in the opinion of many are undermaintain- 

 ed. Canadian trawlers benefit also from 

 preferential treatjuent on supplies obtain- 

 ed from other conmonwealth covintries - 

 particularly gear from England - and by 

 the fact that labor costs in Canadian 

 yards are lower than those of New England 

 yards. 



Despite the lower labor rates of 

 Canadian yards and the absence of the 

 advantages of concentration and integra- 

 tion in New England, it is doubtful wheth- 

 er an individual trawler operating from 

 the Atlantic Provinces would benefit from 

 any substantial cost advantage over conpa- 

 rable New Englaixl trawlers fVom lovrar 

 repair and maintenance expenses, since 

 most repair parts are purchased from the 

 United States. The costs of repajjr parts, 

 after tariff and transportation charges, 

 wovild necessarily be higher to the Cana- 

 dian operator, 



b . Insurance 



The lower instirance expenditures of 

 the Canadian vessel relative to New England 

 vessels may be primarily attributed to the 

 lower coverage limits and costs of pro- 

 tection and indemnity insxirance of Cana- 

 dian trawlers. 



Coverage limits of P and I insurance 

 on trawlers operating from the Atlantic 

 Provinces were between $100, OCX) and 

 fl50,000 per vessel, ii^'while in New Eng- 

 land the coverage limits of P and I insiu*- 

 ance are between $300,000 and S?00,000 per 

 vessel on both Boston and Gloucester ves- 

 sels, and $200,000 to $350,000 per vessel 

 on Maine trawlers, iiz.' 



The cost of such insurance was only 

 8l50 to $250 per man for Canadian trawlers j 

 while in the New England area, the cost of 

 P and I insurance ranged from $300 to over 

 a $1,000 per man. 



The substantial difference in the 

 coverage limits of protection and indemnity 

 insurance between the two areas is due to 

 the differing legal situations facing 

 trawler operators, Canadian fishermen are 

 covered by the Workmen's Compensation Act 

 which expressly spells out the trawler 

 operator's liability. On the other hand. 

 New England fishermen are excluded from 

 coverage under workmen's compensation but 

 are included under the Jones Act, The New 

 England trawler operator, operating within 

 the confines of the Jones Act, is faced 

 with an \inlimited liability as the Act 

 fails to specifically state the limits of 

 the owner's liability; and in reality the 

 trawler operator's liability is often 

 determined by jury trial. iiE' 



Whether New England trawler operators 

 would benefit from lower insiirance costs 

 by the inclusion of fisherman under a 

 Workmen's Compensation Act is open to soma 

 argument, since manj' insurance brokers 

 agree with a statement by one of their 

 number that "The Workmen's Compensation 

 Act is a high-cost proposition in Massa- 

 chusetts." Ihe cost to the owner might 

 even be higher under the Act than it is 

 at present, 



c. Other Vessel Expenditures 



Differences in accounting procediires 



are perhaps responsible for the variations 

 in administrative and other expenditiires. 

 Although nothing is known of the items in- 

 cluded in this category on Canadian trawl- 

 ers, a large portion of administrative and 

 other expenditures of Boston-baeed trawlers 

 consists of corporate officer's salaries. 

 Such salaries amounted to approximately 

 $11,000 in both 1956 and 1957 on the large 

 (200 gross-ton) trawlers. This amount is 

 exclusive of the wages paid to the shore 

 captain, which averaged $1^,000 per year in 

 both 1956 and 1957, Corporate officer's 

 salaries are not generally included in the 



llV Information sv^splied by Canadian trawler owners, 



115/ Information supplied by New Eligland insurance brokers, 



116/ For a discussion of the Jones Act and its rand.fi cations, see Dan forth, Warner C. 

 and Theodore, Chris A., Hull lasorance and Protection and Indemnity Insurance of Com- 

 mercial Fishing Vessels , United States Department of the Interior, Special Scientific 

 fieport— Fisheries No. 2iil. Washington, D.C., 1957, 



79 



