Evidence of meeting #16 for Fisheries and Oceans in the 39th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was requirements.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Christian Ouellet Bloc Brome—Missisquoi, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I would like to talk about provincial and federal jurisdictions. You all know the joke about the fact that when a fish is caught, the head coming out of the water is provincial and the tail is still federal.
Is it the same for vessels? When they sink, they belong to the federal government because they are in the water. Is there an overlap of jurisdictions? I have mainly Quebec in mind.
My second question is as follows. Do you feel that the federal government would possibly wish to dispose of part of the security of small vessels, as it did for harbours? If a vessel catches fire when entering the harbour — which is now under provincial jurisdiction — does it come under provincial or federal jurisdiction?
Director General, Marine Safety, Department of Transport
The rules and requirements under the Marine Act apply to vessels. This federal requirement applies across Canada. Vessel masters have to meet these requirements, to obey all the safety rules, and so on. Even if a vessel is docked in the harbour, there are also requirement to ensure its safety.
Bloc
Christian Ouellet Bloc Brome—Missisquoi, QC
Do you feel there is a tendency to give part of safety over to the provinces?
Director General, Marine Safety, Department of Transport
No, I don't think so.
Bloc
Raynald Blais Bloc Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC
When we have our country, we'll be able to take care of it.
In the study you are beginning, considering the fact that vessel length was the main factor in determining the fleets, the access to some fisheries or to others, have you contemplated studying other factors? The size of the vessel alone may not be enough to determine the capacity for one fishery. Some inshore lobster fishermen fish very close to the shoreline whereas others, in the Magdalen Islands for example, go several kilometres away from the coast before starting fishing. A bigger vessel is automatically necessary, whether we like it or not.
Is this also part of the analysis you are making now?
Director, Design, Equipment and Boating Safety, Department of Transport
It is not really specified. It says the following:
“fishing vessel stability regulations”, “proposed stability requirements”.
We took this into consideration. It depends on the length in a certain way. For longer, bigger vessels, we obviously request a stability booklet. It is natural. For vessels of a certain size which operate close to the coast, we talk about simplified stability. The stability booklet is not necessary. The tests we make are less costly. In fact, it depends on the risk. If vessels stay closer to the coast, there is less risk. If they go farther, there is more risk.
Bloc
Raynald Blais Bloc Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC
Another factor should also be considered, namely multi-purpose fishing. Some lobster fishermen fish very close to the shoreline. On the other hand, considering that the resource and revenue are not sufficient, they make another use of the same vessel. So they go further away from the coast, then.
Director, Design, Equipment and Boating Safety, Department of Transport
As risk...
Bloc
Director, Design, Equipment and Boating Safety, Department of Transport
Yes. For example, we made recently an analysis to know how much time the fisherman is at sea, how much time he is exposed to risks. We made a thorough analysis to make really sure to know whether we should require a stability booklet or if the simplified stability is sufficient, and where we should draw the line. We draw the line taking risk into account. The fishermen agreed readily to have rules. If two vessels are in the same place and if they take the same risk, it is not anymore the size but the capacity which matters. Risk is paramount.
NDP
Catherine Bell NDP Vancouver Island North, BC
Thank you. It's a very interesting discussion.
Yes, I agree that safety is of paramount importance. I understand that there is some level of risk in any occupation, and especially in the fishing industry. I would suppose that risk is a little greater, and I'm sure you're taking into account that level of risk for weather and for seas and all kinds of things.
After you're finished your study and evaluation and you come up with regulations—I notice that in both of the documents, there's a little more on the Atlantic fishing industry—will the rules apply across the board, Pacific, Atlantic, northern, and everything? Also, I think there's a special section for commercial fishing for eastern Canada, for the policy. Will the new regulations affect that policy at all?
Director, Design, Equipment and Boating Safety, Department of Transport
From the safety perspective, the rules will apply equally across the country. What we are taking into consideration is dependent on the risk that the fisheries are in. The requirements in that case may be different, but in terms of the requirements for a similar vessel on the east coast that is more or less doing the same operation as one on the west coast, if it doesn't go more than two miles offshore, the regulations also apply.
Take aquaculture, for example. There are vessels that are operating around aquaculture farms. The requirements would be the same across the country. They're the same everywhere, depending on the risk.
NDP
Catherine Bell NDP Vancouver Island North, BC
I can't remember who it was, but somebody said there would be a cost savings with these new regulations because they're more simplified. I'm not quite sure what you meant by that.
Director, Design, Equipment and Boating Safety, Department of Transport
I think what I said was that there would be a cost, rather than a cost savings.
Director, Design, Equipment and Boating Safety, Department of Transport
“Less costly” means that depending on the size of the vessel and depending on the type of operation—if they go very far offshore or if they are close to inshore—the requirements will be tailored to that type of risk. Therefore, if we have a vessel that doesn't go very far offshore, the requirement may be a simplified stability requirement that is not as costly.
Also, we are already doing some of this with the ship safety bulletin, which is like a directive. What we are trying to do is say that if an existing vessel, as opposed to new.... It's a lot easier to build a new vessel, because the cost is a lot lower when amortized over a certain amount of years. It's the existing vessels that actually give the fishermen the most problems. If your vessel was designed for a certain fishery, if you have been in that fishery, and if you don't have any of these risk factors—you don't go out when there is ice accretion, or you don't have tanks that you added have afterwards—then we are leaving your vessel alone. We're not asking you to do anything else.
There will be no cost for a lot of fishermen. There will be no cost whatsoever for existing vessels. If they build a new one, there may be an additional cost, but for new vessels it's usually a much lower cost.
NDP
Catherine Bell NDP Vancouver Island North, BC
A number of fishermen have older boats. I'm just curious to know if you can foresee an appetite for new boats if they're not going to be able to conform to the new regulations and if there are going to be any issues around those regulations.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Fisheries and Aquaculture Management, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
On new vessels, that's usually a decision made by the fishermen, relevant to what they have licences for and what they need to prosecute the fishery that they're involved in. There are some people recapitalizing, but in a lot of fisheries in some parts of the Atlantic right now, there's not enough money being made to recapitalize. That's a pressure that they have, and it will be a problem for people to respond to new programs.
In other areas, we've seen quite a big recapitalization in the vessels. It's done either to maximize your share of a catch in a competitive fishery or to get as much opportunity as you can. In the lobster fishery, it's done to get the biggest possible catch that you can under the current rules or it's being done in response to a change in business practices of the fishery. For example, with ITQs, they may decide to change from large boats that are expensive to operate, to smaller, more streamlined ones that are cheaper.
Conservative
James Lunney Conservative Nanaimo—Alberni, BC
Thank you very much.
It's been a very interesting discussion. It's certainly germane and appropriate, and it's of concern to people in the coastal communities that most of us here represent.
I guess my first question would be about the vessels and the recapitalization that's happening. Are you concerned that the move in some of the commercial fisheries towards IVQs, ITQs, and IQs is actually a driving incentive in the other competitive fisheries towards creating larger capacity to capture that, anticipating that you're going to go to IVQs eventually in all the fisheries?
Assistant Deputy Minister, Fisheries and Aquaculture Management, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
That would presuppose that they know there is going to be a catch history or something like that. But clearly, we've seen a big recapitalization in the lobster fishery, and that's been driven by an attempt to maximize catch, not by concern about going to quotas or anything like that. In some of the other ITQ fisheries, we just had extraordinarily extreme situations.
For example, look at the black cod and halibut on the west coast, when they went ITQ. In the last competitive fishery they had—one was nine days and the other was fourteen days—they glutted the markets and they had bad outcomes. So when they went to ITQ, they were looking at it from the point of view of a different approach to get out of a very unacceptable situation.
I don't know that I can recall where you've seen capitalization in front of going to ITQ in anticipation of getting a bigger boat or a bigger share of the quota. I don't think that's been the case, because it's pretty risky, obviously. If you end up with less than you need to run that vessel, you have a problem. We've seen that actually happen in the past, where in some locations they went to ITQ and then the vessels changed over time. They ended up leaving the ones that were fat and very hard to push through the water. Over time they were replaced by more reasonable units.
Conservative
James Lunney Conservative Nanaimo—Alberni, BC
I think we all have an interest in and concern for safety at sea. I certainly feel compassion for those fishers who go out when the wind is blowing on the coast and it's cold. A lot of us just like to find a fireplace and stay where it's a little safer and warm. But when they're going out to sea, you have to have a lot of compassion and admiration for those people, particularly, I'd say, on the east coast, where they have icing conditions. I have to admire those fishers who earn their living that way.
So we all have an interest and concern with icing and with capacity, and top-heavy wind events that you mentioned—“windage” is the term you used. But I want to come back to a question that was raised earlier.
First, I'd just like to mention that we did have an issue on the west coast, a nasty capsizing, the Cap Rouge II, which went down. The issue of the day then was the fact that the coast guard rescue were not allowed to enter. We've addressed that through the coast guard now.
Would these new regulations have an impact in terms of improving the safety of a vessel like that? Are you able to comment on that?
