Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'd like to thank the presenters here today.
Melanie, don't make any apologies for that, because we've heard loud and clear about the consultation process. As I'm sitting here as a member of the committee, to be honest with you, to hear that again just makes the case more solid to bring it back to Ottawa and pass on that message.
I'm also very upset, as a member of the committee, that you signed a memorandum of understanding when we were fighting the battle a couple of weeks ago to try to get that as part and parcel of this process. To find today that there is a memorandum of understanding signed that we as parliamentarians are not even aware of, let alone you people not being aware of it, brings back some memories of things that happened in Newfoundland that I wasn't aware of before.
We hear statistics all the time. We heard a statistic that 80% of tragedies at sea in some way, shape, or form go back to human error. Nobody wants to hear of tragedies--none of us. We all live in outport communities, and we earn our living from the sea.
I realize that in Newfoundland some of the fisheries are different because there are high quotas. However, there is a concern being raised that if you allow fishermen to go longer and build bigger boats, in order for them to be able to pay some of that cost, the pressure will come on them to add on to product that they're taking from the sea
While some people think it's a futile argument, the fact is that it could become a situation in which you put out the expense to enlarge your boat and make it safer, realizing maybe two years down the road or a year down the road that you need more product to make this work.
I live in a small community of 500 people where 40-foot boats are alone, 160 miles offshore, trying to make a living. They're playing with fire every single day. My own family participates in that, and it's a very dangerous game.
I made a comment in Gander or St. Anthony the other day that I heard a lot of stupid things before I went to Ottawa, and I'm up here hearing a lot of stupid things since I've been to Ottawa in relation to what I would deem to be common sense. Safety has to be the number one concern of everybody, regardless of this.
It seems as though the numbers game plays very well to people who are in these towers in Ottawa. Is there a length that we could agree on or that industry could agree on that would be...? Is it 50 feet? Is it 53 feet? Is it 54 feet? I'm just trying to get my head around the fact that if you go back and say, “Well, 44' 11" doesn't cut it”, then what does cut it? Could someone enlighten me? I don't know if I'm getting across the question I'm trying to ask, but it seems as though they need a number, and I guess we need a number to fight for.