Mr. Chair, we'll be looking at vessel length and safety. Vessel length rules came into play in the 1970s. They were put in place in an attempt to limit the capitalization of the fleet and the capacity of the fleet. They gradually became criteria for defining fishing fleets on allocation and access. So we have a 45-foot limit, a 65-foot limit, and so on.
After the demise of groundfish in the 1980s and 1990s, we saw that the fisheries changed significantly. We went from groundfish to shellfish fisheries. We went from single-species to multi-species licence holders. The main fleet of small vessels evolved to hit the limits that were imposed. Then they changed their shape at those limits and went from fishing on the inshore areas to fishing farther afield.
The changing conditions led to small fishing vessels with different gear, contrary to their design. The vessels were fishing multi-species when they were designed to fish groundfish. Small vessels were fishing farther offshore, particularly in the crab fishery, and as a result may have been exposed to unsafe conditions. Vessel owners opted for vessel design modifications to accommodate these new conditions within the constraints of the size limits.
Flexibility of vessel replacement was provided to fishers operating under self-rationalization systems, like ITQs. You'll see a completely different shape of vessel in those fleets. They are more fuel efficient and sea kindly.
We saw that the number of search and rescue incidents and fatal accidents rose during this period. This led DFO in 2000 to review, in collaboration with Transport Canada, the root causes of safety at sea. They weren't simple. They were a combination of many elements, including human error, loading stability, vessel size, weather, training, vessel maintenance, and economic viability.
Economic viability has an impact on vessel safety. When people don't have the money to reinvest, it seems the safety equipment goes first, certainly before the ability to catch fish. So gear for fish harvesting is the priority for fishermen. It takes precedence over safety when economic viability is in question.
What is key is that a vessel, whatever its size, has to meet Transport Canada's stability requirements. It has to be used in a reasonable way for the purpose for which it was built or for which it has been modified. It can't be used for purposes inconsistent with its design.
We've incorporated vessel safety considerations into the fishery management planning process. We have flexibility on opening and closing dates, allowing people more time to get gear out of the water, if it is warranted. We've taken weather into consideration, for example, in the Pacific as the result of a tragic herring season back in the 1980s. The weather is a key consideration in opening or closing, and we've also changed how those fisheries are prosecuted, to allow more reasonable fishing practices.
We're reviewing the regulations and policies on safety at sea, and we're looking at the vessel size limitations, taking safety into consideration.
In 2003 we offered fleets more flexibility with respect to vessel replacement policies. Provided they met a number of principles, they would be given flexibility to move beyond the size limitations that were imposed. These principles include no compromise of conservation, and no need to accommodate larger vessels by moving quota allocations from one fleet to another.
I would say, however, that few fleets have actually taken advantage of this flexibility. There's resistance to moving ahead with changing fish management. People are comfortable with the management regimes they're under, and they haven't taken advantage of the changes in those regimes to avoid the current vessel replacement rules, or rather, the old length restrictions.
We have seen some modifications in the Maritimes region where there's been movement beyond the 65-foot vessel. A small portion of fishers are currently affected by the 45- and 65-foot barriers, mostly in Newfoundland.
I would point out that the problem has been particularly acute in Newfoundland since the shift from inshore groundfish to crab fisheries. You use the same vessel, but different gear, obviously, and different configurations, and they have bumped up against the limits, more so than many of the other fleets. We've seen size limitations in lobster, but they don't lead to the same kinds of concerns as we have had in the Newfoundland fleets.
On the Atlantic fishing industry's viability, initiatives are under way to review and renew the Atlantic fishing industry. We see that as an opportunity to perhaps consider different ways of approaching the management, which might allow that flexibility we provided in 2003 to actually be used by the fishing fleets. We are looking at ways to work with the industry in terms of putting the fishery back on an economic footing, which will help with vessel safety, not just because of the opportunity to reconsider replacement rules, but also because if people are making a reasonable living, they'll be able to recapitalize their vessels and to ensure the vessels are suited to the fishing they're undertaking, as well as having the proper safety equipment.
In conclusion, the size of fishing vessels is one of many factors that can affect safety at sea. We're factoring safety at sea into our fish management plans, and are expecting our fish managers and fishery officers to exercise judgment in implementing fishing plans, so they can avoid pushing people out into dangerous conditions. We're looking at managing the fisheries, while Transport Canada regulates safety. We're cooperating on improving the safety of fishing vessels and have developed a memorandum of understanding that will be signed shortly, with a view to having more cooperation and more opportunities to have Transport Canada and Fisheries and Oceans work together with the fishermen to improve safety at sea.
Thank you.
