Fishers in the Magdalen Islands or in Quebec may not have the same concerns about employment insurance. Obviously, measures aimed at supporting fishing activity would alleviate the costs associated with the wages of fisher helpers. These wages represent a major expense. Consequently, any measure that would help fishing business owners to cover the wages of their fishing boat crew would be appreciated in Quebec and the Magdalen Islands.
With respect to income and price security, the fishers of the Magdalen Islands have made an effort, in so far as the FRCC is concerned. In our minds, it is clear that this crisis is tied to economic circumstances that are specific to the Magdalen Islands. We hope that new intervention measures will be applied in the future. First and foremost, we want to emerge from this crisis situation in the short term, but any new measures should address the situation in the industry in the short, medium and long term. Parallel action is required. For that reason, I would like to see a wide-ranging study undertaken. I'm not necessarily calling for a commission of inquiry, but rather for a commission that would have a mandate to examine the whole issue of income security in the industry. We have seen similar commissions in the past. It is truly unfair that our fishers are being treated differently, even though they are entitled to employment insurance.
This could, in my opinion, be one way of dealing with the situation By no means am I calling into question employment insurance.That program is greatly appreciated. Nevertheless, I believe additional measures can be considered to further take into account the plight of fishing operations. Employment insurance is a comprehensive income security measure that is not directly tied to business profitability. For that reason, additional programs or measures are needed. They may not be of the same magnitude as those introduced in the agricultural sector, but we are not asking that they be.
While some have always believed that we were asking for similar consideration, that is not true. In any case, we do not compare ourselves to the agricultural industry, where programs have been affected by major inflation and have had to be reviewed, and rightly so in my opinion, because of overproduction. Farmers started to produce too much. The situation is very different in the fishing industry where a resource is harvested. The “pie“ is clearly defined. Overproduction is impossible. It's different for people who grow products and who may over-produce, and for financial aid programs that are subject to inflation. We are not in this kind of situation, and that is an advantage for us.
These programs are not free. They must rely on the contribution of fishers. Our ability to invest in these programs is more limited than is the case for farmers. So then, any programs targeting our industry would not be costly, compared to ones designed to help the agricultural industry.
Finally, as far as the Americans are concerned, unfortunately I cannot give you a specific answer to your question. My knowledge of what transpired is fairly limited. I do know that funds were allocated to certain parties, but from what I understand, the money was provided by oil companies that were helping communities as part of certain programs.
