FISH Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON FISHERIES AND OCEANS

COMITÉ PERMANENT DES PÊCHES ET DES OCÉANS

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, December 11, 1997

• 0942

[English]

The Chairman (Mr. George S. Baker (Gander—Grand Falls, Lib.): Order, please.

Our order of reference is pursuant to Standing Order 108.(2), a review of fisheries. Today we have one individual witness for the first half hour, and then we're going to hear from the Prince Edward Island Fishermen's Association Ltd.

We have representatives here today from the Liberal Party, from the Reform Party of Canada, from the Bloc Québécois, and from the New Democratic Party of Canada. We're expecting the Progressive Conservative Party to be represented in just a few moments.

First we'll go to Mr. Joe Papp, who is a scallop fisherman from Prince Edward Island.

Mr. Papp, do you have an opening statement? We could question you on that statement.

Mr. Joe Papp (Individual Presentation): Yes.

The Chairman: Good. Go right ahead, sir.

Mr. Joe Papp: I represent 79 scallop fishermen who according to the DFO are out of business as of January 1, 1998. Over the years we have had trouble with the DFO, in communications between the DFO and the fishermen themselves. We are scallopers. There are approximately 262 scallop licences on P.E.I. and 131 in Nova Scotia. We share the same waters when it comes to scallops.

Out of these people, there are 18 full-time scallopers. These make a living off scallops only. They don't have another major licence besides it. With the new decision DFO has made to shut down the season in the spring, when we make the major portion of our living, we cannot go out in 1998. We are out of business. We are going to lose our homes, our fleets, and so on.

Scallop management has been implemented for years, but what is happening there is we have no communication between DFO, the fishermen's association, and the people themselves. I have presented a management proposal we made up in July or so of 1997. We presented that to David Gillis or Kevin MacAdam on P.E.I. and that was supposed to come up through the DFO to a higher level, but I never saw any of the presentation until I talked with Mr. Easter, who presented it, I suppose, to Mr. Anderson.

The last two years have not been good at all—really bad. We had meetings over the scallop season openings. In 1996 we had a meeting with 150 fishermen present. Out of the 150, 148 voted for absolutely no April fishing—that's just before lobster time—May and June fishing only, and no dual fishing. That means lobster fishermen with a scallop licence, if they want to go scalloping at the same time as lobster is on, have to land 300 traps on a wharf. That takes tremendous pressure off the scallop industry. That was in 1996.

• 0945

I'm sure our presentation didn't reach the authorities, because instead of wiping out the April fishing that we had been fighting for many years, it was still implemented. It was shortened a little bit. I'm not sure, but I think we had about seven days. But we still had April fishing for lobster. That destroys the lobster bottom. There are four hundred boats on the same bottom, scraping the bottom up. It destroys the lobster bottom for the lobster fishermen and it's not good for the scallops. It's not a conservation move at all.

In retaliation, they took away one week at the beginning from the scallopers, saying they could save the industry that way. Nobody was hurt by it except the 17 or 18 full-time scallopers. We lost about 25% of our income that year.

Meetings have been going on. This year we had another meeting at Pooles Corner on P.E.I., with the fishermen's association present, of course. At the next meeting, approximately 114 voted for the same thing: no April fishing; May and June scalloping coincides with the lobster fishing, which means we start at the same time and finish at the same time; and no dual fishing. And absolutely no April fishing.

Now what came out of that is that April fishing was still introduced. This is not conservation. This is totally against conservation. April fishing was still intact and they've taken two weeks from the scallopers only, two weeks at the beginning of the season. They took off two weeks at the beginning and they took off two weeks at the end. We wound up with six weeks of fishing. As you know, six weeks of fishing is not much time to make a living. We have lost approximately 40% of our income this year.

I have contacted DFO and the fishermen's association. The answer was always the same, that this is DFO's decision, the committee's decision and so on. My understanding is that DFO or Mr. Anderson himself is not getting the right information. He's getting misleading information.

DFO says that because the scientists say the stocks are going down, they therefore have to shut down the season to save the scallop stocks. I have papers here, which are in front of you somewhere, papers stating that the last time the research part of the industry looked into it was in 1988, nearly ten years ago. Since then there has been no research done, absolutely none, except for this year, when they did two provincial scallop surveys. The federal fisheries department has not looked into it since 1988. They cannot use that and say they are going to shut down the scalloping on the advice of the biologists or whoever, because it's been ten years.

I see the point of DFO trying to make up for time, but these are the mistakes that they have made. You can't cover up the mistakes done to us. We are 100% for conservation. We have to do something about it or we're not going to have any fish in the future. We have made up the management proposal about what is good for the lobster fishermen, good for the scallopers and fantastic for the scallops. In my opinion and the opinion of the other 17 guys, it is good all the way around. I have talked with many of the local lobster fishermen who possess a scallop licence as well, and I'd say that 70%-80% like the idea. This is in one of the folders you have. You'll see when you read it.

Anyway, this is the problem we have with DFO and the fishermen's association. As far as the fishermen's association goes, I am not a member, and I am not going to be a member of a committee whose main objective is to put me out of business and into bankruptcy. I cannot afford that kind of move from them. Any time you go to them, they are covering up and saying “DFO, DFO, DFO.” And when you go to DFO they say DFO isn't responsible, they are just carrying the motion through that they got from Ottawa.

Mr. Pat Binns was in touch with Mr. Mifflin last year about the situation. Mr. Mifflin said that everything was fine, that he got some letters saying that everything is fine, that he was getting that information from his deputy ministers from P.E.I. In our opinion, they were giving him misleading information. Mr. Mifflin said that everything was fine so this is the law, without looking at the people.

• 0950

This is not 17 or 18 people. We're talking about 34 or 36 families who are out of business; they're going to lose their homes, they're going to lose everything they have.

There is a solution, and we have been working on it for many years. The biggest fight, the biggest problem over here over scallops, is that for one week in April there are approximately 400 boats tearing the bottom to pieces. That's days before lobster opens. What's the purpose? It's a financial purpose. That's why they're doing it. Plus it's open; you go ahead. If it's open you go and fish. We have to do away with that.

In one of those papers it will show you that in one week there are more scallops per pound landed from the water than in the whole season altogether, from spring to fall. There's more fish being landed. Over the winter scallops slow down so it's easy to pick them up. Conservation should be where it's most effective.

Take away the one week. It's not going to harm anybody. Leave May and June fishing in for the scallopers and also for the lobster fishermen with a scallop licence with an option that if your lobster catches go down and you can't afford to make a living on that one, you can switch from one to the other providing you are landing your gear, your lobster traps, on the wharves so you're not occupying the space with your lobster traps here and your fishing over there.

We have to cut back on time and effort. This is in the proposal there. We have to cut back on the effort, meaning fewer hours, fewer days. We have to cut away December. December 1 should be the cut-off time of scalloping, not December 31. I'm still fishing. I'm here right now talking to you, but I should be out there fishing and making a living. Knowing that I'm going to have to go back next year, I'm doing this for the 17 fellows and for my future, because we're going to lose everything. Most of us are going to lose everything. Anyway, that's where the conservation should really be looked at.

I have data here that if we shut down December 1, we will save a little over 10 million pieces of scallop—not pounds but pieces—that will not be taken out of the water considering the amount of scallops we get per hour and the amount we decide we have to get. We are still limited to size and so on. If you multiply that with the days and so on, it comes to well over 10 million pieces of scallops. That's a tremendous number of scallops.

Also, DFO scientists say we're going to have to shut down the season early in the spring because the scallops are spawning. I have documentation that was made up by research biologists in 1988 that says the scallop is not spawning in May and June. They spawn in mid-September to mid-October. They have made a written statement from the DFO research lab, I suppose. If they're telling us they're going to shut down the season because they're spawning in May and June, I don't know who's right and who's wrong.

This is all I can say about the proposal part. We have all kinds of correspondence and articles from cutouts and so on. We have contacted politicians, Liberal or whoever, to try to justify the situation. It has to be rectified somehow so that it's good for all. I'm going to have to emphasize the conservation end. Yes, we have to go with that because of the future of the fishing industry. What we need is more communication between DFO, fishermen's associations, and the people who are doing the job out there.

I think approximately three years ago Mr. Mifflin came up with an announcement saying he was going to put the fishing industry in the fishermen's hands for a trial of approximately two or three years and see what will happen and whether they can manage it or not. I think it was last year when he said okay, this is enough, because if you take two or three fishermen and you ask them one question they can't agree on the same thing. It's just a regular fight. Somebody has to be there to make a decision for us, but that decision has to be fair for everybody.

Do not use discrimination just on the 17 people to throw them out of business while the rest can still make a fair living. It's against the Charter of Rights, first of all. Discrimination is there. This is just not right.

• 0955

So I'm asking the committee to take this into consideration. Of the whole proposal, this is a very important part. Take that into consideration.

It was presented to a biologist, David Gillis, who was very pleased with it and impressed with it, impressed with the numbers. It took me many days of research on that project.

So we are going to have to look at it that way. We have articles. We have correspondence from different politicians who are suggesting that if we cannot implement this proposal then we should be going into a financial buy-out, like a financial rectification, to buy out the licences, or issue, not issue as in giving them a major licence, but sell to the 17 people a major licence that they can use for years to come. The government can turn around and sell them for a certain price. That way they have a chance of staying in business, buying into it. I know it's going to be hard to issue, because the DFO is not giving out licences. If anything, they're cutting back, but we have to look at all the issues and consider it the best we can, I think. I know it.

I have all kinds of miscellaneous items sitting in front of you in that folder, and this is all I want to say. I thank you for your time, and I appreciate it.

The Chairman: We'll go to questions now, Mr. Papp, but I have one clarification. The 400 vessels that you say were scraping the bottom in April for that week, do they agree with your management plan that would eliminate them?

Mr. Joe Papp: Do they what?

The Chairman: Would they agree with your management plan that would eliminate them from the fishery?

Could you also explain to the committee, for clarification, the size of your drag compared to the size of the drag of those 400 vessels in that week in the spring?

Mr. Joe Papp: As to the size of the drag, I think we have about four or five areas. They are all different.

On average, the size in our area is 16 feet 8 inches. I could be off an inch here or there, but it's approximately 16 feet 8 inches. In different areas they go up as high as 20 feet. This is the width, the total width we're going with. This includes either a drag or a sweep, two different methods, yet they're both effective. One is very effective on a mud bottom; one is very effective on a dirty, rocky bottom. But it goes anywhere from 16 feet 8 inches to 20 feet. In our area, area 24, it's 16 feet 8 inches.

The other question was about the 400 vessels, if they agree to it or are against it. Out of the 400 vessels, 150 were present. Out of the 150 vessels, 148 want May and June intact. They have absolutely no negative feelings against the scallopers making a living. They want us to make a living fairly, so 148 vessels were for it. Do away with April; April has to go.

We have problems—over the years I have seen that, and I hear it and experience it—between Nova Scotia and P.E.I. I have no squabbles with them at all. Nova Scotia has the idea that if they cannot have an April fishery before lobster, then have none. They have one full-time scallop licence holder in Nova Scotia. The latest I've heard is they might not have one, but let's call him one yet because I'm not sure whether he bought a licence or not, another major licence. But they had one fellow. Their major thing was like this: If we cannot have April, we will have none. This is the decision basically pushed on us. For the fishers of P.E.I., whatever they decide on, we are following. In P.E.I., 98% are for it.

The Chairman: Mr. Papp, I'll go to questions now, but do you know of any proposal that has been drawn up regarding a buy-out? We're talking about 18 vessels here.

Mr. Joe Papp: In regard to a buy-out?

The Chairman: On a buy-out, do you know of a proposal that has been drawn up, examined by DFO, on a buy-out for those 18 vessel licences?

Mr. Joe Papp: On a buy-out?

The Chairman: Yes.

• 1000

Mr. Joe Papp: I'm not aware of it for a buy-out. There was no talk of it for the seventeen. We don't want to be bought out.

The Chairman: No, I was just wondering.

Mr. Joe Papp: To my knowledge, I haven't seen anything on a buy-out. We haven't been offered one.

The Chairman: No, because you mentioned alternative means of making a livelihood, and not the buy-out. I was just wondering if there was a buy-out, because that obviously is the normal procedure for DFO. When they get into a situation like this, they say here's the buy-out and here's what it costs. You haven't seen a costing of that.

Mr. Joe Papp: I've never heard of it, no.

The Chairman: We'll go now to our first questioner. I think Mr. Easter wanted to put some questions forward, and then Mr. Duncan will follow.

Mr. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.): When I talked to them, Joe, DFO's position was that there was basically a three-year transition here during which they wanted to move to closing the fishery over that period of time in the spring. The intent behind it was to give the seventeen or eighteen boats affected the opportunity to go to multiple licences. That would overcome the.... The choice really was to either buy out their licences or basically sell out. That's what their position has been.

I guess my question would be, given that there was a three-year transition, how come there hasn't been any take-up by the seventeen on that in terms of trying to get into other species or to make a move out, from your perspective?

Mr. Joe Papp: Okay, you're talking about a buy-out again, a phase-out period. Again we're back to miscommunication, misleading. Most of us knew about it, but if the phase-out period has been implemented, why did the DFO not inform two—namely Jodie White, who's one of them, and Sean MacLean? Incidentally, Sean's father and I are the ones who are going for this, but he couldn't be present so I'm taking care of this. He's not a fisherman, but he's fighting for us. Anyway, those two fellows were allowed, encouraged, to buy into the industry this spring. They were not—and I repeat, not—told by DFO that there is a phase-out period, you're not going to be in business.

I know this is a free country. This is a fantastic country. Freedom is fantastic; let's use it. But if there is a phase-out period when DFO is phasing out a licence and it knows the licence is not worth anything next year or the year after that, that we cannot use it, why is it still allowing fishermen to invest into that situation?

There is no buy-out. They never offered us any buy-out whatsoever. They have been buying out lobster licences all along. As you know yourself, not many have been sold, but there are buy-outs on lobster. Scallops or any other species have never been mentioned. Nothing's been told to us by DFO. They might be saying that they have that implemented, but miscommunication is there. There is no communication from DFO. There's one big problem.

Two years ago, when we were voting for that—out of the 150, 148 voted—Nova Scotia came out with a buffer zone that they put around Pictou Island. One mile was off-limits. At one of the meetings this spring, I asked Mr. Jenkins straight out if the DFO in Nova Scotia is the same as the DFO in P.E.I. He said they are exactly the same thing. I asked how come the communication was not there, how come they were not communicating with each other when the law was brought in for that buffer zone. We are sharing the same waters.

The law was brought in two years ago for that buffer zone around Pictou Island, and you cannot get into it. If I had gone fishing out there and got into that one-mile limit while not knowing that it was implemented but this was supposed to have been told to the fishermen, and if the cutter had been out there, I would have been up in court and would have been basically paying a big fine because I was breaking the law. He said to me that it was a little bit of a miscommunication. It's not a little bit of a miscommunication. We're talking about tremendous amounts of money in breaking the law. If the law is there, the law is there. If they come up with certain types of buffer zones and such, we should be told about it. We have to be.

• 1005

Mr. Wayne Easter: Mr. Chairman, just a quick supplementary, because we're going to run out of time.

What kind of history is behind these 17 scallop fishermen who are affected? How long have they been fishing scallops? Did they buy the licenses from somebody else in the first place?

Second to that, although it's a little different, what is your view in terms of the impact of those scallopers out there fishing immediately prior to or during the lobster fishing season? I see that as a big problem.

Mr. Joe Papp: No problem. There's no problem fishing during the lobsters. Lobster fishermen have absolutely no problem with that at all. We can't get close. They're buoyed off. Buoys are popping up all over the place. We cannot get to a so-called lobster bottom.

First of all, it's basically impossible to take a drag—they have long teeth on them and they're heavy equipment—and drag through a rocky bottom. This is nearly impossible. You might try it, but basically, it's out of the question.

On the lobster bottom, the lobsters are all over the place in the spring, so we're destroying lobsters while we're scalloping. April should be taken out because there are too many boats at it, but when it comes to May and June, we stay off as a kind of gentleman's agreement in a way. I don't want to get into your gear. I don't want to do damage to you.

Over the years, we have come to know where the scallop bottoms are, and they're not on lobster bottoms. We go to the scallop bottoms to fish mainly, so there's absolutely no problem there. I would say that 75% of the lobster fishermen holding a scallop licence say we should go ahead.

In fact, this year, when I tied up at the wharf at the end of the season for May, they came to me and asked what I was doing there. How come I wasn't fishing? I said it was because DFO shut me down.

They still had three weeks of fishing. They got a one-week extension this year. Two weeks were taken away at the beginning, two weeks at the end, plus the one week, so you're talking about five weeks, which amounts to a tremendous amount of money. Money is the question for living.

As for your question about the history, I know of only two who bought into it for this year, 1997. As for the rest of them, there could be another one. I'm not sure about the third one. That fellow just bought into it two or three years ago, but I had my licence for ten years. Most of them are at eight years, nine years, ten years, and over. The history is there. We're not talking about brand new fishing. We're not talking about having just hopped into it.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Easter. Mr. Duncan.

Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, Ref.): I think the chair has asked the operative question here: what have you seen in the way of documentation from DFO in terms of the future of your 17 licences?

Mr. Joe Papp: Absolutely nothing.

Mr. John Duncan: What you're telling us is “nothing”, which I think is totally unacceptable, obviously. I think we have a desire from the parliamentary secretary and the chair of this committee to fix that. We're with you on that.

One question I wanted to ask in terms of this conservation issue is this. You're saying that there are more scallops landed in that first week than in the rest of the year combined.

Mr. Joe Papp: Yes.

Mr. John Duncan: If you were to take that one week out, would it not just mean that there would be more scallops landed in a different week, or is there something I'm not following with the biology of the species?

Mr. Joe Papp: You didn't get it on the right button day.

Mr. John Duncan: Yes.

Mr. Joe Papp: There will be more for the 17 guys, but that's not the issue. The issue is that, for one week, the pressure is tremendous. There are approximately 400 boats. Not all of them are going to be fishing, so I cannot come up with a percentage, but there are approximately 400 boats. In that one week, they take out a tremendous amount of meat, scallops. If we leave that in there, the 17 boats that are working full-time, in that one week we're talking about, more scallops are taken out than in the whole season. That includes the fall season, when the 400 boats are back at it. It's not just the 17 guys for two months or whatever months we have; it's in the spring and fall seasons when the other 400 boats go back.

• 1010

Over the summer the water warms up, the scallops speed up and it's hard to catch them. You have to wait for the water to cool off. That's why December is good, because the water is cool, the scallops slow down, and it's easier to catch them. The one week in the spring and the one week in the fall are killers of scallops.

Mr. John Duncan: Further on the biology, if the old research is correct about the spawning in September and October, should you not be prevented from fishing in September and October?

Mr. Joe Papp: We're not fishing in September and October. We fish in May and June.

Mr. John Duncan: You're not doing it anyway.

Mr. Joe Papp: Our season used to go from April 15 to April 30 until two years ago. It was changed so we have seven days in April, and it was supposed to go from May 1 until June 30, the same as lobster. There is no scalloping happening in June, July, August and September. It opens up again on November 14 until December 31, 1997.

The Chairman: We only have a few minutes left, so we'll go to New Brunswick, then Nova Scotia, and back to B.C. Then we'll go to the remaining witnesses who are appearing before us today. Mr. Hubbard.

Mr. Charles Hubbard (Miramichi, Lib.): Thank you.

Just to put some of this into perspective, we have licences, permits, the size of the gear, the size of the boat and so forth. Can I assume that somebody who has a multi-licence, with one of them being a scallop licence, could sell it to a person and that person could have a single licence to fish? Is this the way your licence began ten years ago?

Mr. Joe Papp: Not in my case. Ten years ago it was called a bona fide. About two or three years ago it was called a core fisherman. You had to buy a core licence with it. What came with it was the question. It might have been a multiple licence or a singular licence.

Mr. Charles Hubbard: Who did you buy your licence from?

Mr. Joe Papp: I bought it from Doug Compton. He sold me his bona fide and a scallop licence with it.

Mr. Charles Hubbard: Would it be a problem then for these 400 people to sell them to others who might be single licence holders?

Mr. Joe Papp: Yes.

Mr. Charles Hubbard: I'd also like to know a little about the size of the boat you're using. For example, the average lobster fisher is fishing with a 42-foot boat or less.

Mr. Joe Papp: So are we.

Mr. Charles Hubbard: Do you have the same horsepower?

Mr. Joe Papp: The horsepower is unlimited, whatever you can afford.

Mr. Charles Hubbard: I know that, but we have people who fished for cod with 42-foot boats. They were about 25 feet wide and were called a special name. Is that what you're using for dragging, or what do you use?

Mr. Joe Papp: My boat's 16 feet 8 inches with either five or six—if you are going to full width—metal frames with long teeth on them and metal rings hooked together.

Mr. Charles Hubbard: How many horsepower does your boat have?

Mr. Joe Papp: A 300 horsepower Ford or average car engine will pull it, or a 600 horsepower Rolls Royce. The horsepower has absolutely nothing to do with scalloping. You have a winch and you need the power to lift up what's in it.

With scalloping, you don't catch more the harder you go. You have to go a certain speed on the bottom or your drags will leave the bottom or just bog down. Your speed is approximately 2.5 knots to 2.7 knots. It doesn't make any difference what horsepower you have. You are limited to that. So you can have 600 horsepower pulling it, but you have to cut back on the horsepower to reach that point. We checked it for speed. If you go faster you get nothing and if you go slower you get nothing. Power has nothing to do with it.

Mr. Charles Hubbard: What sort of revenue do you need to be viable? You say you will go bankrupt if these things don't happen. When I buy scallops, I pay a lot of money for them.

Mr. Joe Papp: So do I.

Mr. Charles Hubbard: How much revenue do you need? You're talking about catching tens of thousands of pounds. How many pounds do you have to catch, and what is the value of them in order to make your operation viable?

Mr. Joe Papp: I cannot come up with that. It varies from year to year.

Mr. Charles Hubbard: In 1997, how much revenue do you need and how many pounds of scallops do you need to catch to make that revenue in order for your operation to exist?

• 1015

Mr. Joe Papp: Well, you have to hire men aboard. The hired men will take 25% of your catch, whatever it is.

I cannot come up with the revenues for you. This is not a—

Mr. Charles Hubbard: You're telling us you may go broke because there aren't going to be enough scallops. I would like to know how much money you need as revenue on an annual basis, in 1997, to make your operation viable. Secondly, I'm asking how many pounds of scallops you need to put on the wharf in order to make that revenue.

Mr. Joe Papp: That's okay.

Everybody is different. In my case I've already paid for my house, I've paid for my fleet, so revenue for me doesn't have to be as high as for the fellows this year—

Mr. Charles Hubbard: No, I'm not asking for a general thing. I'm saying it's for the average person, these 17 people you are representing here today.

Mr. Joe Papp: They should be making $50,000 to $60,000 in the year to break even and make a living. Scalloping is a very, very expensive—

Mr. Charles Hubbard: Is this gross revenue or revenue to take home?

Mr. Joe Papp: This is gross. We're not talking about net. I would like to take home $60,000 or $70,000 net. I wouldn't be here talking to you if I could do that.

Mr. Charles Hubbard: How many pounds of scallops would that be—

Mr. Joe Papp: Right now the scallop price is $9.50, so if you take your calculator—it's not too hard—we can average it at, let's say, $10.00, just to be nice. That would be 6,000 pounds, and that adds up to close to $60,000, or $59,500. I'm not a calculator.

You have to have that. Out of that, let's not forget, by law, 25% of your gross earnings goes to the boat, like it or not.

Mr. Charles Hubbard: That's right.

Mr. Joe Papp: Then 25% of your gross earnings go to your hired men: 50% gone. Believe you me, when I have five weeks to make a living.... Six, I'm sorry. Mother Nature put a little damper on it this year. Altogether from the six weeks we can go out only five days, because of the wind. We can't help that. That's a different story. But let's say it's five weeks of fishing. Believe you me, it's a hard way to make a living.

Mr. Charles Hubbard: Let's put that into perspective. We meet some boat owners who are generating hundreds of thousands of dollars of revenue in a year. I just want to get that into perspective for the committee.

Mr. Joe Papp: It varies. One of the documents there, made up by research...in 1988 you'll see it varies anywhere from $10,000 to $100,000 in income. I'm telling you personal information, but it goes anywhere from $10,000 to $100,000. It depends on what bottom you have, how much time you have. It has nothing to do with your power. As for the size of the boat, we are limited to I think a 44-foot boat. That's it. You cannot go any higher. You have to go into steammanship and so on, so we're limited to size. There are size limitations on rings; size limitations on everything.

The Chairman: We'll now go to Nova Scotia. We have to be short on these questions because we have the union here as our next witnesses. Mr. Stoffer.

Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore, NDP): Mr. Papp, first I want to thank you very much for taking time out from your boat to come here. It's an expensive little venture, I can assure you. I think it would be very worth while if this committee could go on a scallop boat and actually see how it's done.

You mentioned that in your opinion the last research DFO did on scallops was in 1988. Is this a fact, that you're—

Mr. Joe Papp: It is a fact. DFO gave out that information in one of the papers, yes.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Nine years. That's unbelievable. That's crazy.

Also, you mentioned the differences in spawning time. In your opinion, when do scallops spawn?

Mr. Joe Papp: When we catch them in the spring you see the spawn in them. I do not know. The spawn is in them, the same as the lobster has the eggs on it. When they are going to lose it I do not know, because no research has been done about it. I'm not a scientist. I just see some of those scallops have spawn, some don't; and different colours. That's all I know about it. I do not know when they release.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: You're obviously getting hit from both sides, one from DFO and the other from the fishermen's association.

Mr. Joe Papp: Oh, lovely; just great.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: You're getting beat up from both angles. I find it hard that on a small island like P.E.I. we can't come to some sort of comparable solutions and get together to find out the problems and work together. Why do you think the association is going against you? There has to be a reason for this.

Mr. Joe Papp: Scallopers are almost a secondary breed, in a way. We are in the way. Over the years we were in the way. In the last few years the lobster catches have been dropping down—not rapidly, but they have been dropping down—so more effort is put into the scalloping part of it. They never even looked at us. But in the last two or three years DFO have realized what they have done, so they want to rectify the problem, cover up in a hurry: bang, we're going to finish it off; here we go; we'll clean up for 10 years, shut them out of the business, and rectify the problem.

• 1020

The fishermen's association did not do anything for us, particularly for the 17 fellows. I think their reasoning is that we're kind of second-class citizens, but I cannot tell you anything else about that. They're always telling us that we can't win. We are presenting them with this and we get another answer back, and they always tell us.... Nova Scotia, I've got nothing against Nova Scotia...my God, go ahead and fish, let's share the waters, great.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Okay, sir. You said that you had given your report to David Gillis, a biologist, and he was quite impressed with it.

Mr. Joe Papp: Yes. That report is over there.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Was that report forwarded to DFO?

Mr. Joe Papp: I gave it to David Gillis, who was acting on behalf of Kevin MacAdam.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Yes.

Mr. Joe Papp: Kevin MacAdam got the report, but it just didn't go anywhere. Then I got the answer back that provincial and federal governments are just like black and white, that you don't touch one or the other. So the only time that report reached federal levels was when I contacted Mr. Wayne Easter. That's the only time. I don't know if the committee has seen it or not, but David Gillis is a biologist and was very impressed with that. He agrees to every one of the points because they aid conservation and give a living back to everybody.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Thank you very much.

The Chairman: One question, Mr. Lunn.

Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands, Ref.): I'll be very brief.

I think Mr. Easter sort of hit the nail on the head here. There seems to be a lack of communication about what's going on, so I just want you to confirm something with me. Mr. Easter pretty much touched on this, and I think he's the guy who knows. One of the biggest problems I see is that you're not getting the information you need and that when you are getting directives from the department they're not always in writing, so nobody knows what the heck is going on. Is that a fair statement?

Mr. Joe Papp: That is fair enough. We don't get the information. Some of it is there, but we don't get it.

Mr. Gary Lunn: But it's not always in writing and therefore it goes askew, and nobody knows—

Mr. Joe Papp: We get lots of verbal information, but that's good for nothing.

Mr. Gary Lunn: That's right. And that's one of the big things I'm getting out of this. I see that there are competing interests. I know you've done a management report. I'm not sure who all is involved in that. Probably Mr. Easter could follow that up a lot better than I could, so I'll leave it at that, because I know we're going over our time. I thank you for coming.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Papp. We appreciate the time you took to appear here today. We'll get back to you.

Mr. Joe Papp: As a final statement, I would like thank you very much for your time, and I trust that you people are going to come up with a good solution for the scallopers—and for the lobster fishermen, for their sakes.

The Chairman: We now want to call three witnesses before the committee, two of whom will present to the committee, and one will be available to answer questions. We'll call to the table Mr. Roy Drake, Mr. Mervyn Misener, and Mr. Rory McLellan. These three gentlemen represent the Prince Edward Island Fishermen's Association Ltd. I understand that Mr. McLellan will do the presentation and Mr. Drake will be available for answering questions.

Gentlemen, go right ahead with your presentation.

Mr. Rory McLellan (Managing Director, Prince Edward Island Fishermen's Association Ltd.): Thank you for the opportunity to come here today. Mr. Misener will begin our presentation.

Mr. Mervyn Misener (Representative, Prince Edward Island Fishermen's Association Ltd.): Members of Parliament, ladies and gentlemen, on behalf of the Prince Edward Island Fishermen's Association, we thank you for this opportunity to address this committee.

This committee serves the critical function of informing the government that the people of Canada do have a stake in fisheries management despite a Fisheries Act that equips the minister and his delegates with almost absolute power.

When the minister or his apologists speak of the new act, formerly Bill 62, they will tell you that this is simply a modernization of an act which is more than 100 years old and that it simply bestows powers upon the minister that are already within his discretion. What is seldom discussed is what power should the minister have and to whom are he and his officials accountable. Clearly this committee is one of the few places where the minister must explain his actions, and as such your commitment to wide-based consultations is much appreciated.

• 1025

We have been asked to discuss the Atlantic Groundfish Strategy, TAGS, and the Fisheries Act. With respect to TAGS, the committee should know that this program has had very little effect on P.E.I. fishermen, as the majority of fishermen are multi-purpose fishermen who did not qualify for TAGS because they did not meet the criteria.

There were 782 islanders who applied for the TAGS and 582 who were approved in 1994. As of July 27, 1997, there were 319 active TAGS recipients, most of whom are 45 years old or more. The P.E.I. inshore fishery was very dependent on groundfish as a supplementary fishery. Under the TAGS criteria this fleet did not qualify for benefits. This fleet must be considered in any future support program.

The future of the groundfish fishery should continue to be a supplementary fishery, as in the past. This is very important to the continued viability of our inshore fleet. Scientists indicate that the stocks of cod in the southern Gulf of St. Lawrence have not improved since the closure of the fishery. This would indicate that the recovery is going to be a long one, and that it is not responsible to maintain the policy for the fleet shares at the time of closure that will be in effect at the time of the opening. It will be a long time before the ground fishery will be able to support these fleets at the levels required to keep them viable.

At the same time, any quota levels available will enhance the viability of the inshore multi-species fisher. There will never be enough fish to support large heavy capitalized fish-sucking factory draggers. There have never been enough fish to support this large industrial fleet and it is very unlikely that there ever will be.

When the federal minister make comments like “we'll reopen the fishery when there's enough fish to support all gear sectors”, we pause to wonder who was giving him advice.

Currently there's enough codfish on the north side of P.E.I. to reopen the hook-and-line fishery for all fishermen. This fishery is viable and can be maintained for hundreds of years without social assistance. We are certain that the scientists who conduct the actual work back in the region would support this, but those they report to in Ottawa are not interested in this kind of reopening. If the fishery is reopened with the same management regime as what was in place at the time of closure, it will collapse again. A radical change in thinking must take place.

This brings us to the new Fisheries Act, formerly Bill C-62. On the surface, this act is simply a modernization of the old act. Parts of this modernization should take into account new realities such as aboriginal fishery strategy, which in effect creates two classes of Canadian citizens by deeming some to have rights while others have privileges. Many Canadian citizens find this new reality objectionable, if not reprehensible, but once again people who object are not taken seriously or are deemed racist. The new act does not mention the AFS or define regulations for governance. It's a very interesting omission.

The new sections of the act are found in section 17, entitled “Fisheries Management Agreements”. This section allows for partnerships with any organization that in the opinion of the minister is representative of a class of persons or holders. This is the most problematic phrase and the most important section, which in our view needs to be changed.

We have no way of determining who these people with whom the government will make these binding agreements will be. Will they be large corporations representing the industrial fleets? Will they be environment groups that want to establish marine protected areas free of fishermen? Existing arrangements—for example, the economic threshold model that was agreed to by DFO—will serve to guarantee that all the snow crab in the gulf will be the exclusive property of very few and very rich crab fishermen and will give no crab to anyone else.

Will all future arrangements be made only with those who can afford to pay for science protection, resource allocation, and all of the other functions that were once the sole responsibility of DFO? These arrangements can be the virus to destroy the inshore fishery. It is clear that DFO wishes to embark on management agreements. What they are doing is taking species fisheries on a piecemeal basis without taking into consideration the majority of multi-purpose fishermen. There must be an overhaul plan for allocations of all fishery resources before any partnerships are considered.

• 1030

Mr. Rory McLellan: If we wanted to make one point stronger than any other point, this would be the one. We feel you cannot look at the fishery piecemeal; we must look at the overall good before we can enter into any kind of arrangement.

Since the late 1940s federal fisheries policies have maintained a blend of economic and social objectives. This mix of objectives is most readily apparent in major policy documents such as the 1976 policy and the Kirby task force report of 1983. These two approaches have coexisted in tension, with the pendulum of decision-making often swinging in favour of one approach or the other, the two approaches being social benefits and economic benefits.

Beginning with the drive to industrialize the Canadian fleet after World War II, economic rationalization has been the consistent theme of government policy. In recent years this approach is most evident in attempts at fleet rationalization and more orderly management through the establishment of quasi-private-property rights such as enterprise allocations, often referred to by the fishermen as EAs, and individual transferable quotas, often referred to as ITQs.

While the federal government has encouraged economic rationalization of fisheries in the latter half of the century, it has also involved numerous regional development programs to maintain employment in coastal communities. Although some view this policy as a social welfare approach, the commercial fisheries nevertheless provide for the livelihoods of tens of thousands of families in hundreds of fishing communities throughout Canada.

Federal fisheries ministers have repeatedly reaffirmed the importance of maintaining a social base in the fishery. Fish harvesters, through our group and through the Canadian Council of Professional Fish Harvesters, have stressed the importance of this policy approach. We question whether it is the policy of the Government of Canada to close down rural communities. In fairness, we think not. We certainly hope not.

Let there be no doubt that the inshore fishermen are being threatened on an almost daily basis by an ever increasing barrage of additional cost-recovery measures and so-called user fees. The committee should be aware that licensing fees have increased by 300%. Unemployment insurance premiums have increased by almost 1,000%. Administrative charges such as dockside monitoring and at sea observing are being totally borne by fishermen to such an extent that some fisheries—and we can point to two fisheries immediately on Prince Edward Island, rock crab and dogfish—had to close down because the administrative costs exceeded the value of the landings.

It is in this atmosphere that somebody up here has the nerve to suggest that fishermen should now be responsible to pay for wharves and harbour facilities that have been permitted to become decrepit and derelict under the auspices of saving money. In many cases on the island it would be cheaper to build new wharves than to repair the ones that have been left to us.

Moving away from the Fisheries Act, another concern of P.E.I. fishermen is the capital gains exemption of $500,000 extended to farmers and small businessmen but not to fishermen. At the present time a father cannot pass his enterprise to his son without paying capital gains tax. The lack of the $500,000 exemption will only lead to corporate ownership based on the principle that only those with the deepest pockets will be able to afford the purchase and the tax.

In closing, we would be remiss as Prince Edward Islanders if we did not mention the lobster fishery. We understand the landings of lobster in Quebec and in some areas of Atlantic Canada have been in decline. This decline has caused panic in some circles and has caused the federal government to commission the Fisheries Resource Conservation Council to publish a report called “A Conservation Framework for Atlantic Lobster”. Despite this report's self-proclaimed assertion that it is at best a tactful guesstimate, it is being held out as sacrosanct if not biblical.

We would like to point out to the committee that the lobster fishery is very successful on P.E.I. It is not something that is broken. Despite this, veiled threats are being made that the federal government would like to fix it. This can and will create tremendous tension for our fishermen and harm or perhaps even destroy our fishermen's association. It can do no good for harvesters, plant workers, or their families.

While we agree with the FRCC's general principle that the enhancement of stocks is preferred to the depletion of stocks, we have specific problems with this report as it relates to the fishery on P.E.I. and we feel considerable dialogue is required long before radical management decisions are considered.

• 1035

On behalf of the P.E.I. Fishermen's Association, we want to thank you. In particular, we want to thank the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Fisheries, our Island MP, Mr. Wayne Easter, for the honour of appearing here today.

Mr. Mervyn Misener: With your permission, Mr. Drake and Mr. McLellan will entertain the questions.

The Chairman: Thank you, gentlemen, for your very interesting brief.

We'll go to questions, but before we do, I have just one specific question on your brief. You say, as fishermen, that the groundfish fishery, the cod fishery in the gulf, should be reopened for hook-and-line only, not mobile gear. You say that DFO in Ottawa, the Ottawa decision-makers, are, of course, saying no and to have it open for all gear types. The fishermen are suggesting to open it to hook-and-line, baited hook. Ottawa says, no, we're going to put it as we've always had it, a certain amount for draggers....

Why do you think the bureaucracy in Ottawa has always been so pig-headed on this issue? Do you have any opinion on that?

Mr. Rory McLellan: Yes. I think it's at the crux of our presentation, and thank you for pointing that out. As a matter of fact, it's a message you've been pointing out for quite a large number of years.

Basically, there are two views of the fishery. There is one that is artisanal: that it is a subsistence, that people will go and make a living and feed their family. There is another that is corporate: that the fishery must harvest large amounts of fish to be internationally competitive and must make profits that you can bring to the stock exchange and this can be traded like commodities.

The job of the Minister of Fisheries over the years has been to balance these two views. He's uncomfortable; he's always sitting on this fence. He's always going one way or another.

With the latest round of cuts—“Let's pay off the deficit and let's do it tonight”—the pendulum is starting to shift more to the corporate view, the corporate identity of the fishery. What we're hoping to say very loudly is that it is not a solution that will help Atlantic Canada in any kind of long term.

The Chairman: Mr. Stoffer.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: I have to admit I really got a chuckle when you described the factory draggers as “fish-sucking factory draggers”. I couldn't agree with you more on that statement. These things, in terms of the corporate control of our fish and what they can catch in the span of hours, are doing a tremendous amount of damage to our stocks.

I have two very quick concerns. You had mentioned the aboriginal fisheries strategy. Has your organization or your association at all had consultations with the aboriginal communities to come up with solutions or reasonable compromises?

Mr. Rory McLellan: Yes, many. If it were a case where we could talk to the native community and have some level of assurance that whatever was negotiated could be enforced, we probably wouldn't have any problem at all. Unfortunately, a deal is not a deal if nobody enforces the deal, and the federal government's attitude has been, well, this is a right, so we really don't want to devote any fisheries officers to this, we don't want to do anything to patrol it.

Although we mention the aboriginal fisheries strategy, I want to be very clear that our problem has not been with the native communities. Our problem has been with the federal bureaucracy.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: On November 29 I was in O'Leary, P.E.I., speaking to some fishing groups there. They said exactly the same thing as you did on the cod, that a groundfish, on a limited scale, under strict surveillance, should be open for hook-and-line fisheries. I'm just going to ask that question again, as the chair has done. Why do you think that DFO in Ottawa—I'm assuming it's the bureaucrats here in Ottawa, not necessarily the ones you have in P.E.I.—are so strongly against that?

• 1040

Mr. Rory McLellan: First of all, just to clarify, we are looking for a hook-and-line fishery on the north side of P.E.I. On the south side of P.E.I., in the Northumberland Strait, we are looking for an opening for the inshore fishermen, but we have to be very careful about gear type and so on for there. A hook-and-line fishery will not work there.

Once again, we are holding a certain point of view and somebody else disagrees with us, so the question is being asked, why does somebody disagree? I guess the simple answer is it's because they are wrong.

I think if the fishery opens to inshore fishermen only there will be some corporations and corporate interests who will not be very happy and who will make their unhappiness known to the federal government. The federal government feels a warmth to this point of view. Why they feel that way I can't fathom.

The Chairman: Mr. Hubbard.

Mr. Charles Hubbard: I'm concerned about the feeling you seem to have that the federal bureaucracy is more sympathetic to the corporate sector of the fishery. Secondly, could you elaborate a little about this rural feeling, where you think as rural people the federal government is not responsive, and in fact has not been very fair, to rural fishermen in rural Canada? Could you elaborate on that statement as part of your submission?

Mr. Roy Drake (Prince Edward Island Fishermen's Association Ltd.): The thing we see as fishermen is when you look at cost recovery, for example, with the increased licence fees, the increased UI fees, the cutbacks in UI, the privatization of our harbours, where they had to take over as port authorities, what is happening is that is money that is being taken straight from our communities.

The other thing we see is that we can go back to the groundfish portion, the ITQ fleet, basically, versus the inshore fleet. The reality now seems to be that the recovery of the cod stock is going to be a long-term recovery. It's not something that's going to happen quickly. In order to face that reality, I think we need to be able to support our inshore fleet. That really is the backbone of our community. The people who are involved in the fishery need access to additional resources, such as the ground fishery. It doesn't have to be on a large basis, but each small piece of the resource fits into the support of that fishery.

You get that feeling also because of the suggestion of the partnerships. What we've seen with the partnerships is that the partnerships that have been started have started from the top down. They have started with the crab fleet, for example, where they have made partnership agreements with groups that are very rich groups, groups that are able to pay for the management costs and all the costs DFO might want to download. It's very easy to do that if you are going to hand over a rich share of the resource to a small group.

Mr. Charles Hubbard: You are saying that from your perspective the so-called way of getting the annual deficit under control with program review...you in rural Canada feel you have paid more than your fair share of that reduction in government spending. Is that what you are trying to say to us?

Mr. Roy Drake: We believe we have.

Mr. Charles Hubbard: Is there a strong feeling in that regard in Atlantic Canada?

Mr. Roy Drake: I believe there is.

The Chairman: Mr. Easter.

Mr. Wayne Easter: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Although you don't have a lot of people affected by the Atlantic Groundfish Strategy in P.E.I., it is something the committee has been meeting fairly extensively on. I'm wondering if you have any view on where we should go in future fisheries management relative to the Atlantic ground fishery not coming back in the timeframe we expected it would. Should there be early retirement, should there be licensed buy-backs, and so on?

• 1045

Mr. Roy Drake: I think maybe some of that sort of thing might work itself out eventually, but the primary point we would like to make is that a good example of the reason we have to have TAGS is because of the dependency on single-species fishers.

What we're proposing and what we're representing here are multi-species fishers that aren't largely dependent on one single species and when something happens to that they come looking for support. If we have access to all of the resources, our enterprises can get their revenue from several different sources. Then you will be less likely to be into that problem again in the future.

Mr. Wayne Easter: That brings me to the second point I want to raise, which is your statement in bold print:

There must be an overall plan for allocation of all fishery resources before any partnerships are considered.

In terms of my observation, based on the travel in Newfoundland, Labrador, and so on, it's clear to me that there are some people making big money out of the fishery, yet the traditional fishery and the communities thereby affected are standing on the wharves with their hands in their pockets and suffering fairly substantially.

But as to your statement here, we've seen in the last week a copy of the co-management agreement on crab, so DFO has already moved some distance in terms of establishing partnerships. So how do you come back to what you're suggesting here when we're down this road this far already?

Mr. Rory McLellan: All is not lost. The lobster fishery on P.E.I., thank God, has been successful enough to sustain the inshore fishery to the point where this fleet is viable.

The problem we see is this: Lobster is to P.E.I. what codfish was to Newfoundland. Nobody in Newfoundland ever expected that was going to disappear, and when it did it created a devastating situation because the people were fully reliant upon it. Our fleet is fully reliant upon lobster, and we must not have that situation ever again. I believe Mr. Drake alluded to it earlier. We must have a situation where nobody is totally dependent upon one thing, because with nature it's too risky. So our fishermen need, deserve, and should have access to the crab resource.

The government has made partnership with some rich crab fishermen in Caraquet and a few others and has said you can have all the crab. Some time ago this arrangement was formed. Minister Tobin broke the arrangement. Minister Tobin stepped in and said no, we're going to start sharing this around the gulf, and he did. Minister Mifflin followed, and now we'll see what will happen.

The pressure on the minister to fold his tent and to go back to the old way of doing things, to go back to the few getting rich while the majority can depend upon one thing, is tempting, sure. Sure there are people up there who are pushing him to go that way. We will try to push and persuade and coax and plead to do things the other way, to give our fishermen access to all the resources and to all the licences.

Mr. Wayne Easter: Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Easter. We'll have Mr. Duncan, and then we'll go to the Bloc.

Mr. John Duncan: Thank you.

In your presentation you talked about the concern about the economics of your business when you're forced into doing things with monitoring and observer programs. I've heard the same concerns in other parts of both coastlines, and I wonder how much ability you have to design those programs. It seems like DFO sometimes is really micro-managing the thing to the point where they're affecting your business and flying in the face of common sense, and unless you are an active designer of the program, it's not going to work.

• 1050

I also want to talk about the Fisheries Act. I'm really pleased that you have addressed the Fisheries Act in your paper and you specifically went after section 17. That's a consistent theme. If section 17 of the new Fisheries Act is not changed—we understand it's going to be reintroduced in the spring—the minister will really have carte blanche to hand over allocations to his friends, individuals or the person who contributes the most to the Liberal Party of Canada, in my opinion.

Well, it's a major concern, Mr. Easter.

You also, in that same breath, talked about the fact that the aboriginal fisheries strategy is omitted from the act. My submission is it's not omitted, because the minister can also give any allocation under the Fisheries Act, if it's not changed, to any Indian band, tribal group, or anyone he may choose. So it really legitimizes the separate commercial fishery based on race that so many people have been opposed to. We're not talking about that constitutional fishery.

Those are my two questions. The first one is about the observer program and the second one is whether opposition will continue to be strong to that provision of the Fisheries Act.

The Chairman: Before you answer, we're under some time limitations, so perhaps you can answer Mr. Duncan and then we'll go to the Bloc Québécois. Go ahead.

Mr. Rory McLellan: We have had no say whatsoever in the at-sea observing and very little say in dockside monitoring. Indeed, the federal government set up a five-year contract with Biorex, a company that was originally in Quebec, and we were not allowed to do business with any other company. It fixed all the costs and charged $325 a day on average, and we had no other option. We couldn't go to another company. It was a standing offer.

On dockside monitoring, we have said loudly many times to please put this in the hands of the fishermen. Nobody will do a better job of monitoring Roy Drake's catch than Mervyn Misener, because Mervyn is not interested in Roy getting ahead of him. We're going to do a super job on that. We're going to do it cheaper.

Its response has been to check with the justice department about arm's-length provisions and so on. But I have noticed—and perhaps it's Mr. Easter's influence—a significant shift in its policy on this. I think it's coming around almost to the point where we will be able to do something ourselves on the question of dockside monitoring.

On the question of at-sea observing, we're still stuck with the five-year agreement.

With respect to opposition to the Fisheries Act, it is a large act, and in our document we say we are opposed to only one section, section 17. I don't know how many sections there are, but clearly there are over a hundred, so that's not bad. This can be fixed if they will define partnership agreements and address some of the problems we see with the AFS.

The Chairman: Mr. Bernier.

[Translation]

M.Yvan Bernier (Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Pabok, BQ): I'll try to be brief. I'll have a comment and a question.

I think that the witnesses are very wise when they refer to section 17 of the former Bill C-62. I think they understood right from the start what the department was aiming at.

• 1055

If Roy or the other witnesses have an opportunity to answer, I'd like to hear their comments on the end of their last paragraph where they ask whether only those who fish a lucrative species will be able to afford a management agreement. When an agreement has been signed, you have to cover all expenses.

Is it more important to have good management for crab conservation or for herring conservation? They are not equally lucrative. Mr. Chairman, you and I both know how important the food chain is. We should perhaps find a mechanism to enable us to get some data on herring.

The witnesses are saying that we should do an overall review of the allocations before establishing any partnership. It seems very wise to me also.

I'd like to understand how they came to their view on the ITQ system. I can see that if it is used by large companies, they are not on an equal footing.

Fishermen whose boats are under 45 feet don't have the same financial means as big factory draggers. If we made a new start with this system and if it was offered to them, with their actors and their rules, it couldn't belong to a company, but always to an individual. Could such a management system be implemented along those lines?

[English]

Mr. Rory McLellan: Merci. Mr. Bernier has spent a long time in the fisheries, so he asks complex and difficult questions because he has knowledge that is probably greater than mine.

Mr. Yvan Bernier: Do it step by step.

Mr. Rory McLellan: But with respect to the first question, about how some partnership agreements may not be possible because some fisheries would not be as lucrative as others and therefore it would not make it possible to pay the administrative costs, we will explain how we have reacted. And we're not saying that we're right or that this is the model that others should follow.

In the past two years our association has been given an allocation of crab. We have used a little of that money to fund other initiatives in other species. So once again this is the overall approach. And this example is not one that we did, but it is an example. For example, if we couldn't afford to have dockside monitoring of herring because herring was four cents a pound and dockside monitoring would cost more than four cents a pound and we received a lot more money on tuna, let's say, maybe we could use some of the tuna money to pay for the dockside monitoring of herring. That's basically how we have reacted.

Is it a good approach? I can't say. I know that some of the dockside monitoring we've been doing makes no sense. For example, we have dockside monitoring on dogfish and rock crab. For those of you who don't know, dockside monitoring basically means that somebody sits on the wharf and counts the number of fish. Now one would assume, logically speaking, that the reason somebody would count the number of fish is that when we get to a certain number we could close the fishery, because it's quota-regulated. However, both of those fisheries are not quota-regulated, so we're counting the fish for absolutely no reason. There is no upper number. There is no point whatsoever to doing it, but we are doing it.

With respect to the ITQ system, some fishermen.... As a matter of fact, we were with our colleagues in Quebec last week and we were talking about our presentation here. They were saying to us that they would never say that, because there are some fisheries where ITQs can work. Put in the right hands with the right people, it can work. In Quebec they can point to some examples of where this has happened and where it has been successful.

• 1100

We left it in our presentation even though we recognize that in Quebec in some instances this has worked. However, it seems to us a Pac Man approach. It's like introducing boxing gloves to the fishery and telling people not to fight. Basically everybody has a little piece of the action, and if you want more you have to buy the other guy out. So it becomes Pac Man. It becomes somebody getting fatter all the time and others getting gobbled up.

Is it a good plan? Yes, if your objective is to cut the numbers of people in the fishery it's a good plan, but I wonder if that ought to be our objective. In P.E.I. we're saying it shouldn't be our objective. In other places maybe that should be our objective.

The Chairman: Mr. Stoffer, did you want to add a brief comment?

Mr. Peter Stoffer: I did. Before we go, I wanted to wish everybody on the standing committee, all their staff, the media, and everybody in this room and anybody watching a very happy Christmas and a great new year.

The Chairman: And a happy new year.

Gentlemen of the P.E.I. Fishermen's Association Ltd., Mr. Roy Drake, Mr. Mervyn Misener, and Mr. Rory McLellan, thank you very much for your presentation to this committee.

Mr. Rory McLellan: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: The committee is adjourned to the call of the chair.