Fisheries Committee on Nov. 8th, 2006

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

So basically you're very satisfied with your fleet structure right now. If somebody came in and—

[Gilles Vigneau]

We have no problem with the structure of the current vessels fleet. The problem is that Transport Canada requirements will only increase from year to year. In order for us to have a constructive discussion today, we would have had to develop the proposed changes further.

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

Yes.

There was a transition in the chair there, and I don't want to usurp your authority, Mr. Chair, but I believe Mario was going to speak.

[Mario Desrape]

You asked if we had enlarge our vessels. Vessels are certainly larger in recent years. Like another part of the world, there have been changes. But safety is always an issue. Our vessels may be larger and more powerful, but they are safe.

In answer to the question Mr. Blais asked a few moments ago, I would say that, when we build a boat, we use a plan approved by a naval architect as well as by Department of Transport. The vessel does not fall [Editor's note: Inaudible]. That is how it works.

When we modify our vessels—and some have been modified—the work is monitored by inspectors from Transport Canada, Quebec Division. That is very important. Mr. Vigneau raised the point a few moments ago, and I took note of it to share it with you. This is something we have publicly deplored and we continue to deplore: there is one federal government, but we noted that, in many areas—particularly vessels inspection—there is a great deal of disparity among the provinces. That is completely unacceptable. Shipbuilders tell us, and we are well aware of it. The disparities are reflected in construction costs, as I said. If our shipbuilders are continually monitored by Transport Canada's Quebec Division, to ensure that everything is done by the book, but standards in other regions are not strictly applied—and that is exactly what happens—then we get price competition. As a result, more and more of our fishers are going elsewhere to have their vessels built. It's a problem.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerald Keddy]

Mr. Chevrier.

[Pierre Chevrier]

I would also like to answer the question.

The vessel fleet in the Magdalen Islands has changed enormously, and for the better. I started fishing on vessels that did not even have a cabin for shelter, or a guardrail. But when we went out for cod, we would bring cod catches weighing 2,000, 3,000, 4,000 and even 5,000 pounds. Things have changed over the years.

At present, some of our vessels are 40 feet long and 16 feet wide, and are built very low in the water. We also have shrimp vessels with full cabins. In Newfoundland, boats are fairly short and have fairly high cabin structures. They do not have the same stability characteristics as the Magdalen Islands vessels at all. Our ships are 14 to 16 feet wide, and bridge at two-and-a-half feet from the surface of the water. They do not have a high cabin structure, nor do they have a hoist or a power block and tackle. They are completely different vessels.

As Gilles said, I feel that what is being put before us is in fact already imposed. Mr. Blais said that meetings are planned and that he already has to do an individual stability test. Transport Canada should conduct stability tests on the moles of ships that come out of Léo LeBlanc's yard or other yards, so that the fisher's vessel would be rigged and bridged in a certain way, and would in essence pass the test.

They've gone so far as to say that if my head is at the front of the vessel and is higher than the wheelhouse, I should probably have a stability test carried out. That is completely ridiculous. We don't want to comply with that kind of garbage. It would cost between $1,000 and $1,500, eating up 5 to 6 % of my income, for something really stupid. Go conduct inspections in the Magdalen Islands. You will see that fishers are security-conscious.

In any case, regardless of wether a vessel has undergone a stability test, what really matters is how the fisher handles the vessel.

Gilles mentioned the shipwreck. I saw the TSB report on the shipwreck in New Brunswick. In fact, it has occurred off Anticosti Island. A fisher brought his boat out, loaded with lumber and boards. The load was tied with cords and stood higher than the vessel's cabin. I saw the photos. He left the Belle-Île Strait and sailed for Gaspé, in spite of the winds and storm announced.

If that fisher's lobster boat had undergone a stability test, it would have passed easily. However, the fisher made a serious mistake: destabilizing his own vessel, he did not use his head. Our fishers are being put in danger because someone somewhere fishes in a certain spot, or for other reasons.

Every spring, 325 fishers take out boats laden with lobster cages. When winds are forecast, the fishers pile the cages to a height of three or four feet. If the sea is absolutely calm he doesn't need to do that because he knows his boat, and he knows how the boat will respond. He has never capsized his boat when putting cages into the water. For the fleet of vessels under 15 tons, the day on which lobster cages are put into the water is more or less the most dangerous day there is, because the boat could be made to capsize because of instability. But fishers are well aware of this.

If Transport Canada ends up with a case-by-case system, an individual approach, every fisher will have to pay. If 400 Magdalen Islands fishers each pay $400, how much will it all cost? We can't pay that much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerald Keddy]

Merci.

Please understand that part of the reason we wanted to have this discussion on stability testing is that we were travelling throughout eastern Canada, and this was a great opportunity as a committee to hear what fishermen were saying about the stability tests.

We're hearing the same thing in every area. We're going to hear it in my area of Nova Scotia. I'm sure we'll hear the same message tomorrow about the idea that one hull could be tested.

The difficulty is that the Transport Canada rules have come out, and they're going to be applied soon. We want to make sure that while they're looking at this issue, there's also another issue concerning the length requirements on your licences and what length restrictions are.

Monsieur Cormier, I think you had a comment. Then I'm going to our next questioner, Mr. Manning.

[Marcel Cormier]

I was just seeking to confirm an opinion. The last shipwrecks in the Magdalen Islands were not caused by vessels capsizing, but in all cases were caused by invasion from above — hull tightness or fire. I was talking about the latest shipwrecks, though there are generally not many.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerald Keddy]

Merci.

Mr. Vigneau, do you have a quick comment?

[Gilles Vigneau]

A question, please.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerald Keddy]

Okay, go ahead.

[Gilles Vigneau]

I have a question. Another Transport Canada committee has studied all the impacts that new stability measures and new regulations could have in Quebec.

Are you working in conjunction with that committee, or is each committee working separately? In Quebec, a group from Transport Canada meets with people once a year to explain the new regulations. Vessel owners in our fleet contact inspectors from Rimouski, or finds an office for the Quebec region. Fishers make recommendations to that Transport Canada group. That explains the recommendations that fishers have already put forward. That is why I'm having some difficulty today—I am not saying I'm surprised, but I do have some difficulty understanding the process. We have already been invited to take part in other meetings. Perhaps you have not been provided with information from the various groups or from other regions.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerald Keddy]

That's a fair question.

I think the interest for the committee is that there's a lot of interest in the ridings we represent. Most of us represent fishery ridings. There are several hundred boats in the riding I represent. A lot of questions have been asked about how the rules will be implemented. All of those questions haven't been answered by Transport Canada.

As well, understand that Transport Canada's committee is a separate committee. We're not linked. We're just trying to signal this as an issue. We may or may not make recommendations to Transport Canada. If anything, I suspect it would be recommendations to slow down somewhat on implementation. But that's if we make any recommendations; I can't speak for the committee.

So that's why we brought it up, because our fishermen are talking to us about it.

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

Mr. Chair, it's also fair to say that the Transport Canada committee is looking at all vessels, at the implications for all types of vessels. We're simply looking at fishing vessels.

I don't know if that's a fair comment to make, but....

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerald Keddy]

In particular, the rules will apply for fishing vessels over 15 tonnes. Different areas have different requirements.

In the riding I represent, fishermen fish year-round. They fish in ice conditions. They fish in 35-foot vessels over 100 miles offshore. They're restricted to what they catch by length requirements. There are all kinds of rules and regulations that we just want to have a discussion about.

I'm not trying to take too much time here. I think that answers your question.

We'll move to Mr. Kamp.

[Randy Kamp, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I think this gentleman raises a good point. What's pretty clear to us is that it's not very clear just what the current regulations are and where the process is going. Our understanding is that there are current stability requirements, but Transport Canada is reviewing those requirements and is going through a process of consultation. We'll gazette those new requirements, get feedback on those again, and then put them in place in mid-2008. But it sounds as if you're already getting some directives from Transport Canada in terms of what requirements you need to meet.

My understanding is that Transport Canada has one set of regulations for large fishing vessels—probably most of you don't have those—and another set of regulations for small fishing vessels. For example, those regulations say that even though your boat could be as small as 15 gross tons, but up to 150 gross tons, if you catch herring or capelin you have to have a stability booklet.

By stability test, are you referring to the requirement to have a stability booklet? Is that the same thing, as far as you know? What are the lengths of the boats, or the sizes of the boats, that you use here in Îles-de-la-Madeleine, and what do you catch? Do you catch herring and capelin, and how far do you go when you fish?

Those would be my questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerald Keddy]

We'll go to Monsieur Vigneau.

[Gilles Vigneau]

I will answer that question.

If I had not had a stability test done on my boat last spring, I could not have gone out to sea. This measure is applied. It is a concrete measure. If my boat had not had a stability test, the inspector would have wharfed me. I have no doubt about that.

Things are different, depending on the class of boat you have. I have a 45-footer, with a GRT of over 15 tons. The boat therefore comes under Transport Canada regulations. I am authorized to sail over 100 miles from the coast. In fact, I can go up to 120 miles offshore. Under current regulations, I can do that provided I have all the safety equipment required, including a life raft, an emergency beacon, a new digital radio, an all other equipment that meets current safety standards.

The stability test was put forward by the Department of Transport. I have a multi-species boat—in other words, I can fish for scallop and groundfish, among other species. Last winter, I received a letter telling me that I had to have a stability test done on my boat, because my boat was part of the class targeted by Transport Canada.

That class also included the boats of clam and shellfish harvesters. In fact, it included any boat that did any trawl fishing and had a load on the bridge or somewhat higher, for example boats on which equipment is lifted using the mast hoist, or that kind of thing. In fact, it included all boats over 15 tons, and all trawlers.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerald Keddy]

Monsieur Desrape.

[Mario Desrape]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

In answer to the question, I would say that there are 325 lobster fishers in our fleet. Most boats are 45 feet or less, and we engage in various types of fishing. Primarily we do lobster fishing, but we do fish for herring, mackerel and groundfish, and sometimes even hunt seals.

How far offshore do we go? Twenty or twenty-five miles—it all depends on the type of fishing we are doing. For groundfish, we go out further. For lobster, we go about 20 miles out around the island, but not much further than before, when we were not asked to have stability tests done on our boats. We go there today, but we went there before too. So don't tell me that I am now going where I wasn't going before. I've always gone where I go now. I don't go out further than I used to. That holds for most fishers.

[Randy Kamp, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission, BC]

Have all the boat owners been told they need a stability test?

[Mario Desrape]

In my fleet, it has not been requested yet. However, Mr. Vigneau, who is here today, has been told he needs a stability test, and has received a letter to that effect. Perhaps it's because he trawls for groundfish, we don't know if that is the reason. In our fleet, we have not yet been given notice that all our boats would need stability tests. That's why we are here today, to tell you that we don't want that, at least not under these conditions. Whenever we are told about the new regulations and the stability tests, the point is made that the department is concerned about the safety and lives of commercial fishers, that it's all for our protection. That's all very well, but the safety regulations never apply to sport fishing boats. But sport fishing goes on—sport fishing go for cod to the same places I go. But they're not regulated. So there is a double standard here. It's there, in black and white.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerald Keddy]

Mr. Vigneau.

[Gilles Vigneau]

I have a question for the member. I told you earlier that the regulations are Canadian, and that the legislation is not consistently enforced to the same degree everywhere. I believe that my case in particular, from this year, provides a clear example. I was forced to put my boat through a stability test. At the beginning of 2006, I received a form from Transport Canada in the mail. It was a sort of newsletter to inform there was a possibility to make all stability tests mandatory. The same newsletter laid out different fishing scenarios. It used trawlers and scallop vessels as examples. Just as you had been explaining, I was asked where my fleet is located, and where within the group, my boat is located. There was also reference to herring and cod. The regulation under which the stability tests are mandatory had been in existence for some time. In the case of trawlers and scallop harvesting, this is entirely new, at least here on the coast.

Personally, I am in frequent contact with scallop harvesters. They are about 20 harvesters in the islands. The financial impact is substantial: we are talking about $7,000 to $8,000 in addition to problems relating to tracking the paper trail. Some people have boats that are 25 years old. That is another problem.

What makes me laugh, and what also is under my skin, is the fact that my fellow fisherman, who has a boat of less than 15 gross tons does not have to comply with the current regulation. I don't know if he also has to go through the stability tests, as I do, since my boat is more than 15 gross tonne.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerald Keddy]

Excuse me. I just have to interrupt for a second, and I apologize for that.

The rules on the stability tests are for 15 tonnes and over. If you're under 15 tonnes and you have certain species or you're fishing in ice conditions, you could be subject.

But with respect, we can't really answer all of your questions. We're here to get information. We're a multi-party group. We're not representing one party in government, we're representing the committee as an entity. We're really not here to speak for the government.

I'm just going to ask Mr. Kamp if he has a final question, and then we'll move on to our other questioners, if we can.

We understand the frustration.