Evidence of meeting #21 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 boat.
12:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gerald Keddy
Thank you, Mr. Manning.
As chair, I keep finding myself in the very uncomfortable position of cutting our members off. But if I didn't, they would never stop. You have to bear with me.
We are out of time. We do have dinner down the line--at least where I come from, the midday meal is still dinner.
If I could get some cooperation from my colleagues, if we all had one final question, we'd have another round.
Go ahead, Mr. Byrne.
12:45 p.m.
Fisherman, As an Individual
I would like to apologize to the committee for not being up to date on the vessel replacement. I know there has been some ongoing lobbying by fishermen and different groups, but I've never been invited to those talks and I've never been sent any correspondence about what is going on. I'll have to apologize, because I'm not one hundred percent up on what's happening.
12:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gerald Keddy
That's not a difficulty. We appreciate your coming today.
Mr. Byrne.
12:50 p.m.
Liberal
Gerry Byrne Liberal Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL
No, in fact, Norm, you've provided extremely valuable information. What you've both identified is that the consultations have been nothing but a sham. That's really the message that this committee has received: that there have been non-consultations. To actually to gazette any regulations based on input received from fishermen at any point in time in the future would be to participate in the sham. That's what I think the take-home message for this committee is.
So, yes, I think it's right on the money. What you've identified as the key issue here is boat length.
You said the reason you fish in summertime, in periods when it's not necessarily the most economical or best time to fish, is that of safety issues. Would changing the hull design allow you to fish in ice conditions or winter conditions? Would changing the vessel length allow you to fish in winter conditions and ice conditions?
Basically, that would be my question to both Hubert and Norm. What's the more relevant issue here? Is it hulls or is it vessel length?
Just as an add-on to that, in lieu of the fact that there has been a restriction on length, have vessels still capitalized very intentionally by going up instead of out in length? In other words, is there still that will or desire to look for more fish because they're highly capitalized? That's what I want to know.
12:50 p.m.
Fisherman, As an Individual
Gerry, I want to tell you something right now. I've been involved in the fishing industry for 50 years, but I'll cut that in half and say that in the past 25 years I've been involved in bigger boats. For my first 25 years of being a fisherman, I was only involved in the trap skiff, which Hubert pointed out earlier, and the smaller boats, such as the dories and this stuff. Just like I pointed out here, I started out with a 35-footer and went from that to a 65-footer.
In order to fish in the winter months, you would have to go into a much larger boat than a 100-footer. I can guarantee you that from the experience I've had out here on this ocean. I'm telling you that going to a 100-footer will not help you fish beyond November. This is the reason why I'm saying it's fine to say, yes, I'm going to a 100-footer, but my expense is going to double or triple. In order for me to offset that, then I'm going to need double the quota in order for me to operate that boat. I'll guarantee you that.
12:50 p.m.
Conservative
12:50 p.m.
Boat Builder, As an Individual
In response to your question, we are all concerned about stability. In my mind, there is an issue about instability in our boats today due to the hull design and due to trying to keep within DFO regulations, mainly to keep it down there.
12:50 p.m.
Fisherman, As an Individual
Excuse, Mr. Chairman, for jumping in, but that's a good point.
You don't have to go into a 100-footer to do that, Hubert. You can design a boat at 65 or 70 feet. If I had the flexibility of going from 65 to 70 feet, you could probably design that boat at a much safer aspect than just staying within the 65 feet. Do you know what I mean? You can go into the 70-footer by probably staying within the regulations that you have there. But when you're talking about going from 65 feet to 100 feet, then you're talking about a huge jump.
I don't know if I'm making that clear or not.
12:50 p.m.
Liberal
Scott Simms Liberal Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL
Just very quickly, you mentioned earlier the lack of knowledge about these consultations, whether they're gazetted or not. Who do you blame for that? In other words, who would you expect most to keep you up to date on these issues? Are we talking about the union? Are we talking about anybody?
12:50 p.m.
Fisherman, As an Individual
Our union has a role to play in that, to inform us of what's going on. Being on a committee or being chair of a committee or whatever, I'm sure my name would have gone in to the offices of DFO. On any regulations or any ongoing consultations that are happening, I would expect to be notified, or, if not notified, be given an invitation to take part in those. How can I be part of something if I don't know it's going on?
12:55 p.m.
Bloc
Raynald Blais Bloc Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
If I were the nasty sort, I would recount what happened in 2003-2004, when a Liberal government was in office, but it's not in my nature.
Seriously, though, as far as the stability of boats is concerned, if we increase the length of vessels, are we not running the risk of encountering the same problem, namely wanting to increase the height and size of the boats, but ultimately not being able to resolve every single problem?
12:55 p.m.
Fisherman, As an Individual
I think you're right. How far we go is the question. How big do we go? Where do we stop? If we get into a 100-footer and all of a sudden we say we have to fish in February, then that 100-footer is getting pretty well useless to me because I can't go out and fish for that period of time. So it continues to go on and on.
I agree with Hubert and where he's sitting. He's probably getting heat for building boats that are not capable or not stable enough to go on the water, but I think our problem can be fixed in a different way from moving into bigger boats. If there was some flexibility put in there so that I could talk to Hubert and say I need my boat designed this way, then I—
The rules and regulations need to be changed. Let me put it that way. There needs to be some flexibility so that we can design the boat that I think is right for me.
12:55 p.m.
Conservative
12:55 p.m.
Conservative
Randy Kamp Conservative Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission, BC
Yes. It's just to say that not every member of this committee thinks the consultations are a sham. They're actually undertaken by Transport Canada. There are still consultations going on this fall and in the spring of 2007, with gazetting mid-2007 and new regulations to be put in place sometime in 2008. So they're not over yet, and you may still be involved.
My question is this. How much do you think training is a factor, rather than just design issues or intrinsic design? Are some of the accidents occurring because people don't know? It might be designed well enough, but maybe people just don't have the proper training. Do you think that should be a factor in the future?
12:55 p.m.
Fisherman, As an Individual
Back with the sinking of the Ryan's Commander, there was a lot going on. I don't know if you heard, but the fellow was on Fisherman's Broadcast one evening, doing an interview. He was a fellow who had his master mariner's ticket, and he was involved as a captain on ocean liners. He made a statement that 80% of the accidents that happen at sea are caused by human error.
A lot of the time when we get into situations where accidents happen, we sometimes tend to point fingers where they should not be pointed, putting the blame somewhere that it shouldn't be put. But it all comes back to this issue. Yes, there needs to be more training and there need to be people with more knowledge of the situations they get into. I won't elaborate on that anymore, but sometimes when we get into situations, we don't have the training and the knowledge to be able to deal with them.
1 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gerald Keddy
Thank you, Mr. Kamp.
If we could go to Mr. Lunney, he'll have the final question.
1 p.m.
Conservative
James Lunney Conservative Nanaimo—Alberni, BC
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I just have a quick comment.
Perhaps it's a comment on the whole nature of the consultative process. It takes a little time. I did notice that when we started today's meetings, it was fall. Looking out the window here, it looks like we're finishing in winter, for the record.
1 p.m.
Voices
Oh, oh!
1 p.m.
Fisherman, As an Individual
You have to move to the Northern Peninsula to be able to experience that.
1 p.m.
Conservative
James Lunney Conservative Nanaimo—Alberni, BC
I would just like to echo what was said earlier about the consultative process. I don't think it's fair to call the process a sham. But I think what's happened--and it's apparent from the witnesses testifying today--is that people who are going to be affected by new regulations in this area have not been consulted.
I think it's fair to say, as my colleague has pointed out, that perhaps it's still going to happen. I think it's our role to make sure it happens. I probably would just want to leave with that comment, that you've obviously shown us that there's something missing in this particular area that was deficient, and we want to make sure it's remedied.
I want also to thank the witnesses for coming today.
1 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gerald Keddy
I take that as a comment rather than a question.
We'll move on to a final question from Mr. Manning.