Fisheries Committee on Nov. 7th, 2006

[John Gillett]

Yes. I had to cut 18 inches off my vessel for the DFO regulations. That cost me anywhere from $5,000 to $8,000. I got the rudder stuck out on the back of her, and I had to put two feet on the keel for the regulations.

I can't see a problem with that. If someone has an IQ for a fishery, what difference does the size of the boat mean?

Where there's an open quota, then there should be a trip limit. Say I've got a 64-foot 11-inch boat and Hedley's got a 40-foot boat or 45-footer. If the trip limit is 50,000 pounds, then that's all he's going to be able to bring in, even if he's got an 80-foot boat. He'll only be able to bring, on one trip, that 50,000 pounds.

Wouldn't that eliminate all of this problem? I know it would be an advantage if everything was left open. I've got a 34-foot boat, and if somebody's competing with me in a 60-foot 4-inch or 65-footer, I'm not going to be able to go through the ice like he can.

So it can't be left open to that kind of quota, but it could be a trip quota.

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

Right, John. I agree with you, and you made the point very well. But my question is this. DFO has basically said that in order to control your over-investment in your enterprise. If you go out and put $300,000 on a boat, over and above what you had before, then you have a $300,000 extra payment that you have to make. Therefore, you're going to demand more fish to be able to make that payment.

My question is, have your fleets—

[Hedley Butler]

That's already being done.

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

Hedley, just respond to that, if you wouldn't mind.

[Hedley Butler]

In 1997, we built a boat 44-foot 11-inch boat at King's Point, as I stated previously. We wanted to go to 52 feet. At that time, DFO said, no way, if we went to 52 feet, we would not be allowed to fish with that boat. The next year, another guy from my area went down and built one at 52 feet. So he's gotten into a bigger expense, with a bigger boat, and he's still at the same quota. That's just a way for DFO to get out of it, saying that we can't do this.

But open it up. I'm a firm believer that if you've got to open up the footage, then if I want to go to 80 feet and I've only got this amount of crab or this amount of shrimp to catch, that's all I get. I don't get any more; that's all I get.

I can build one of 200 feet if I can make my payments. That's up to me, but that's not being done. Well, that's already being done. The regulations state 44 feet 11 inches, but there are fellows who've gone to 52 feet, and there are fellows who've up and gone farther than that. But they make some more there, as you said, and they make them all year.

But we were already into that, right, John? We're already there.

[Ted Watkins]

And what they've done, to answer Gerry's question, and it's true, is spend the money, because they built the boat and got the volume in depth and width and they compromised the length. And this is where the stability comes in, with the length of your boat and your depth and your width. Your length is just as important as the depth and the width. But when you cap the length, and there's no cap on the depth or the width, you get an unstable boat.

And I stand just to speak for.... I'm not a statistician, but I'm willing to bet that the biggest problem in stability accidents in Newfoundland and Labrador in the last 10 to 15 years has happened in the newer-built vessels.

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

Okay.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerald Keddy]

Thank you.

Monsieur Blais.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Getting back to what you just said about the depth of vessels, I have the impression that people are looking for a magic bullet. What's the issue here: the length, the size or the height of the boat? As you mentioned earlier, many different types of species are being fished. Therefore, it's more important to adapt than ever before. Vessels are used to catch various species.

What is the key to making the boats safe? Ultimately, that is the goal. Stability means safety. Is the length of the boat a factor, or is it a combination of height, size and length?

[Hedley Butler]

My answer to that question is very simple, and that is to lift the restrictions on the length of the boats. Don't have any restrictions there at all. Whether it is 34 feet 11 inches or 44 feet 11 inches, whatever size of boat the fishing people want to go with, that restriction should be lifted, and they should be able to build a boat the size they want.

[Ted Watkins]

I didn't get his questions. I'm not a very good technician, and I'm even worse in French. So I apologize. I didn't hear the conversation.

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

I'm trying to understand how you can best address the current problem of boat stability. As you mentioned earlier, many different species of fish are being caught. Therefore, boats must be able to adapt to different conditions.

What is the key to ensuring the stability of the vessel? Stability and safety go hand in hand. In your opinion, what is the most important factor? Earlier, you mentioned the height of the boat. Are there any other considerations? How can this problem be addressed?

[Ted Watkins]

Basically, I'm into a multi-species vessel, and yes, it causes some problems with stability when you're changing gear completely. But when you're capped on the length of your vessel, that's where you run into problems. You can make them wider, you can make them deeper, but you're capped with your length. So probably if I could go 20 feet longer and have a boat that's not quite as wide and not as deep and not as high, I mean, that vessel would probably meet vast stability booklets to pursue the fishery I want to pursue. But at her size, and when I'm capped in the length, you run into a problem.

It's a rule of thumb in the fishing industry. I understood that you should never go any more than one-third of the length of your boat in your width. That's the max. And when we're building boats 30 feet wide and 65 long, we've gone way beyond proportions.

So I would suggest the length of the vessel.... At that time, you probably will be able to start constructing vessels that will meet stability tests. I maintain that the problem with stability is in the bulk of the boat, the way it's constructed. You'll probably end up with the same carrying volume as the guy who has the 65-foot 11-inch boat that is built 30 feet wide. If he built himself an 80, that could probably be a 90-foot boat at 30-feet wide. And at that point, she's probably a very stable boat.

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

Have you done any kind of assessment of your boat that you have modified or modernized to some degree? Have you done an assessment for stability?

[Ted Watkins]

I haven't done any assessment for stability. We go with the fishery and what we're allowed to get. You get cut in quotas. You get a quota, like a crab quota. This year I got somewhere around one-third of the quota I had three years ago.

We were into the cod fishery. In 1992 we lost all that. We have none of that left. For the turbot fishery, as you know, the stocks have been going down and are being cut. So when I get into other fisheries, like mackerel seining and the shrimp industry, I basically do it out of necessity.

I try to do what I can to survive. It's a matter of survival. It's probably not a matter of choice for me to take my boat, which was never built for shrimp harvesting, and go offshore 150 to 200 miles and drag shrimp. Quite frankly, she was never built for it. It's necessity. I suppose I'm breaking the rules and should be taken and chucked away somewhere, but I'm doing it out of necessity to survive in the industry. Governments and DFO haven't provided me with the haddock and stocks for the boat I've got, to keep it to survive. I have to turn somewhere else. I have to turn to other species, and that's where I run into trouble.

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

Are you in favour of Transport Canada's proposal to bring in a stability booklet?

[Ted Watkins]

I don't think that stability booklet is really going to change it. I think for the present and the future, for all new vessels built, there should be very tight regulations on it. But if it can't pass the test for stability, then I'm basically out of the fisheries. I don't know if the stability will do it.

I look at the space shuttle program in the States. They have the best technology, they're not short on money, they have the best equipment, and they devise a shuttle that, when it goes up, blows up, and probably does that with a stability test. If you've got a stability test, it's not going to ensure that you're not going to have an accident. It probably will help, but it's up to the operator of that boat. If he's going to defy weather, overload the boat, stability test or not, he's going to get into trouble. I operate my boat on my own knowledge and my experience and hope to hell that with my experience and my knowledge I make the correct decisions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerald Keddy]

Mr. Manning.

[Fabian Manning, Conservative, Avalon, NL]

I have a couple of quick questions.

Yesterday we heard a comment that 80% of mishaps go back to human error in some way, shape or form. You touched on it. I guess riding the wave takes on a whole new meaning when you take a chance on the water.

For the past number of months, a couple of years, I guess, Transport Canada has been developing new fishing vessel safety regulations. Mr. Watkins, you mentioned you received a letter stating that you had to have a booklet. We're hearing kind of a mixed message, that in some cases there's not a whole lot of consultation in some areas in relation to these regulations that are forthcoming. They're to be gazetted sometime in 2007. The new rules will be put out, supposedly after these consultations have taken place.

From your perspective, how much input have you had, as harvesters yourselves, into the study or the process that is in place now in relation to the new regulations that will be forthcoming on vessel stability?

[Ted Watkins]

We haven't had too much input. I was talking to the president, Mr. Keddy, this morning, and he told me that he'd been warning us for three or four years. I must say, I study and I read newspapers from Nova Scotia. I have seen his name in the paper and I've seen some of the stuff he's written. This has been ongoing.

But you're in a bureaucratic system. We're organized as fish harvesters and we're covered by a fishermen's union. The government sends DFO out and they meet together. Quite frankly, the grassroots of the industry have very little to say and don't really get involved. It happens more at the boardroom table with the president of the union, or the vice-president of the union, and you probably get a couple of government officials. They sit around, and the grassroots of the industry are not being heard from, quite frankly. We have very little input.

[Fabian Manning, Conservative, Avalon, NL]

Hedley?

[Hedley Butler]

No, I had no consultation with anybody, none whatsoever. Nobody contacted me. I don't know about John--

[John Gillett]

No.

[Hedley Butler]

--but I never had any.

[Fabian Manning, Conservative, Avalon, NL]

There was a meeting held here in Gander last April.