Fisheries Committee on Nov. 6th, 2006

[Hubert Randell]

I'd like to respond to your earlier question, if I may.

First of all, I agree with Mr. Cull that there should be no increase in the quota, dependent on the size of your boat or the length of your boat.

Your question I think was along the lines of whether the 65-foot length is adequate. In my mind, no. The boats are not built to meet the requirements of the fishermen to fish 150, 200 miles offshore; they're built to meet DFO's regulations as they are today. They're built with the cubic number in mind; they've got to be less than 65 feet. To me, they're built within the regulations for DFO and not for the needs of the fishermen.

[James Lunney, Conservative, Nanaimo—Alberni, BC]

Maybe a quick one?

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerald Keddy]

Yes, Mr. Lunney.

[James Lunney, Conservative, Nanaimo—Alberni, BC]

Thank you.

Maybe you can clarify this for me. Are we talking about individual quotas here, our total allowable catch currently? Do we have a total allowable catch for shrimp out there that all the boats share, or are you talking about individual quotas right now for individual vessel owners?

[Normand Cull]

You're talking about total allowable catch, but out of that allocation, I will call it, you have a 3K north allocation of shrimp, which is up in the millions of pounds. I don't exactly know what the number is. But out of that allocation, it's split up between different regions: 3K north has 11% of that total allowable catch, and then it goes on down the line. But each region--you have 3K north, you have 3L, 3K south, 2J, and 4R involved--has a separate allocation.

Out of that separate allocation—and I'll use 3K north as an example because that's the area I'm involved in—that allocation is split up into...right now, it's not IQs, but we're on caps, and that's been done by the committees and our organization, the FFAW. That's been done through the fishermen and the FFAW, so we're set on a cap for the season.

[James Lunney, Conservative, Nanaimo—Alberni, BC]

Okay. When the northern shrimp fishery started, they called it the gold mine of the north, and you were encouraged to gear up for it.

I have wo questions, then. First, it appears that it maybe hasn't turned out to be quite the gold mine of the north. Second, you mentioned that you're not allowed to fish at the right time, or you're fishing at a time when the markets are at their worst. Could you clarify that or comment on that? I mean, what is it? Is it that the shrimp are most plentiful or you're allowed to fish at the time or in the life cycle of the shrimp, that that's the right time to fish? How is that out of sync with market conditions?

[Normand Cull]

The processors are telling us they've been wanting to shut down in the summer months for the past two or three years. They don't want to see any summer fishery at all, but again, we feel that the boats that we are into are not safe to go out beyond October or November. The reason I'm saying that is the companies are telling us that we're fishing in the summer when the shrimp is at its worst state. We're not getting the dollar that we should be getting if we were fishing at a different time of the year. If we were fishing later on in the fall, for example, if we could fish in November and December, we probably might be able to get a better return for our shrimp, but I don't know if that would offset the cost of going into a 100-footer. Do you understand what I'm trying to point out?

[James Lunney, Conservative, Nanaimo—Alberni, BC]

Yes, that was very helpful.

[Normand Cull]

The reason why is because of the market. That's the time when the market is at its worse.

[James Lunney, Conservative, Nanaimo—Alberni, BC]

It's safer for the fishermen to go in the summertime when the seas are calm and they can see where they're going, because the days are longer.

[Normand Cull]

Yes, exactly. Everybody that's involved in this shrimp fishery is not in a 65-footer. You have boats out there that are 45-foot boats. You have more fishermen in 50-footers. I'd say that probably about only 50% of the fleet are 65-foot boats. You have them in much smaller boats. There are also fishermen involved in the shrimp fishery that are in 35-foot boats.

[James Lunney, Conservative, Nanaimo—Alberni, BC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerald Keddy]

Mr. Manning.

[Fabian Manning, Conservative, Avalon, NL]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I want to thank our guests for their presentations.

I want to go back to a question Mr. Byrne asked in regard to the consultation process by the government in relation to the new fishing vessel safety regulations. Their plan is to try to come up with new clear regulations and standards for vessel safety.

I listened to you, Mr. Cull, as you mentioned, and you didn't have to tell me because I've known of your involvement in the fishery here for a number of years. You've been involved in many parts. Was I correct in hearing that you have not participated in this process in relation to the new regulations and the stability requirements that have come forward and the talk about stability booklets?

[Normand Cull]

I'm aware that you had to have a stability booklet, but I wasn't aware that there was an ongoing process from 65-foot boats to 100-footers. I know there's been a lot of lobbying—

[Fabian Manning, Conservative, Avalon, NL]

No, no. There's a process in place now. It's my understanding that they're meeting with different fishery groups around Atlantic Canada and other places and discussing these new stability requirements for vessels of different lengths and they're going to build different regulations and things.

[Normand Cull]

I've never been involved in that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerald Keddy]

Just for clarification, the process was started in February 2004, nearly three years ago now, and it was supposed to be ready for the spring of 2008.

[Fabian Manning, Conservative, Avalon, NL]

The new regulations are going to be presented next spring, some time in 2007, and then they're going to be looking for feedback.

I want to get at the point. We were told earlier on by officials that they're involved with all this consultation process. I had never heard tell of it down in my area. That's why I asked the question here, and it's come to light here this morning, from what I gather, that you people haven't been involved in the process either. Would that be correct?

[Normand Cull]

That's right. I haven't been involved in it. I have had no invitation to become involved in any talks.

[Fabian Manning, Conservative, Avalon, NL]

If I look at your involvement in the fishery in this province, and you haven't been involved, this raises a major concern with me about who is involved.

From a shipbuilding point of view, Mr. Randell—

[Hubert Randell]

Some time in 2005 I did get an invite to participate. However, it was in New Brunswick, not in Newfoundland.

[Fabian Manning, Conservative, Avalon, NL]

These are things I'm sure we can do some follow-up on. If they're going to bring in regulations to change vessel lengths and cause fishermen to have stability booklets that cost dollars, I think we should be involved in the process, before they come down with the hammer and say this has to be done.

To listen to you people, it should have been done a long time ago.

I guess Transport Canada's main concern is safety; DFO's main concern is preservation of stock. You know what I mean. We have two competing entities when it comes to the new regulations. I think safety is everybody's concern. We all shudder when we hear of an accident at sea, especially one that causes deaths.

As I listen to both you gentlemen this morning, I realize that everybody is on the same wavelength of safety. But if somebody is looking to increase their boat from 65 feet beyond or 45 feet beyond, whatever the case may be, they would agree today that they don't want more quota. You know, I just want to be safe on the water. I want my crew to be safe. I want to operate in a safe environment. Therefore, I'm not going to ask for additional quota.

The problem is when the boat is built and the cost of operating that boat goes through the roof--especially, as Mr. Cull touched on with the dollar and the cost of fuel--it becomes an issue after the fact.

On IQs in place now, I've heard the minister himself say it should be up to the fisherman what he wants to fish in, whether it's the Queen Mary or the 34-footer. It's up to him. The minister said that himself. But to address this from a safety point of view, somewhere along the line it's going to have to be agreed by the people in the industry that, yes, if government makes that step to go forward, they're not going to be back next year or the year after for quota.

Mr. Cull, we've been around the fishery discussions for many years. It's always the case of, “We'll get it first and then we'll try to get something after.” Let's be real here. How do we address that from a government point of view? How do we address the safety issue, which is the increase of boat length and width, whatever the case may be, but also making sure that we don't have war on our hands a couple of years down the road because nobody can make the financial commitment that is needed with the size of a new boat? That seems to be the issue. Everything else aside, the issue seems to be that the government may somewhere down the road look favourably at allowing the fisherman to build a safe boat, if he desires to build one, but at the same time not get involved in the fact of looking for more quota afterwards. It's a sticky issue. It seems that there's no clear answer to it.

[Normand Cull]

There are two things we can probably do to fix it. One is combining. If there are two or three people who want to go into a bigger boat, they can combine the three lots of shrimp they have or whatever and put it into that one boat. That's one way not to issue more product, I would say.

The other is if I decide tomorrow that I'm going to go from a 65-foot to a 100-footer to catch my personal IQ or cap or whatever, then I should have to sign on the dotted line to say that I don't want any more product.

Those are the two ways I see that you would be able to move from a 65-foot boat to a bigger boat.

[Fabian Manning, Conservative, Avalon, NL]

Okay, I—