Fisheries Committee on Nov. 8th, 2006

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerald Keddy]

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), a study on the issues of new rules for boat stability, and in particular the matter of the fishery boat length requirements, I welcome our witnesses to the table. I know our members are chatting and trying to finish up, and maybe get a coffee vis-à-vis the last meeting, but we do have an agenda here so I'm going to move along.

First of all, welcome to our witnesses, Pierre Chevrier, Mario Desrape and Marcel Cormier. Welcome, gentlemen.

Since this is Monsieur Blais' riding, I will ask Monsieur Blais if he would like to make any words of introduction and we will go to our witnesses after that.

Monsieur Blais.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

First of all, given what we have already heard on the boat stability issue, I would say that in the Magdalen Islands the situation may very well be the same. Indeed, as far as this issue is concerned, the fishers have not necessarily been informed. When I talk about information, I am not simply talking about receiving a letter or something of that type; it is a bit more than that. In other words, this issue should have been documented further so that we could have had a real consultation. I am fully aware of the fact that the Department of Transport has scheduled something else for the next few months. As far as this issue is concerned, I would say that, as things now stand, the fishers are somewhat in the fog. This issue is shrouded in quite a bit of fog. We know that this whole problem is hanging over us, almost like a threat. That is why I think that the information that will be provided to us by the witnesses will enable us to delve further into this matter.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerald Keddy]

Thank you, Monsieur Blais.

I don't know if our witnesses have a written presentation or which order you care to go in, but I'll ask you to proceed.

Monsieur Desrape.

[Mario Desrape, President, Association des pêcheurs propriétaires des Îles-de-la-Madeleine]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and committee members.

I do not have a written presentation. I will give you an impromptu presentation about how we feel, about how the fishers of the Magdalen Islands are feeling.

First of all, I would like to thank the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, particularly Mr. Blais, who did a good job in bringing the committee to the Magdalen Islands.

I would like to congratulate all of those people who have defended the seal hunt. This is an extremely important industry in the Magdalen Islands. Our association informed us that we have neighbours who are sitting at the table in order to defend the seal hunt because we know that seals eat fish which could be caught by our fishers.

That being said, we know that it is late and that everybody is tired. We still have to discuss the issue of boat stability.

As Mr. Blais pointed out, what we are criticizing today is the lack of information on the issue. It is this aspect that we are most unhappy about. We know that new fishing boat safety regulations will come into effect soon. We know that there will be some stability standards contained in these new regulations, but we don't know anymore than that. We do not know which fleet will be affected, nor do we know anything about boat length, boat type, or engine type. We have no details about these issues.

As president of the Association des pêcheurs propriétaires des Îles-de-la-Madeleine, I can tell you that the boats in our fleet are very safe; we have proven this in the past. We do not accept the idea of having Transport Canada or the federal government stepping in with a blanket policy requiring that we submit our entire fleet to stability testing.

Money has to be earmarked for this. You must realize that we are in favour of safety, we have nothing against safety. However, our boats were built in accordance with approved plans. They are very safe and there is no need to test them, and these tests could be very costly. If we have to conduct stability testing, perhaps the boats will be shown to be stable, but you must be very aware of the fact that the stability of our companies will be jeopardized. I think that you understand what I mean.

Our fishery is extremely fragile. It is not profitable; we don't have any millionaires as a result of the fishery. Every time a new cost is added to our operating costs, that results in additional expenditures which may drive the business into bankruptcy. We have to be clear about that.

We will not accept any measures. Tests are going to be foisted on us, but at what cost? And why do we need to do this testing? We are asking ourselves this question. You have to really understand that we have been critical about the lack of information regarding the new regulations. Under the new boat safety regulations, the new boats will be affected more, but does that mean there will be significant additional costs to renew the fleet? Transport Canada must bear in mind that these new regulations may wind up having the opposite effect of what it was hoping to achieve. If it costs too much to replace a boat, the fisher will keep his old boat. So we'll wind up with a fleet that is much more obsolete than the one we have now, because the fishers will not have the means to change their boats, given that the new building standards will be far too demanding.

So that is what I wanted to say. I would, therefore, like to have a lot more information on this issue, as Mr. Blais said, so that we can see how this file is progressing. But for now, the documents that we have read to date compel us to state that we will not accept stability testing.

Should you have any questions about the types of boats we use or the type of fishing we do, I would be happy to answer.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerald Keddy]

Thank you.

Go ahead, Mr. Cormier.

[Marcel Cormier, Administrator, Regroupement des pêcheurs professionnels des Îles-de-la-Madeleine]

The fishers I represent own boats a bit larger than those of the fishers represented by my colleague, Mario, but these are boats which, for the most part, were built 10 or so years ago and have shown their worth. In the Magdalen Islands, you can count on one hand the number of boats that have capsized. Consequently, I do not think it is necessary to do stability testing on these boats after 10 years. They have already proven themselves. A lot of water has run under the bridge in 10 years.

We completely disagree with the testing of our boats. For a new boat that carry a great deal of weight on the superstructure, we do not totally disagree with stability testing. Boats do, after all, have to be safe.

In the Magdalen Islands, all the boats have a low gravity point. There are, therefore, no problems; this has been demonstrated. I myself own a 55 foot-boat which had weight added to it, in the bottom, to make it more safe. It even passed a stability test when it was built.

Today, we are told that we have to spend an additional $5,000 or $6,000, I don't know, in addition to what Mario mentioned. That's the truth: we cannot pay any more. If the government wants to pay, go ahead with the stability test, but we are not paying any more.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerald Keddy]

Thank you.

Mr. Chevrier.

[Pierre Chevrier, President, Regroupement des palangriers et pétoncliers uniques Madelinots]

I represent a small group of fishers, but I am part of a community composed of approximately 400 Magdalen Island fishers. We are very familiar with the fleet. I am almost convinced that you saw it, when you went near the coast...

Is anyone listening to me?

I'm convinced that when you went down by the coast, you saw where we store the boats in the winter. Given that the subject of your study is boat stability, I would imagine that you were struck by the high-calibre of the boats found in the Magdalen Islands. Quebec's most beautiful boat fleet is found right here.

I represent a group of fishers who were affected by the ground fish moratorium. We have a very clear recollection of a meeting we had about five or six years ago with Transport Canada. It was quite a noisy meeting, held in the Magdalen Islands, and we talked about boat safety. They tried to make us believe that it would cost between $250 to $400. However, this little scenario wound up costing us about $4,000 to $5,000. The scenario that we are supposed to swallow now will cost perhaps between $7,000 and $10,000, maybe even more. With a gross income of between $35,000 and $40,000, our fishers are saying that they are doing volunteer work for the benefit of all kinds of companies or industries that sell fishing equipment or whatever. We are paying a great deal of money for our licences, we are paying a great deal of money to have observers with us when we are at sea, we are paying for safety, we are paying for everything. We are no longer capable of doing this.

There are a lot of discussions under way about the viability of fishing operations. How can we make the fishing sector more viable? It certainly isn't by adding a bill of $7,000, $8,000 or $10,000 to be paid by captains for stability testing and the rating that that involves.

As far as the Magdalen Islands are concerned, I would ask the committee to take a look at accidents involving ships weighing more or less 15 tons. How many boats have capsized? How many boats have sunk? The number is quite low, much lower than the number of highway traffic accidents. However, now we are being told that you are worried about our safety, etc. Our fishers are worried about their safety. Every captain is aware of the fact that he is responsible for his crew. He loads his boat bearing safety in mind. That is why there aren't many accidents in the Magdalen Islands. Fishers are aware of safety.

We therefore totally disagree with stability testing for our boats because that will mean an additional bill to pay. All that we can say is that, if the government is prepared to pay for the entire bill, we would agree. But I am convinced that the government, rather than paying for the entire bill, will put the whole issue on ice. So we are recommending that the issue be put on ice.

Thank you.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Bill Matthews]

Thank you, Mr. Chevrier.

Monsieur Blais.

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

I would like you to explain the situation in greater detail. Has the Department of Fisheries and Oceans or the Department of Transport contacted you about this issue? If so, when?

[Pierre Chevrier]

I received a notice from your secretary about this meeting a few days ago.

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

All right. You received notification from us. But did you receive anything from the department?

[Pierre Chevrier]

I know that there was a committee in Rimouski and that fishers from the Maritimes were called. I was not present, but I do think that there were fishers from the largest fishing association in the Magdalen Islands. My comment would be that they were not looking for the opinion of fishers, once again they were imposing a system, a program that had to be adopted one way or the other, a little bit like what was done, as I told you, five or six years ago, when they tried to make us believe that all we had to do was spend anywhere from $250 to $300 to bring our boats in line with the regulations. In actual fact, each fisher had to lay out between $4,000 and $5,000. That's what I heard about these meetings.

Perhaps Mario can provide you with more explanations.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Bill Matthews]

Does anyone else want to comment on this, or do we go to Mr. Blais for another question?

Monsieur Desrape.

[Mario Desrape]

Mr. Blais asked a question and I will answer it. We attended a meeting held by Transport Canada in Rimouski. This was the only meeting where we were told about the regulation, the new policy on fishing boat safety, that the Department wanted to implement. As I said earlier, stability standards were on the agenda, but we had no details on the matter. I recall very well that the fishers present in the room were all unanimously against stability testing. Mr. Cormier was present, in fact.

Did they continue pushing ahead with this and do they want to make stability testing mandatory today? The answer to this question is probably yes, because the matter is now before the fisheries and oceans committee. At this meeting, we were simply told that a fishing boat would have to be subject to a stability test, to simplified stability tests in the case of boats under 15 tons, with the exception of high risk boats. That is what everybody was against. There are no details about what is a high risk, about what a simplified stability test would entail, about what is a high risk boat. There were no details. So all of the fishers in attendance opposed such a test.

As Mr. Cormier said so clearly, when you have owned a boat for 10, 15 or 20 years, you have already done the test. We don't need anyone to come and tell us how the boat is going to list or roll: we've seen it.

Thank you.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Bill Matthews]

Mr. Blais, do you have one more short question?

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

Yes, I would like to make a comment and ask a question at the same time. We have been told by Transport Canada that there were studies under way to determine risk factors and cost benefit ratios for the new regulations. We have been told that the studies will be assessed and that the proposal will be amended accordingly. We were then told that other consultations will be carried out in the fall of 2006 — the fall of 2006 is here — and in the spring of 2007. The new requirements should be implemented in 2008. So that is a summary of what Transport Canada told us regarding this issue.

At the same time, there is an issue of common sense at hand. Testing is already done via the architecture, when the boat is built or when changes are made to a boat. All of this has to be approved somewhere along the line. The boat is not simply put into the water without first going through certain tests or without the owner having obtained some approvals.

Could you clarify what steps need to be taken regarding all of that?

[Marcel Cormier]

Are you talking about the various phases during construction?

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

Yes. What is the situation right now?

[Marcel Cormier]

My friend has just told me that he has already received a letter stating that boats weighing 15 tons and more must be tested for stability. Some people have received a letter, but not everyone. This test applies to everything dealing with trawling. In all likelihood, lobster fishing boats are not subject to that to the same extent. Boats used for other kinds of fishing and which have gallow frames are probably going to be covered by this to a larger extent. Do you understand what I mean?

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

Yes.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Bill Matthews]

Thank you very much, Mr. Cormier.

We have to switch questioners now, Mr. Blais.

Mr. Byrne.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It was very impressive. Yesterday we went along the marine centre, and we saw quite an impressive fleet here in the Magdalen Islands. The boats are absolutely beautiful. They're well constructed, and quite frankly, I'm sure they've been serving you very safely for many years.

My first question is, has there been a significant change in the architecture of the fleet? Have you gone to bigger boats in the last little while? Has the nature of your fleet changed dramatically in the last while?

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Bill Matthews]

Could we have you introduce yourself for the benefit of the committee, please?

[Gilles Vigneau, Member, Regroupement des pêcheurs professionnels des Îles-de-la-Madeleine, As an Individual]

My name is Gilles Vigneau. I am a fisherman, and a member of the Regroupement des pêcheurs professionnels des Îles-de-la-Madeleine.

Over the past three years, I have been following Transport Canada's work on regulating fishing vessels.

I will try to answer the question put by the member, as to how the government has come to acquire a stability test for fishing vessels. There was a very unfortunate accident off the west coast of Newfoundland in the fall of 2004. Two people lost their lives. I believe that the incident caused an internal shock at Transport Canada, because it was the first time in history that the people involved — the family of the two people who died — sued Transport Canada on the grounds of construction and stability of their vessels.

Following the proceedings, the department seems to have established a fairly stringent policy on fishing vessels stability. Those most affected by the new measure — and I am among them — are fishers of groundfish, scallops and others who need to display a load on the vessel bridge. Since I fish more than one species — scallops and groundfish — those measures affected my fishing business directly. I had to make minor changes to a vessel in January of this year, and the Department of Transport imposed on me two mandatory stability tests, with conditions that are not really clear, however. Between September and January, the measures became more specific, and finally became mandatory.

In this region, there were public consultations with the Department of Transport, and all the regulations being discussed here today were debated then. At present, a number of committees are continuing to work on the new regulations surrounding stability tests, as well as new regulations governing fishing vessels. Unfortunately, I cannot tell you today what we are discussing. It does seem clear, however, that measures like the stability tests cannot be imposed on different fishing fleets that were already... Some stability tests had already been carried out. There is a test we call the sistership test in the industry. Basically, you take one vessel and conduct a stability test, which is then valid for all sisterships at the same time. That made it possible to meet some of the department's requirements.

Now, the department proceeds case by case. It selects one vessel and has it submit to a stability test, something which unfortunately is very onerous. What we in the region find deplorable is that this is being done very quickly. In my view, there was not much consultation and the industry's response time did not really give us time to adjust. In my case, when I made some modifications to my vessel in January, a Transport Canada representative told me that if I did not have the test carried out before April, regrettably I would not be able to carry on fishing as I usually do. There was no way I could defend myself. The department is going on a case-by-case basis and its decisions are much more difficult to challenge. I find that unfortunate.

In addition, the regulations mention vessels of over 15 tons. Transport Canada regulations seem to apply differently from one Maritime region to another. In Quebec, people are proactive and apply new regulations much more quickly. In our case, everything was therefore applied very quickly, and the obligations imposed upon us are much greater than those imposed on our fellow fishers in other provinces, like Prince Edward Island, Newfoundland and Nova Scotia. Even though the same federal statute applies, it seems to be interpreted differently in different provinces.

If you impose stability tests, or change other regulations governing fishing vessels, either in minor or major ways, it is important that regulations apply uniformly from coast to coast, and not only within the regions of Quebec.

Does that answer your question?