access. When you say you agree on giving those fishermen a certain percentage, the resource permitting, what does that mean? Does that mean you agree to give a temporary allowance at all times to fleets of struggling fishermen?

Mr. Joël Gionet: We previously had a five-year agreement with Fisheries and Oceans Canada, from 1997 to 2001. Under that agreement, the traditional industry had a threshold, a floor. When the resource fell below that level, there were no more temporary players. We advocate a similar approach: there would be a floor, and there could be sharing. We're not opposed to sharing when the stock is in good shape, and we think there must be some, because some species are at risk and this helps people a lot. But if permanent sharing is ordered today, next year, 2,000 more players will request a temporary allowance, and so on. That concerns us enormously.

Coming back to the Aboriginal question, we're already sharing a lot with them, and we agree on that. It's a Supreme Court decision, and we agree on that, but first let's solve this problem, then let's look at doing something else.

Á (1140)

Mr. Georges Farrah: In your view, what is the acceptable threshold beyond which there must be sharing?

Mr. Joël Gionet: It's not up to me to say. The entire industry has to sit down at a table, discuss it with the persons concerned and come to an agreement or a level that suits both parties.

Mr. Georges Farrah: I would like to ask a final question, Mr. Chairman. With regard to permanent sharing, I believe a distinction must be drawn between permanent sharing, which the Minister wants to have, and permanent licenses.

If I understand the minister correctly, he wants to ensure that a percentage of the quota is allocated to him on a permanent basis so that he can then distribute it on a temporary basis. That could change from year to year, based on the number of fishermen in trouble. Ultimately, we come back to the objective of having temporary sharing because it's not additional licenses that would be given. The minister will take a percentage and it will be permanent.

Mr. Joël Gionet: May I respond?

Mr. Farrah, I believe that's a roundabout way of adding new fishermen. There'll be a fisherman there every year, even if it's not the same one. When the stock has declined, when it's fallen to 5,000, 6,000 or 7,000 tonnes and we have 100 or 200 or more fishers, we'll have a problem. I'm going to find myself sitting down with people around the table discussing the matter in order to find the solution. We don't need that. The industry is healthy and the stock is still relatively healthy. We have to be careful for the coming decades.

Mr. Georges Farrah: Are you saying that, if we aren't careful, the same thing that happened to cod could happen here?

Mr. Joël Gionet: Exactly. Cod didn't disappear in a year. It disappeared over decades. Crab is the only remaining resource in relatively good health in the Gulf of St. Lawrence. Don't destroy it.

Thank you.

The Chair: Mr. Godin, you have five minutes.

Mr. Yvon Godin: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would also like to welcome you to the committee. I have a few clarification questions.

Earlier, you referred to Pèse-Pêche and the monitoring of fishermen's catches. When there was sharing, was Pèse-Pêche there to do the same monitoring?

Mr. Joël Gionet: Absolutely, yes.

Mr. Yvon Godin: I would like you to clarify what you said about the integration of Aboriginals. In your view, it's as though new fishermen had been added, but, in fact, the government bought boats for the Aboriginals and replaced fishermen. So there's the same number of fishermen. If that's not the case, I would like to have some clarification.

I know that, in your region, for example, Fisheries and Oceans Canada bought approximately $2.5 million in fishing licenses in Shippagan and elsewhere, I believe. Some fishermen left the sea, and Aboriginals took their place.

I would like that clarified because, when you talk about the integration of Aboriginals, it's as though there were a surplus. If the Aboriginals have a separate agreement that states there is no limit to what they can catch, I think there's a problem. But I get the impression the federal government is buying fishing licenses to replace fishermen.

I would like some clarification on that.

Á (1145)

[English]

Mr. Peter Noël: I'll answer your question, Mr. Godin.

When the buybacks were put in place at the start, there was supposed to have been one in and one out. The percentage of aboriginal quota was going to be taken from the traditional fishers who were on a volunteer buyback. That's what happened. They're up to 5.6% at the moment.

But you're not getting one fisher in and one fisher out. Now we're starting to see that where one vessel was fishing a quota, there are three or four vessels fishing a quota, and in some instances there are five and six vessels fishing a quota. So an increase in fishing capacity is being created, which shouldn't be there and shouldn't have been started in the first place.

It was said that the aboriginals were supposed to take over these vessels after three years of being taught by a mentor. Now we're finding that it's not that at all. Instead, it's Caucasians convincing them, saying, “Sit home on your reserve and we'll take care of this for you.” Now we're finding that the aboriginals are asking for more and more quota. If I were working in the place of these other people, I'd be telling the aboriginals, “Go and get as much as you can for me.”

This is what is happening. There seems to be a lack of control on that side of the table as far as fishing capacity is concerned.

Mr. Yvon Godin: You said they have a quota, and sometimes more than one fisherman will go catch the same quota. But they have a quota.

Mr. Peter Noël: Yes, but they have a quota.

When you're talking about quota, the numbers are always the same. To a mathematician, numbers are always the same. But it's what it's taking to create those numbers to bring this quota to shore.

I'll use a fairly simple example to try to explain this. Take a wild berry field that's an acre square. Usually you can put 10 people into it to do a harvest without destroying the plants. If you send 1,000 people in to collect those berries, how many plants are you going to have left at the end of the day? What's the ecosystem going to take as far as destruction is concerned? What's the stock going to take in terms of harm done to the stock?

For every extra trap that hits the surface, there's a percentage of what's in that trap that's reject--it's small, juvenile, or female, and in some instances it's soft-shelled. When we get inexperienced fishermen coming into this fishery, we're noticing they're staying a long time in the soft-shell, and even the controls put in place by the traditional fishery and industry are starting to take a kick in the ribs. They're not working it the way they should be.

So there you're creating damage to the stock. You're creating things we don't see because we're on the surface. It's a big picture, and to try to put it all into colours on the wall would be hard for me. But after 31 years in this fishery, I've learned to recognize things that should be taken into consideration, and there's a limit to everything.

[Translation]

Mr. Joël Gionet: I would like to clarify what Peter said earlier. We currently see that the First Nations people who go from plant to plant and go see fisherman after fisherman, telling them that they have quotas and are prepared to offer them a portion. So we have one, two, three, four, five, six boats.

This is what's currently happening in New Brunswick. Even federal government representatives publicly announced in the newspapers in February that, if any fisherman wanted to make an offer for Aboriginal quotas, they could do so because the Aboriginals had quota to fish. In light of all that, we see that the Aboriginal problem has not at all been settled. Thank you.

The Chair: Five minutes have elapsed.

Mr. Yvon Godin: All right.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Efford.

Mr. R. John Efford (Bonavista—Trinity—Conception, Lib.): Thank you.

I made a few comments, and I have a couple of questions because I'm not so sure my friends around the table clearly understand your position and what you're asking for. I think I have a grasp of most it, but I need to ask a couple of questions.

As a former minister of fisheries in Newfoundland, I'm quite familiar with your concerns and I'm quite familiar with what happened in Newfoundland and Labrador. The only difference is, I guess, back in the early 1980s there were 59 boats fishing crab in Newfoundland and Labrador. Today there are 3,517--so many that the stocks are showing signs of major problems. But we've always been very concerned with the monitoring, all the control measures, and the discarding at sea. And you're absolutely right. The more boats fishing, the more that's happening. I'm quite familiar with the issue.

In the case of of the temporary licences in Newfoundland and Labrador...our area--the geography--in the ocean is much bigger than yours, naturally. When Brian Tobin was Minister of Fisheries, he gave out 2,400 temporary permits to small-boat fishermen. There's been a total freeze on anything over that.

What Minister Thibault did a week ago--or some time ago--is to make those 2,400 permanent. Well, my position prior to that was there's nothing more permanent than temporary, because once you give a fisherman a licence to catch fish, you can't take it away from him, whether it's for crab or whatever--it's not going to happen. But the amount of fish they catch remains the same in their own zone.

Clearly, in the case of your issue, I know there are 160 boats fishing crab in your associations. I have two questions. How much does each boat catch, and how many temporary licences are there in your zone 12, other than the permanent licences, as you said?

Á (1150)

Mr. Peter Noël: Right at the moment, for traditional vessels, we're working on a point system on the global acceptable catch, which runs between 0.71 to 0.79. It comes out to possibly about 125 tonnes to 150 tonnes to a vessel.

Mr. R. John Efford: Per year.

Mr. Peter Noël: Per year, yes, which could be the equivalent of between 275,000 to 300,000 to each vessel.

The Chair: Excuse me. I'm not clear on this. You said that at the best time there was a total catch of 30,000 metric tonnes.

Mr. Peter Noël: Yes. That's why I say we're working on a point system percentage of total allowable catch. So when the total allowable catch goes down, our quotas go down.

The Chair: Yes, but I think Mr. Efford was asking what if.... I don't understand it. What was the answer? I thought you said 100,000 tonnes or something.

Mr. Peter Noël: No. It's 150 tonnes.

The Chair: It's 150 tonnes.

Mr. Peter Noël: Which is equivalent to 300,000 pounds.

Mr. Joël Gionet: That's the best.

Mr. Peter Noël: That's the best you can make in the best circumstances of the stock.

Mr. R. John Efford: It's the same in Newfoundland. The next part of the question was on the temporary licence. How many other licences were there, temporary or other, apart from your 160?

[Translation]

Mr. Joël Gionet: I don't think we really know the exact number.

[English]

Mr. Peter Noël: It's a number. We don't really have the exact number of them. That part of the quota that is taken off for the temporary participants is given to their association, or union, as you call it, and after that their union divides it up. They put their names in a hat and they have a lotto; they draw the name out of the hat. Then they say, get four fishermen together and go fish that quota. A lot of the times the quota is sold to somebody else and they sit home with it.

Mr. R. John Efford: I clearly understand what you're saying. I respect and understand your concerns, and rightly so, because if there's any one place in Canada or in the world where we have--I won't use the language that I would use in another setting--messed up the fishery, it's Newfoundland and Labrador; we destroyed everything. The only thing for which we do have some signs of health left are the shrimp and the crab. Now in many areas in Newfoundland, particularly on the west coast and 2J off Labrador in the gulf, it's in real trouble.

Conservation is the key measure. We cannot afford to destroy that resource.

I don't need any more questions or answers because I understand all the other issues around the fish. I just didn't grasp how many fishermen.

So really with the quota they have, they could have 500 instead of 100 fishermen. You're absolutely right, the more pots in the water, the more discarding, the more damage the soft-shell--we call it soft-shell; I think you call it white crab.

That's a concern we have in Mr. Matthews' area on the south coast. Last year there were a lot of soft-shell. They're really concerned about that stock getting in trouble because fishermen were not handling it properly.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Á (1155)

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Efford.

Mr. Peter Noël: This is a low-impact fishery, but when you increase capacity you turn it into a high-impact fishery.

Mr. R. John Efford: It's the same thing in Newfoundland.

The Chair: Do any other members of the committee have any questions?

Mr. Provenzano.

I'm sorry, Mr. Desbois, you wanted to make a comment?

[Translation]

Mr. Daniel Desbois (“Association des crabiers de la Baie”): I would have liked to add to what Mr. Efford said. Area 12 has been divided up since 1994. There was already an increase in the fishing capacity when sub-areas 12A, 12B, 12C, 12D and 12E were created, as well as area 25/26. Permanent fishers were added in the former area 12, which was fragmented.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Provenzano.

Mr. Carmen Provenzano (Sault Ste. Marie, Lib.): Yes, Mr. Chair.

I'm trying to get my mind around the issues that relate to the temporary fishers. How is it determined who would get temporary licences? Is it based on a lottery? What's the system in place?

Mr. Peter Noël: In the last five years, since the last co-management agreement and since the temporary sharing has been made more active, it has been on a lottery system. All the union members of the inshore fishery will put their name in the hat of the association and then the names are drawn. They have their decided amount of names they want to have drawn for access. Then from there it goes on.

Mr. Carmen Provenzano: Are there preconditions that someone has to meet in order to put their name into the lottery? If I wanted to put my name in the lottery to see if I got chosen and then hit some quota and then sell it or assign that quota, is that possible, or are there preconditions that would require me to be someone who is bona fide capable of fishing the quota?

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Boudreau (“Regroupement des pêcheurs professionnels des Îles-de-la-Madeleine”): It's Fisheries and Oceans Canada that handles it, and it's done differently in the Gulf region and in the Quebec region. In Quebec, fishermen who are in the greatest trouble are identified and grouped together, then an allowance is given to the group of fishermen, who then divide a share of that allowance among themselves.

It goes in order of priority, but it's the department that determines the target groups, and it gives part of the quotas to groups such as those.

[English]

Mr. Carmen Provenzano: I want to return to the question of the allocation of licences again. The suggestion is that when temporary licences are granted the chances of not renewing that temporary licence are very slim. I don't understand why that is. It's a temporary licence. Is it not understood by the person who gets chosen by lottery that the licence is temporary and may not be renewed for subsequent quota? Where's the problem there?

Did I hear wrong? The suggestion seems to be that it's a situation where once we give these temporary licences out, we can't get them back.

The Chair: There's nothing more permanent than temporary.

Mr. Carmen Provenzano: No, but I think what I'm trying to do is find out whether there's some void, some lapse, some deficiency in the process when these temporary licences are granted, whereby it isn't made absolutely clear to someone who receives this temporary licence that it may be only for that season.

Where's the problem here?

Mr. Doug Cameron (Executive Director, P.E.I. Snow Crab Fishermen Inc.): Sir, in the system that's used on Prince Edward Island.... I'll give last year as an example. P.E.I. temporaries had 281 tonnes, and the instrument that was used was the P.E.I. Fishermen's Association. What they did is they divided the 281 tonnes into five-tonne parts. So there were roughly 50 people who benefited from the lottery. These in turn get fished by something like 12 boats. A group of four would get together with their five tonnes and let one boat fish that.

If you were fortunate in the lottery this year or previous years, your name gets pulled from that bona fide list so that you won't benefit the next time around until they go through all the cycle.

Â (1200)

Mr. Carmen Provenzano: One of my colleagues mentioned that there's nothing more permanent than a temporary licence. Based on what you've just said, there's no permanence at all to that temporary licence. Do you agree with me?

Mr. Doug Cameron: I agree with you.

Mr. Carmen Provenzano: It's the quota then that's the problem. It's the quota allocated to the temporary licence holders, who as a group are changing from year to year. Is that correct?

Mr. Doug Cameron: We're not absolutely--

[Translation]

Mr. Joël Gionet: May I speak? I'm going to explain the problem we currently have with temporary licenses. The temporary licenses question came up in 1994, when the department decided to take a share of the quota and temporarily redistribute it to other fishermen. That worked for two or three years, then it stopped. Then, starting in 2000, 2001 or 2002, the department resumed that strategy of taking a share of the quota and redistributing it temporarily.

It should be said that it wasn't the fishermen who received the allowance, but rather the fishermen's associations. Today those associations are protesting loud and strong that they now have a fishing history and that they want that fishing history to become permanent, year after year. That's the problem we currently have.

[English]

Mr. Carmen Provenzano: Merci. I understand the problem.

The Chair: Thank you.

We're going to a second round, but we have lots of time so I want to ask a couple of questions.

Let's take the year 2002. What was the total catch for 2002?

Mr. Peter Noël: The total allowable catch was 22,000 tonnes, sir.

The Chair: Not what was the allowable catch, but the actual catch.

Mr. Peter Noël: The actual catch on the traditional side was 19,000--

The Chair: No, the actual catch of everybody.

Mr. Joël Gionet: It was 21,850.

The Chair: And how much of that was the traditional?

Mr. Peter Noël: It was 19,700 and change, sir--

[Translation]

Mr. Joël Gionet: That includes Aboriginals.

[English]

Mr. Peter Noël: --including first nations peoples.

The Chair: All right. How long is the fishery?

Mr. Peter Noël: The fishery was started April 13 and it terminated, the last two vessels fishing, in the month of August--August 15. There were two vessels late in finishing up their quotas, but the majority of the quota was caught in the first five weeks. After that a major part of the fleet was still functioning for about 10 to 12 weeks in the fishery.

The Chair: So if we said the fishery was about 12 weeks, that would be about accurate?

Mr. Peter Noël: Yes.

The Chair: What's the average annual gross income of each of the 160 permanent licences?

Mr. Peter Noël: It averages out probably in the last ten years at around $500,000 to $600,000, sir.

Mr. Joël Gionet: Gross.

The Chair: That's gross. I asked for gross.

Mr. Joël Gionet: That's gross. We have five to six people on each boat, and it's a....

[Translation]

In fact, they're small and medium-size businesses. There are five or six employees per boat, and our gross income is approximately $500,000 or $600,000 in the best years. Half of that amount goes to wages and 20 percent to payments; so there remains 15 to 20 percent. That's the actual figure.

[English]

The Chair: In your presentation you said you have 806 fishers.

Mr. Joël Gionet: Yes.

The Chair: I can read that. I understand that. The more money you make, great, I have no problem with that. I'm just trying to get all the facts down so I can understand what's happening.

As well, how much did the temporary fishermen take exactly in 2002?

Mr. Peter Noël: It would have depended on how much quota they had to work with, sir, and what prices they were--

The Chair: I didn't want to do the math. It looks like around 2,000 metric tonnes.

Mr. Peter Noël: They had around 2,000 metric tonnes.

Â (1205)

Mr. Doug Cameron: It was 2,181.

The Chair: So, 2,181 metric tonnes. And you don't know exactly how many fishermen that 2,181 was divided against.

Is this an average year, a good year, or a bad year? I know the best year was 30,000--

Mr. Joël Gionet: It's the best one.

The Chair: And it's cyclical, so they will be going down, one would expect.

Mr. Peter Noël: When our fishery does go down, sir, the Alaska fishery seems to come up and our prices go down with the going down of the stock.

The Chair: I think Mr. Provenzano identified what it seems the problem is: it's a “too many cooks spoil the broth” sort of thing.

I want to congratulate you on your association's scientific efforts. It's nice to see private individuals throwing that kind of money--that is not small change--into scientific efforts. I think that's very important.

I wanted to ask, what is “sufficiently abundant” in your solutions? Number one, you want to allow the temporary fishermen to access the resource only when the stock is sufficiently abundant. What is “sufficiently abundant?”

[Translation]

Mr. Joël Gionet: I can answer that. We're advocating a long-term co-management agreement over five or nine years with a floor for the traditional industry, that is a quota floor. We submitted an initial proposal to Fisheries and Oceans Canada on January 24. We were told that, despite its strong points, our proposal entailed no permanent sharing and that, consequently, it was going nowhere.

We want to develop, jointly with the government, a multi-year co-management agreement that would enable both parties to sit down and negotiate that floor. I can't provide any more details on what I want; in my opinion, that's done at the bargaining table, and both parties have to show good faith.

[English]

The Chair: So the answer is you don't have an actual metric tonnage that you could give us. You'd like to work with DFO to establish an agreed-upon definition of “sufficiently abundant”. Is that your evidence?

Mr. Joël Gionet: Yes.

The Chair: Great. Thank you.

Go ahead, monsieur Godin.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Godin: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

If I understood correctly, the Aboriginals were going to see traditional fishermen and were reaching agreements with them on quotas.

You also said that the fishermen with temporary licenses were also reaching agreements with traditional fishermen on their quotas. Is that correct?

Mr. Peter Noël: Affiliation: Mr. Peter Noel. That can in fact happen.

Mr. Yvon Godin: Are many of them doing it?

Mr. Peter Noël: I don't have those figures; they're in the hands of the Maritime Fishermen's Union. I don't know how they structured their system.

Mr. Yvon Godin: You don't have figures on that?

Â (1210)

Mr. Peter Noël: No.

Mr. Yvon Godin: All right. That was my question.

Furthermore, we heard that traditional fishermen, temporary fishermen and Fisheries and Oceans had reached a five-year agreement. From what you're saying, when the quota is high enough, you're prepared to share.

For everyone's benefit, I'm going to go back a bit. When this agreement was reached, the traditional fishermen—correct me if I'm wrong—first opposed any sharing, and everyone found themselves in the street.

I remember that it was a bit rough in Shippagan and Caraquet. The police got involved and the entire community found itself in disarray. I also remember that Frank McKenna, who was Premier of New Brunswick at the time, said: “Vive l'Acadie!” He was going to sea because... [Editor's Note: Inaudible]

I clearly remember the end of the agreement. Nothing was willingly conceded; there were tough negotiations, and everybody was under a lot of pressure, including the community, the families and so on. I would like to hear your side of the story.

Once again, you'll correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that money had been set aside under that agreement. As you know, the plant employees supported you, but this time, despite what you're saying, I have seen that not all the plants are supporting you.

Those people were in the street. Someone—I don't know whether it was Fisheries and Oceans—that made a promise. I'd like to hear your side of the story on that. In theory, 15 cents was to be set aside, since fishing isn't done for 12 weeks but rather six or seven weeks. The fishermen went to sea, and, as soon as they had their quota, they came back. So it wasn't exactly 12 or 15 weeks. In fact, the money had been set aside to help plant employees accumulate the required number of weeks to qualify for employment insurance.

Then an organization disputed that, and the case went to court. It was said that Fisheries and Oceans had no right to force fishermen to give money to help plant employees. I don't know whether all that was set out in an agreement which was subsequently ruled illegal. However, the plant employees had to drop that arrangement which would have enabled them to accumulate the regulatory number of weeks in the community.

Mr. Joël Gionet: I don't want to give out too many details on that case because it's currently before the court. However, I can tell you that the Auditor General of Canada himself stated in his 1999 report that that wasn't legal.

Lastly, as regards the last agreement, let's say that it had both positive and negative aspects. I think fishermen now want to sign another one.

Thank you.

[English]

The Chair: Merci.

Mr. Matthews.

Mr. Bill Matthews (Burin—St. George's, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I just want to thank the witnesses for coming. I must say I found it very interesting and enlightening. Maybe the minister should come to a few of these things. Perhaps he'd learn a little bit about harvesting pressures, the number of traps, and what it does to the resource, to be very honest with you. I know the minister is busy and can't get to many hearings like this, but....

Your concern about the minister imposing a permanent sharing concept is your problem--that he's creating more permanent licences in area 12--am I right?

Mr. Joël Gionet: Yes.

Mr. Bill Matthews: What is causing the minister to consider a permanent sharing arrangement in area 12? Can you tell me so I understand? I want to understand why.

[Translation]

Mr. Joël Gionet: I don't really know. I'll tell you frankly that I'm still wondering why the minister wants to do that. Does he want to make friends or enemies? We know nothing about it.

[English]

Mr. Bill Matthews: I wouldn't think the minister woke up one morning and said, “I think I'll do a permanent sharing arrangement in area 12”. I'm just wondering what's caused it to be considered. Obviously, something has prompted this.

Â (1215)

[Translation]

Mr. Joël Gionet: I believe it's due to the political pressure exercised by all the other fishermen. As you know, there is an enormous number of fishermen. Lobster in the Atlantic is declining precipitously in many areas, as well as cod. That's in fact the case for all species.

In my opinion, the pressure exercised at the departmental level must be enormous. The message of these people is that the resource is very abundant and we have to share it.

[English]

Mr. Bill Matthews: So you're telling me that in light of a pending position on cod, where people will either lose all of their cod or part of it, this sharing concept is to replace income from cod. They feel there's enough crab resource to allow those people to earn a living from crab. Is that what you're saying?

Mr. Peter Noël: It's not only from cod fishers. There was a buyback from 1991 when the moratorium was put in. A lot of the cod fishers have sold out of the game; they're not there any more. At that time there were approximately 64 active inshore cod licences in the Gulf of St. Lawrence. Now there are over 600, since the moratorium was put into place, sir. That's strange to me too.

But when you look at the facts, at who is asking for crab and why, it gets to be a lot of social economics being put into place.

My buddy here is telling me he has a lot of pressures from...and you know anybody who is a member of Parliament from the east coast has pressure in his riding to some degree. There are pressures that can be put on when they're not having a good year.

What has been noticed down through the years is there have been no efforts equal to the zone 12 traditional fishermen and industry efforts to rejuvenate other stocks. Instead of trying to slow themselves down to make it last longer, they sped themselves up. It seems to me they saw our stock as being in great shape and they were going to have a piece of it.

This is what we're coming to today. Everybody wants a piece of it. But all that glitters isn't gold, sometimes. This resource is so sensitive. To me, the future of the next 20 years is going to be decided this year.

Mr. Bill Matthews: So your worry is that your crab will go the way of the cod and you'll end up having nothing.

Mr. Peter Noël: We have fewer vessels, 130 vessels. We've taken the stock to its knees, to almost nothing. I've seen it myself. I was in on it. We took it to task to say we have to do something.

Now, we weren't all happy. If you know the fishermen from your own place--and I know mine from ours--gee, we don't want to stop fishing. But we had to take it into reason and see the light, put our boots on and fix it. We had a broken machine; we had to fix it. And we fixed it. It's something that hasn't been done in the rest of this country. When we see the deliberate advance to.... Numbers don't say a lot. But the evidence...we were talking earlier about effort, getting those numbers in on shore. How many branches are we going to break off that tree to get the tree? We'll just take the top limb off it.

It's complicated, but I hope I answered your question.

Mr. Bill Matthews: You did. I just wanted to understand what's driving it all. We need to understand that. For us to understand that, we need to know what's driving this action. That's why I asked the question.

Mr. Peter Noël: After the effort we've put into this fishery since 1989 toward rebuilding and rejuvenating and trying to keep our enterprises going, last year we saw the traditional industry come to a point where we're starting to work pretty well. For anything that is going to make big changes in this system, what comes to our mind is, what effect is it going to have on us?

Mr. Bill Matthews: Has anyone--

The Chair: Mr. Matthews, I'm sorry, you've gone beyond your time. I'll come back to you on another round.

Mr. Cummins.

Mr. John Cummins (Delta—South Richmond, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I apologize for arriving late.

Mr. Chairman, you asked some questions early on, which I thought were interesting, regarding gross income. To continue that line of questioning, it would be interesting to know the extent of the investment an individual would have. I wonder if someone could give me a rough estimate of the value of the vessel, the licence, and the gear it would take for one of the members of the association to participate in this fishery.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Boudreau: Depending on the year, we invest between $50,000 and $75,000 per fisherman, directly in science, for dockside weighing, for all the programs we referred to earlier, and to pay for fishing licenses. That represents between $50,000 and $75,000, depending on the year and the quota.

Â (1220)

[English]

Mr. John Cummins: The point I'm making--

The Chair: One second, just so we can clarify.

Mr. Roy.

[Translation]

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy: That was the value of ships and investment.

Mr. Paul Boudreau: Fishing is done by ships, which represent $1.2 to $1.5 million. It must be borne in mind that this is mid-shore fishing involving a lot of travel. When you evaluate TAC and stock, it's done across the Gulf. So fishermen must be able to cross the entire Gulf so they can fish. It's very important that that fishing be done by mid-shore boats. Otherwise fishing efforts would be made in specific areas, which would be very dangerous for stock survival.

[English]

Mr. John Cummins: Is the $1.2 million to $1.5 million the vessel value? What would be the value of the licence for that vessel?

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Boudreau: In recent years, the value of licenses has been between $1 million and $1.5 million for those buying the boats. When the department began wanting to buy boats, the value of the licenses increased appreciably. The department's offers for the licenses are an average of approximately $2 million per license because of the buy-back for the Aboriginals.

But you have to consider the fact that the department's demand for licenses for Aboriginals is much greater than the supply. Consequently, the department pays in order to withdraw someone's license, to take away his business, to remove someone from the field of fishing. It's often fathers who sell, when they could have had a succession, and so on. Of course, that increases the value of the licenses, but it's an artificial increase. The licenses will undoubtedly fall to a lower level when market demand is less strong.

[English]

Mr. John Cummins: What value would you put on the gear that's required to participate in the fishery?

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Boudreau: The value of fishing gear depends on the boats, but you can consider that it varies from $50,000 to $75,000.

[English]

Mr. John Cummins: So, essentially, a boat, licence, and gear are going to be worth somewhere between $2.2 million and $3 million.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Boudreau: Yes, but you have to consider the fact that someone who has to buy his license can't necessarily buy a new boat at the same time. He'll be forced to fish in an old boat because he wouldn't be able to break even with both a license and a new boat. You also have to consider that there are a lot of people who represent the next generation of fishermen and who now have to buy licenses, contrary to what was the case a number of years ago. All fishermen used to get their licenses free of charge.

[English]

Mr. John Cummins: I guess the point I'm trying to make is that it takes a substantial investment to participate in this fishery. So if you look at the net revenue to the skipper, the owner of the vessel, licence, and gear, it would seem that the return on his investment is maybe 5% a year. If the net income after expenses is, say, $150,000, he's earning $150,000 on a net investment of almost $3 million in some cases. Is that...?

Mr. Peter Noël: In the last couple of years we've had a couple of younger people who have bought into the fishery at $2.5 million--and over that in some instances. When you take into account the fact that these numbers are for already established enterprises and that, in normal financial systems, you go to banks to get this kind of money, you're looking at a yearly payback of close to $500,000 just in interest and principal. Once this fishery starts to slide on the downside, we're going to see some scenes of difficulty, especially when the normal market price would maybe have been around $1.2 million or $1.3 million. But since the volunteer buyback for the Marshall agreement, the prices have increased threefold.

Â (1225)

Mr. John Cummins: Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Cummins.

The 160 permanent licensees or the traditional fishers didn't pay $1 million per licence, did they?

Mr. Peter Noël: No.

The Chair: No. So we're talking about new people who are coming in.

All right, thank you.

Mr. Efford.

Mr. R. John Efford: I have just a couple of quick points.

My understanding of all the discussions we've had this morning is that this is not an issue about how much money somebody makes, or how much it costs to build a boat, or what it costs to crew a boat, but an issue of co-management with the minister and DFO--whoever the minister happens to be--and conservation and protection of the resource for the long term.

I wasn't quite clear on one point. In the case of the aboriginals, did I understand correctly that they are allotted so much crab and that they take more than they're really allotted, or that they can send out more boats fishing the same amount of crab?

Can you give me a brief explanation?

Mr. Peter Noël: What we've seen is what has been brought back. As I said earlier, it is not really the same picture as what has been allotted. It isn't the case that there is one boat in and one boat out, or one fisherman in and one fisherman out, because there are areas where a one-boat quota is being divided up six, seven, or eight times by non-traditionals, who are going to fish this quota for the aboriginals. And they're not teaching the aboriginals how to fish. In a lot of instances, there is continual asking for more and more fish.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Boudreau: Our main problem is that we're negotiating a co-management agreement and the minister has withdrawn temporary or permanent access from the negotiations. Before bargaining, the minister decided that he wanted permanent access to the fishery. Right now, we can't even negotiate that in the context of the program. That's the crux of the matter. The minister has excluded negotiating access from the negotiator's mandate.

Mr. Daniel Desbois: I would also like to add that the Aboriginals have received more quotas than we've bought back. Only 5 percent of quotas were bought back, and they probably have 15 percent this year. So the Aboriginals have received nearly 10 percent more than what was bought back.

[English]

Mr. R. John Efford: My final question for the day is whether there is a number of permanent licences that you fear the minister may give out. Is there a number on it?

Mr. Peter Noël: Well, sir, if you look at the demands on us, we're seeing over 2,000.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Efford.

Monsieur Roy.

[Translation]

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

My question was answered in part, but I had a final one.

You referred to the status of the stocks, but very briefly. You said we were on the down slope of the cycle. I looked at what you had previously provided us with concerning the status of the stocks in 2003. You referred to a 35 percent decline in the number of females, a decline in female size and a 35 percent drop in total egg production. That means, from what you've told us, that the resource is currently on the decline. Roughly where are we now in the seven-year cycle?

Mr. Joël Gionet: We agree with the department's scientists that things will be fine for the spring of 2003, spring 2004 and spring 2005. There are juveniles now. But after 2005, there will be a shortage of juveniles. We anticipate that the next increase will probably not start until 2015. So there'll be an enormous trough for a period of time.

As for the females, if there are 35 percent fewer females on the bottom, the next rise in stocks will decline by 35 percent. So we may never again see 20,000 or 22,000 tonnes of quota. That's what troubles us.

Â (1230)

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy: What's the breakeven point for someone who's just bought his boat or has only had it for a few years?

If the quota falls in terms of pounds, that means that all fishermen will see their quotas decline. What would be the breakeven point of someone who's just bought a boat and is required to make payments? In pounds, what would be the point below which this would no longer be profitable?

Mr. Paul Boudreau: I took part in an economic study in 1996, before the co-management agreement that was reached then. Given today's market prices and the status of the stock, according to the scientists, licenses today are over-evaluated. Quite clearly, someone who buys a license at market value today won't be able to get through the trough.

The best evidence of that is that we currently can't obtain financing in the conventional market to buy a license. Someone has to be able to make a very large down payment because, if you want to get financing in the banking market to buy a license, you can't get those amounts. The financial institutions don't agree to grant that much financing.

Mr. Daniel Desbois: I also wanted to remind you, Mr. Roy, that nothing is free anymore, not even license transfers between father and son. Licenses are valued at their market value. That means large amounts have to be transferred, and there isn't a cent to give the father for his pension fund. These are sums that range from $500,000 to $800,000.

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy: Would you agree to a request for a tax credit, as is done in agriculture?

Mr. Daniel Desbois: Of course.

The Chair: Mr. Farrah, go ahead.

Mr. Georges Farrah: I just have one question. I would like to come back to the co-management plan that you signed and that was temporarily extended last year so that it could be renegotiated this year. How did that co-management plan work between 1997 and 2001? I know that, at one point, there were problems of perception and trust with respect to the department, perhaps as a result of breaches of conditions. So I would like to have an overall picture of the situation.

Mr. Joël Gionet: The context was different in 1997. As Mr. Godin said, there was a crisis on the Peninsula in the spring of 1996, and I think it was a valid crisis. The stock had collapsed in 1989, and fishermen had gotten to work and rebuilt the stock. But when the time came to harvest the fruit of our efforts, the department decided to share the stock with others. So it was normal, Mr. Godin, that there was a crisis on the Acadian Peninsula in the spring of 1996.

Following that crisis, in 1997, an agreement was signed, but, at the last minute, Fisheries and Oceans came to see us and told us: “Here's the deal; take it or leave it.” So we signed. There was no really hard bargaining at the table. The negotiations were quite brief.

We adhered to the co-management agreement in the first year, second year and third year. In the fourth year, in September 1999, the Supreme Court rendered the Marshall decision. There was a section in our co-management agreement providing for the Aboriginal quota, but it was not enough.

So we sat down with the department and we said that we didn't want Canadian citizens to pay and that we didn't want any money. We told the department to take the tonnage it needed for the Aboriginals and to give it back to us the following year, tonne for tonne, knowing that the stock was coming back. It was a kind of loan.

We signed documents, then, the following year, the department refused to give it back to us because it wanted to give it to others. That's how the last agreement ended.

Later, the department decided to pay us in cash. At that time, the price of crab was $2.80 a pound. All the fishermen thought they would receive $2.80, but we were only offered $2. The last agreement ended badly. At the end of that agreement, we asked a mediator on a number of occasions to solve the disputes. It didn't work. The department never wanted to appoint a mediator. We're now in 2003 and we still have no agreement.

That's the story of the 1997-2001 agreement.

Â (1235)

The Chair: Are there any other questions?

[English]

Mr. Cummins.

Mr. John Cummins: With the questions I was asking before, I was trying to make the point that there's considerable investment here and the return on that investment is not huge. Again, building on the question the chair raised, what's ignored here is that, as in any business, you have to replace equipment; you have to replace boats and gear. So if you're making money you have to reinvest it in the industry. I think that point should be made. I don't think there would be any disagreement at the other end of the table with that.

The Chair: That's a nice long question. Just say yes.

Mr. John Cummins: It's a statement of fact that should be on the table here.

Mr. Peter Noël: Sir, just to give you a small example, the vessel I operate is 34 years old. I keep it afloat. I've been repairing and replacing things for the last five or six years. We've been looking at building a new one, but with all the instability we see in our future, we're scared to make a move. We know that to replace a 65-foot vessel is going to cost in the area of $1.4 million to $1.5 million. In order to venture that far you have to think twice and make sure you're making the right step.

As Joel said earlier, we are enterprises, and they have a function. When you break everything down, 50% to 60% is going for labour and operations and maybe 10% goes for maintenance on a continual basis. Anybody new coming in is putting out 30% to 35% of growth revenue just for debt maintenance. We have to see a little more seriousness in our future before we say, “We're going to stop repairing this old baby”. Yet new boats have come into this fishery in the last couple of years, and that's anywhere from a $1 million to $2 million investment. These are people who have a second licence to work with.

Mr. John Cummins: A few years ago I came across some documents under Access to Information. I'll try to dig them out for you. The essence of the comment by the official from DFO--it wasn't on this particular fishery--was that the fishery people were making money. The official from the department didn't quite appreciate that. He thought there must be something really wrong if people were making money. They looked at trying to do just what they're trying to do here--break it up and distribute it, instead of saying, “We have a success here because people are able to make decent wages”.

I'm going to look for that because I think you'd find those comments of that official interesting.

The Chair: I hope you'll share it with all of us, because no doubt we'll all be interested.

Â (1240)

Mr. John Cummins: I'll share it with you, absolutely, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Gentlemen, I want to thank you very much for your presentation. I think it was excellent. You defended it well.

As you heard in my answer to Mr. Godin, our committee will meet, discuss the issue, decide if we want to hear other people, and if so, who. We will let you know what our decision is and what we propose to do.

I want to assure you that whatever we decide, we will decide in good haste. We won't be sitting on this. We'll discuss this in the very near future and then make our decision and advise you accordingly. Needless to say, we'll keep you posted.

I just want to thank you all for coming and bringing your concerns to our committee. Thank you very much.

Mr. Georges Farrah: Do we have a meeting on Thursday?

The Chair: Yes, we have a meeting on Thursday. We are going to be giving instructions to our researchers on the invasive species report. I don't expect that's going to take two hours, so we can put this issue on the agenda on Thursday so we can talk about where we want to proceed. We may use that as a grab bag to deal with a few other items, including the west coast salmon fishery.

Mr. Georges Farrah: The minister will take a decision very soon on that issue in area 12 crab--

The Chair: Maybe it's a good idea to discuss it on Thursday then.

[Translation]

Mr. Joël Gionet: On behalf of the industry and all fishermen, I thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and committee members, for allowing us to present our point of view. We hope that you will do a follow-up. If you would like us to return, we can do so at any time. Thank you very much.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you. Merci.

The meeting is adjourned.