Evidence of meeting #130 for Fisheries and Oceans in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was licence.
A recording is available from Parliament.
6:20 p.m.
Conservative
6:20 p.m.
Mr. Ken McDonald (Avalon, Lib.)
Thank you, Mr. Doherty. That's it, Your time was over.
Now we'll go to Mr. Morrissey, for five minutes or less, please.
6:20 p.m.
Liberal
Bobby Morrissey Liberal Egmont, PE
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
There's a lot of reference made to the issue of married licences and the resistance of DFO to allow them to be broken up for sale. Where would you see a negative side to allowing that? Is there a downside to allowing the licences to be sold separately after they're accumulated?
6:20 p.m.
Fisher, As an Individual
I think that, in its testimony on January 30, the department named the reason as being more vessels on the water, so whatever you make of that. I don't think it's a downside at all.
6:20 p.m.
Fisher, As an Individual
The unmarrying of licences, yes. I'm just saying that, in its testimony on January 30, the department did refer to it.
6:20 p.m.
Liberal
Bobby Morrissey Liberal Egmont, PE
As fishers, you do not see a negative to allowing that to happen, to having a policy that allows that.
6:20 p.m.
Fisher, As an Individual
I think it was brought in to limit the size of the fleet, and I think the size of the fleet has been limited. In the same way that length restrictions on a lot of licences are a little bit archaic, I think allowing the unmarrying of licences would probably not have many negative effects, but would allow more affordability.
6:20 p.m.
Liberal
Bobby Morrissey Liberal Egmont, PE
Okay.
As I listen to the testimony, one major problem on the west coast issue, to me as an east coast representative, is the whole ability to transfer quota and the ability to have it held by somebody without a licence. The comment was made about how we need to have a better balance to the leasing market.
Could you briefly tell the committee how you would see that balance? We've heard about transparency, but if there's one thing this committee can deal with, it's with making recommendations around the area of leasing. Everybody seems to have a focus on that one.
6:20 p.m.
Fisher, As an Individual
I think your previous two guests made very good points. A fair sharing leasing agreement that actually had teeth, from the government, would really help solve that. I know that, for me, even if we had that type of a fair sharing agreement, with the extra money I could make I'd be able to—
6:20 p.m.
Liberal
6:20 p.m.
Fisher, As an Individual
I don't know enough about the procedure to totally comment, but I think something.... Basically, if we could put percentage-based leasing, actual numbers, fishery by fishery, into the integrated fisheries management plans, that would be a way to do it. I'm not an expert on that. Somehow make it stick, because if we continue with the free market, we're just going to keep going the way we are now.
6:25 p.m.
Liberal
Bobby Morrissey Liberal Egmont, PE
You made the comment, as well, Mr. MacDonald, that you're a first-generation fisherman, but that you own no licence. You're fishing and you have no licences.
6:25 p.m.
Fisher, As an Individual
It's the only way I could really do it. Duncan made a comment about this earlier, which I thought was a really good point. As lease prices go up and quota lease prices go up, people have to fish harder to be able to make enough money to make it work.
6:25 p.m.
Fisher, As an Individual
I mean more effort. We have to increase our fishing effort, and we have to increase our fishing effort in multiple fisheries to make enough money to make the business work. If all that extra percentage of the landed value were actually staying with the fishermen and not going somewhere else, we would be able to actually fish less and catch less because we'd be making enough money to keep our businesses going.
6:25 p.m.
Liberal
Bobby Morrissey Liberal Egmont, PE
The other part that I found intriguing was about the boards that are overseeing this. It looks like there are no active fishers on some of these boards that are making the decisions that are really controlling the fate of your fishery. It's a convoluted way you get there. Am I correct?
Who sets the boards up? Is it federal DFO policy that establishes the criteria for who sits on the boards?
6:25 p.m.
Fisher, As an Individual
Yes, it's the way that they communicate through the region on different management plans.
6:25 p.m.
Liberal
Bobby Morrissey Liberal Egmont, PE
So, DFO establishes the criteria for the makeup of these boards or committees that give back the advice.
6:25 p.m.
Fisher, As an Individual
They establish the process in which the advisory board will communicate to the department.
I'll be honest. With crab, we have asked for a different multi-sectoral process for the last five years running. I can guarantee what the next crab industry meeting will be. They'll be asking for a new process.
We don't get it. We need a new way.
6:25 p.m.
Fisher, As an Individual
With tuna, it is quite democratic. There's a vote for boards of directors. Then, from the board of directors for the B.C. Tuna Fishermen's Association, we select members to go to our tuna advisory board, and they deal with the fisheries manager, so that is quite good.
Tuna is unique because all you need is a schedule II permit to fish Canadian tuna. It's one of the only low-cost to entry fisheries we have.
6:25 p.m.
Mr. Ken McDonald (Avalon, Lib.)
Thank you, Mr. Morrissey.
We're almost out of time. I guess we started a few minutes late, so I'll allow Mr. Doherty to ask one question and Mr. Donnelly to ask a question.
I'll remind members, when we clew up we have to do a little bit of business for the approval of the budget so that our guests can get paid for their expenses.
Mr. Doherty.
