George is a fisherman, so he's in a better position to answer this, but I will say this about what you're referring to. Every fishery is different, as you well know. Every fishery has different criteria, and I think the most important thing for the committee to remember--and you said it, you hit on it--is that industry itself has to sit down and...I was going to say, “duke it out”, because oftentimes that's what it turns out to be. There has to be a discussion at the table with the people who are fishing that particular fishery. They have to decide. And not everybody is going to be happy. Nobody is ever totally happy with anything.
But there has to be a realization that we can't have this paternalistic relationship all the time. Yes, there has to be some of it going on from DFO, but there also have to be people at the table who know what's required, and then some of DFO's conservation issues and so on need to be brought to it and put on the table. We're adults.
Yes, people are driven by earning a living; that's part and parcel of it. But let's be real. People just want to earn a living, and I think the majority of people fall into that category.
It has to be a joint relationship in thee true sense of the word “partnership”, which is freely used by DFO. It's not a partnership. It's an exercise in downloading cost to industry, in my opinion. But let's work on a true relationship, and that would be part of it, which is what you're talking about.
You can't pick a number and say that 53 feet is going to cut it for the lobster, the crab, and the groundfish. We can't paint everything with one brush. I think that's what Transport is trying to do. DFO often tries to do it--get a number and try to put your square peg in your square hole. Every hole can't be square. It's that simple.