Thank you, Mr. Chair. If ever I do go over my allotted time and do not hear the bell, please feel free to interrupt me. I'm not accustomed to procedure.
As you well know, the lobster industry is a $1 billion industry for Atlantic Canada. It is also a fact that 50,000 tons of lobster are landed each year. A total of 10,000 small fishing businesses are involved, along with 25,000 people who work on the boats. An additional 25,000 people work on the docks, in the plants and elsewhere. Therefore, it is a very important industry, as you well know, for all of Atlantic Canada and for Quebec.
The current crisis is one of major proportions. In my opinion, there are two sides to this crisis. It is a structural in nature, but it also is tied to current economic conditions. Twenty-five per cent of lobster fishing is done in Quebec's Gaspé region. Gaspé's lobster fishers are experiencing both types of crises. In the case of the Magdalen Islands, a situation that I'm more familiar with, I would say that right now, the crisis there is tied more to economic circumstances.
In structural terms—I believe I'm the last provincial representative of fishers—one possible solution to the problem is likely the rationalization of the industry, as a number of you have surely suggested. However, I would caution both my colleagues and committee members not to think that rationalization is going to completely solve the crisis in the lobster industry.
I concur with the view expressed by certain provincial representatives. I believe the report of the FRCC, the Fisheries Resource Conservation Council, needs to be fully examined. A number of important recommendations in the report must be carried out. As you know, we in the Magdalen Islands have taken the FRCC's report to heart. That is why I said earlier that the crisis we're facing is tied more to economic circumstances, than to the way the industry is structured.
Having said that, during the current crisis, considerable emphasis is being placed on international trade rules, which are primarily political responsibilities. Government has a responsibility to ensure our economic security at a time when our industry has been globalized, and not at our behest.
You may recall that between 1985 and 1990, all existing programs that provided support to the lobster industry were abolished. I'm speaking about the situation in Quebec. There may be a few adjustments to make for the other provinces, but as I recall, the federal government had in place programs to insure fishing boats and these have disappeared. There were programs in place to guarantee maximum prices for gear in provinces other than Newfoundland, and these are no more. A range of industry support programs have disappeared.
The years from 1990 to 1995 were a time when costs were off-loaded, so to speak, on to the industry. The federal government introduced licence fees for the Magdalen Islands' lobster fishers. Even though this is a very small industry, a lobster fishing licence can cost as much as $800. So then, licensing costs were off-loaded. In related areas of the fishery, costs were transferred in the case of marine observers, dockside weighing, and so forth. As I said, a significant number of costs were transferred in the early 1990s.
I also lament the fact that the federal and provincial governments have failed to initiate talks with the industry about possibly adding a second component to the safety net which, since the 1950s, has been compromised of employment insurance.
As you know, the federal government responds on two levels to agricultural crises. At the provincial level, there is a third intervention level, at least in Quebec's case. The situation in the fishery is nowhere near the same as it is in the agricultural sector. With respect to the income security program, or the safety net—you can call it whatever you like—depending on the scope of the crisis, the government may intervene at either the first, the second, or the third level. It could intervene at the first level, or, if the crisis is a little more serious, at the second level, or, if the situation is really bad, at the third level. One important thing to remember is that these programs apply for a set period of time, whether three years or five years, for instance. According to Patrick Pichette, Google's Chief Financial Officer, in order to discourage inertia, it is important to feed the winners, and starve the losers. I wouldn't go so far as Mr. Pichette, but I do think that it is important to support productive efforts, otherwise, in my opinion, the industry is condemned to self-destruct.
One principle is especially important for the lobster fishers of the Magdalen Islands, and that is equity, which is not necessarily the same thing at all as equality. We in Quebec have a hard time understanding why crab quotas were used for 15 years to support fixed gear groundfish fishing fleets when some were not profitable. This is not the kind of support that we are requesting for the lobster fishing industry. We feel that fleets that are performing well and that trying to overcome current economic circumstances should be helped. While everyone should be supported, it is important first and foremost to help those who help themselves. In that respect, I have to say that the lack of a support program at this point in time is unfortunate.
Getting back to international trade, it is invoked to justify the lack of support to the industry. It bothers me tremendously that this argument is used. It is hard for us to understand why the industrial component, that is the plants, or the large buyers, would deny lobsters fishers in crisis the support they need. Integration is all well and good, but we've already had a taste of it in the case of other resources, such as goldfish. We saw how disastrous that experience turned out to be when the skipper-owner rule in the case of vessels 65 feet or longer in length was modified to favour large plants. We believe that businesses should remain family-type or cottage operations. That is the best way to protect the resource and ensure its sustainability.
If fishers are abandoned and not given any support, we will be heading toward the type of system that some are demanding. That would prove to be a cost-effective, albeit short-term, solution. I'm not trying to be pessimistic, but in the medium term, we could end up destroying the resource in Canada. We have seen this happen with other resources around the world.
