Fisheries Committee on Oct. 24th, 2006

[Gerry Byrne, Liberal, Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL]

Thank you, gentlemen, for coming forward again, and a special welcome to officials from the Department of Transport.

On the dynamic between Transport Canada requirements and DFO requirements, simply put, Transport Canada is strictly involved in safety and has no lens to view this issue from a fisheries management point of view; and Fisheries and Oceans views the issue strictly from a conservation and management point of view, with some reflection on safety. However, the requirement for fishermen to actually work within both sets of guidelines and work within an economic environment causes fishermen to adhere to vessel length and volume requirements of DFO and then try to match safety requirements as an afterthought--well, not as an afterthought, that would be improper--as a test of their skill as boat designers and builders.

When this particular strategy was developed by DFO in terms of putting in place both length and volume requirements back in the 1970s, there were no dockside monitoring or onboard observers. In fact, there were no quota requirements in most fisheries back in the 1970s.

Given the fact that we have a whole bunch of rules to enact fisheries management and conservation requirements, why is regulation of boat length and volume still such a critical factor for DFO in a management and conservation regime?

[David Bevan]

For any fishery that's ITQ, IQ, or any of those types of fisheries, we don't occupy ourselves with limits on the vessels. Where we are concerned is in terms of overcapitalization, bad use of capital, and creating the situation where people are pushing themselves to further invest in capacity when they don't have enough fish to make it pay. There's pressure on the stocks as a result of that. And it does turn it into an economic and conservation concern. In fisheries that are competitive, we don't have those other incentives to get the balance right.

In an ITQ fishery, the incentive for the head of the enterprise is to get the right boat for the amount of quota they have so they don't have excessive costs and they don't have poor economic or fuel efficiency.

Where we've seen it go in the other direction is in terms of vessels that were designed for competitive groundfish fisheries. You'll see them. They're at the limit. They're 44 feet 11 inches. They're very wide in the beam and deep. It is unfortunate that they've gone that way. It's a big capital investment in something that costs a lot of money to run, that's uncomfortable, and that isn't necessarily the best choice for the fishery. But they're the best choice for those individual fishermen in light of the way we manage the fishery.

We would like to see different incentives in place, and that's why in 2003 we offered fishermen the opportunity to choose different types of management regimes so they could get away from these vessel replacement rules. Many fleets have not chosen that kind of approach.

Where you have other management strategies, we don't need these replacement rules. It's where we have a competitive fishery and the incentive is to build bigger and bigger boats, and more and more capital is spent to get a bigger share of the TAC for your enterprise, that you have the tragedy of over-investment. And eventually you end up with extreme pressure on the minister and the government to make more fish available. We have to avoid that, if possible, and find other ways to deal with these capacity issues.

[Gerry Byrne, Liberal, Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL]

David, the view of the department would be that that is a greater incentive to comply with fisheries management regulations and licence conditions than having on-board observers, dockside monitoring, and surveillance. Is it the point of view of the department that control of capacity, in terms of boat length and volume, is an absolute, paramount conservation tool?

[David Bevan]

Where you have a competitive fishery, where there is no individual limit, and the amount of fish being caught by an enterprise is open within the constraints of the fishing plan and the TAC, then what you would have in the case of no limits on capacity is an increase in capacity that will eventually have an impact on conservation. Clearly, if you have an individual quota, that can take the place of observers, dockside monitors, and vessel monitoring systems. But if you don't have some limit, and you allow open-ended capitalization, you'll end up with people who are economically stressed. We have that already within the constraints. We see it in some of the lobster fisheries, where people are putting in such large boats that they are now pressed to catch every pound of fish they possibly can in order to pay the bills.

Fishermen will, by nature, not go bankrupt before they push the envelope on compliance. If you allow open-ended investment, and they can't make enough money legally to pay for those investments, and they have to pay bills, they'll do whatever they have to do to deal with that. And that may mean that there's a compromise on conservation at some point.

[Gerry Byrne, Liberal, Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL]

If I'm reading it correctly, to capture what you're saying, there's no immediate concern, but there is a long-term concern, and the long-term concern is a political concern in that pressure will be brought to bear on the minister and the department to over-allocate fish resources based on the fact that they have to meet the payroll.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerald Keddy]

We're going to leave that as a statement, because you're two minutes over time and we might get a chance to come back to that question.

[Gerry Byrne, Liberal, Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL]

It's not a statement, because it's not necessarily something I would agree with. I'm testing the witnesses as to exactly what their point of view on this is.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerald Keddy]

We can get that opportunity in the next round.

Monsieur Blais.

[Raynald Blais, Bloc, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to approach the issue from a fundamental and not technical standpoint. In the explanations given by Mr. Bevan and Mr. Nash, my understanding is that there is no consensus and that we don't speak with one voice. You'll tell me if I'm wrong.

Mr. Bevan seemed to say that boat stability is not a big factor in the accidents or incidents which happened.

My understanding was that what Mr. Nash said was much more qualified, namely that in fact boat stability is an important enough factor to warrant a study, a check, an analysis of what happened over the last few years, even in consultation with the industry, to finally come out with new regulations.

I would like to give Mr. Bevan and Mr. Nash the opportunity to tell me whether they speak with one voice or not.

[David Bevan]

We established the vessel length rules to avoid overcapacity for a type of fishery, We don't aim at increasing the safety of fishermen, since this is the responsibility of Transport Canada. On our side, we have established these limits for the viability of the fishing industry. It is the responsibility of the master and of Transport Canada to ensure that operations are safe.

[William J. Nash]

For us, what matters, is the safety of vessels. Masters and crews should be well aware of the capacity of their vessel in different conditions.

In my opinion, the most important thing for a fisherman is to know when his vessel is at risk at sea. This is the reason why we have requirements on the stability of the vessel as well as on some other aspects.

[Raynald Blais, Bloc, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

I understand that the mandates of Transport Canada and of Fisheries and Oceans Canada may be different. However, in as much as safety is concerned, I think we should be better equipped and that we should be on the same wavelength.

I must have misunderstood. It would seem that the events of the recent years bring you to make a study or an analysis on vessel stability. However, I imagine that there were enough accidents to have a control and monitoring program to be able to check what happens day-to-day, month after month, season after season, as is the case, for example, for traffic accidents.

As far as vessels are concerned, the road is made of water. I thought that statistics were always present and that there was always an examination, an analysis, a particular attention on this.

It looks as if the events of the last few years would force you and would bring you to make the work you are making now. Wasn't this work done previously?

[Victor Santos-Pedro]

What you are saying is true. As a matter of fact, no change had been made to the rules for more than 25 years. Moreover, across Canada, the fishing industry went through big changes.

This is one of the big problems we are facing today. The situation may be different if amendments had been put forward at the time the situation was changing in the fishing industry across Canada.

Now, the rules remained the same for 25 or 30 years. We went through many changes and we know that accidents do happen. It is what we are analyzing now, to give us the means to prevent such a high accident rate from reoccurring. This is what we want to change.

[Raynald Blais, Bloc, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

I suppose you are all committed to safety.

What happened? Why didn't we necessarily make this examination of the situation, considering the very rapid pace of change? Is it because you didn't have enough money earmarked for these analyses? Didn't you have enough resources? What can justify that this work we are doing today wasn't done, in conditions where traffic is different, bigger, more varied and where accidents happen?

[Victor Santos-Pedro]

Several factors can explain the delays in the changes to the rules, but there was a big change earlier, at the time we made a reform. It is called safety rules reform. This is one of the reasons of these delays.

Other priorities arose from time to time, and it is then that we brought in these changes. Since we have done nothing for 30 years, some changes will have more effect. The other reason is that, during that time, many changes occurred in the fishing industry. Modifications are made to vessels which are designated for a new function. They undergo so many modifications that they end up being more at risk because that type of vessel isn't really designed for the kind of fishery it is in now.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerald Keddy]

Merci, monsieur Blais.

Ms. Bell.

[Catherine Bell, NDP, Vancouver Island North, BC]

Thank you.

I am substituting for Mr. Stoffer today, and I would like to thank the committee and the presenters for their presentations. Mr. Stoffer has always been interested in shipbuilding. Unfortunately, he's missing his opportunity to ask some questions.

I know you are reviewing the regulations. You say that boat length and size is an issue, but is it the only one? What are some of the other significant reasons for accidents?

Then I have a question about the regulations and the ability to enforce them for inspection. That's been an ongoing concern of fishermen, boat builders, and people in the industry in my riding and across Canada. Is there is any review of the personnel requirements with respect to enforcing regulations once you have made your decisions?

[David Bevan]

The Department of Fisheries and Oceans has put in limits because we need to avoid overcapitalization. In the long term that leads to pressure on the resource as a result of pushing to have the quotas high, but also as a result of the need for people to pay the bills. They'll do what's needed to pay the bills if they're pushed economically. That's why we have those in there.

There are concerns about stability, etc. When some vessels hit the limit, they get wide but they don't get high. Therefore you don't have the same kind of concerns as you would if you had something like a small dragger in the shrimp fishery or the groundfish fishery.

I'll have to turn it over to Transport Canada to talk about what happens when you hit those limits and you have vessels that are 64 feet 11 inches, by 30-some feet wide, by 50 feet from the keel to the deck head. That's what we have in reality, and that's what people are using in these fisheries.

[William J. Nash]

Yes, we can talk about that.

From an inspection and enforcement perspective, fishing vessels between 15 and 150 gross tons are required to be inspected and certified every four years. This has been going on for quite some time. Currently we haven't looked at reviewing our inspection requirements.

There are some triggers that would require us to go to a vessel. If there's a change in fishery or to the vessel—if top weight was added to a vessel, for example—then it would be incumbent upon the owner to come to us and say this has happened, and our folks would look at it from a safety perspective.

For the future, we are looking at the possibility of expanding our vessel monitoring program, which we started several years ago to cover passenger vessels, small commercial vessels—other than fishing vessels—to include vessels under 15 gross tons.

That's what we do with respect to the enforcement and inspection of small fishing vessels.

[Catherine Bell, NDP, Vancouver Island North, BC]

Mr. Bevan, I'm glad to hear your comments on capacity, on the issue of larger boats and overfishing, and on how you sort of see it as a control. I think that's good.

I'm wondering how much pressure there is from the fishing fleets because of the quota holders. Quite often fishermen hold a number of licences and want to increase their capacity. How much pressure is there from the industry to maintain a larger boat?

[David Bevan]

We get pressure from individuals to go to larger vessels when they're replacing. They may find a vessel that exceeds the size limit and want to use it. They may have a mix of licences, as you pointed out, with a larger size limit for one licence than another. We get pressure from individuals.

If you look at fleets as a whole, even in areas such as southwest Nova Scotia, where a lot of people were building very large boats and trying to push the size limit, the majority still want to maintain the size limit. Individuals have a tendency to want bigger boats, but as for the fleets, the collective view may be to maintain the size limits. It depends on the circumstances, and to a large extent it would also depend on the nature of the fishery.

For example, when we switched from competitive to ITQ fishing in Nova Scotia, people had more freedom to choose the vessel they wanted. They had a tendency not to go to very large vessels, because they were making the right investment for the amount of quota they had.

There's pressure, but it depends on the fleet and the circumstances, and often it takes the form of individual requests.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerald Keddy]

Thank you, Ms. Bell.

I have a quick point, and then I'll go to our next questioner.

As a point of clarification, and to Mr. Bevan's remarks on southwest Nova Scotia, there's quite a discussion among fishermen who fish the near inshore, with the 34-foot 11-inch boats, and the fishermen who fish the offshore, from roughly the 15-mile to the 50-mile line, and that's where the difference lies.

I'd like a point of clarification on the statistics on boat accidents from 1980 to the present time, because we've not received them. Have accidents gone up or down, and what's the cause? Is it a question of icing, equipment failure, or overloading? I think this very much pertains to the discussion we're having, and it's a piece of information that hasn't been forthcoming.

Before we go to our next questioner, the other point is the issue surrounding boat length. Is it the intent of Transport Canada to do hull types? Most of Atlantic Canada, and I would assume British Columbia is similar.... You could literally test a 34-foot 11-inch hull in P.E.I., and the majority of those would be Northumberland-built boats, which are similar in type.

Are you going to re-test that hull? Fishermen are concerned about cost, and they've been told it's $10,000 to $15,000 per vessel. Do you have to test that vessel again, if you have been using it for the lobster fishery, and then decide to put a rake on it to engage in the scallop fishery?

Could you quickly answer that, and then we'll go to our next questioner.

[Victor Santos-Pedro]

I'll try to very quickly touch on two points, the statistics and the issue of similar vessels.

On the statistics, in fact, if you simply look at absolute numbers, the fatalities on fishing vessels have been reduced over the past 20 years. But of course, when you look at the number of vessels operating, you also see the same decrease because there are fewer vessels operating. What has not changed, however, over those 20 years is that 50% of the commercial fatalities are from fishing vessels and the rate of fatalities has not changed. That is a consideration.

Those are the overall statistics.

In fact, on the aspect of stability, there is a concern with the cost of getting that information to the master. Ultimately, stability is giving information to the master and the crew that the vessel can operate with a particular load under certain conditions.

I think one of the things that we have to think about on cost is amortization. A stability booklet may require $3,000 to $6,000 for a particular vessel. As you said, fishermen indeed have similar vessels. If they are in the same fishery and have the same type of loading conditions, they could get together to have a series of booklets done. That could be done. With the demand, we're hoping that market forces will also reduce the price.

These days the most difficult thing about having a stability booklet is what the plans for the vessel are. Some of these vessels don't have plans. With the new technology for laser beams, you can actually get the form of the vessel very quickly, and perhaps that will also bring the costs down.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerald Keddy]

I think if you could provide for the committee the list of accidents and the average from 1980 up to the present time—I mean, this is not complicated—it would be helpful in our pursuit of this.

The next questioner is Mr. Manning.

[Fabian Manning, Conservative, Avalon, NL]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Welcome to our guests.

I want to get back to Mr. MacAulay's question with a follow-up in regard to notification of the changes to the committee and to public consultations.

When the department decides on a new list of regulations, is there going to be a full consultation process with the industry? Is that what I'm hearing from you? Are there any time limits on that? Are we going to find out about it the day before? Can you give us some indication of what your plans are in relation to the consultation process with the people in the industry?