Fisheries Committee on Feb. 15th, 2018

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Thank you.

I understand some of the safety issues. I come from a boatbuilding background, and I've actually had to do repairs on vessels that were modified unsafely, and had to make the changes. I can understand why some of the fishermen would want to extend their decks to carry more gear and so on.

One of the interesting sections in here is section 3.17(2), which reads:

In the case of a fishing vessel that has undergone a stability assessment, a record of a modification or series of modifications that affects the stability of the vessel shall be kept until the vessel undergoes a new stability assessment that takes into account the modification or series of modifications.

To me that looks like it's just about keeping records of changes, but how long is that in effect until they go through another stability assessment? Are there any implications if that's not adhered to? What's the follow-up to that?

[Jacqueline Perry]

Could you tell us what document you're reading from?

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

This was the brief provided to the committee by the Library of Parliament. I'm just reading section 3.17, which basically states that if a vessel has gone through a stability assessment and then it's further modified, all that needs to be done is keep a record of the modifications until it goes through a further stability assessment. How long would it be until a stability assessment needed to be done?

[Jacqueline Perry]

I'm not familiar with the document you're referencing.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

It's the fishing vessel safety regulations.

[Jacqueline Perry]

It's a Transport Canada document. It isn't a document that it is within our mandate to speak to.

Our registrations speak to vessel length, and the documentation related to modifications or stability generally does not form part of our records.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

We may have hit the tip of the iceberg here, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Yes, and regarding time as well. Sorry, I have to cut you off there.

Mr. Donnelly for seven minutes, please.

[Fin Donnelly, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to our witnesses and department officials for being here.

Monsieur Vincent described the vessel safety consultation process in Quebec, but I was wondering if our officials could describe the vessel-length consultation process for, say, crab fishers in Newfoundland.

[Jacqueline Perry]

The last time we engaged in a dedicated consultation process for vessel length specifically was in 2006, leading into the 2007 policy changes. Annually, we engage with the crab fishing fleets, for example, to develop the management plans associated with that fishery. That happens every year. On occasion, issues related to vessels and vessel safety come up during those consultations. It happens every single year that we consult with them in the development of the management plan, and vessel-related issues could form part of that discussion.

The last time we did a dedicated, focused review of the licensing policies related to vessel length was in 2006-07, and it was a partnership initiative with the federal and provincial governments that looked at a broad range of fishing industry renewal initiatives, such as other fundamental changes like the licensing combining policy focused on fleet rationalization. It was a very elaborate, expensive process.

[Fin Donnelly, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. McDonald used pretty strong words about a complete lack of consultation on the annual updates and consultation. Some fishers didn't feel they were heard. They had to do an ATIP to get information.

How do you square that circle? How is it these fishers feel that way? You're describing the fact that the consultation is annual, and it sounds as if everybody is listened to. How is it there's a disconnect?

[Jacqueline Perry]

We do have an annual consultation process. Can we connect with all harvesters during that consultation process? No. There are representatives, there are committees, and harvesters speak for their respective fleets.

There is a possibility that individuals who don't get to participate in that process may not feel engaged, but the department is speaking to crab fishermen and fishermen in other fisheries every year.

[Fin Donnelly, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Representation is an important point that you left out. The department consults with representatives, not everyone. How are the fishers who aren't represented or don't feel represented able to be listened to?

[Jacqueline Perry]

The committee structures in place assume the committee representatives, who are elected democratically by their fleets, consult with their constituents and bring forward their perspectives.

[Fin Donnelly, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

When it gets to the point of an ATIP, how is it that it gets to that point as opposed to—does the department say you're going around the dedicated process here, and you have to work through your representative? How is it that an individual crab fisherman would do an ATIP as opposed to the department saying we can get you that information?

[Jacqueline Perry]

We provide information to individual harvesters as well. I obviously can't speak to the motivation behind an individual putting in an ATIP request.

Obviously they were dissatisfied with the responsiveness, but in general we have our formal consultation process, and we also hear from individual harvesters all the time. We respond to their inquiries to the best of our ability.

Verna, do you want to speak?

[Verna Docherty, Acting Manager, Licensing Policy and Operations, Region - Maritimes, Department of Fisheries and Oceans]

I would like to speak to the consultation process within Maritimes region. Similar to what Jackie has explained takes place in Newfoundland region, we do have annual advisory committee meetings with the nominated representatives of the fishing industry.

In addition to that, in the winter months of 2017, Maritimes region undertook a licensing policy review whereby we sent an open invite to every core licence-holder in the Maritimes region to attend open sessions to discuss the licensing policy.

The department in particular brought three issues. They related to the eligibility to qualify for full time that would allow someone to acquire an enterprise. We spoke to our substitute operator of provisions for vacation time, and we also spoke to flexible partnerships.

We opened the floor to any comments and suggestions that people wanted to bring to the table. Over 500 people attended the sessions. More than 400 feedback forms were mailed in. I don't recall a single one that spoke to vessel replacement rules.

People wanted to speak about owner-operator, the independence of the fleet, and transition mechanisms to allow them to move their licences to their family members when they were done. Vessel replacement policies were not brought up at this very open process by the fleets or even the individual licence-holders.

[Fin Donnelly, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Thank you very much for that. It's helpful.

Could you talk about why and how fishers would go about adding vessel extensions to their boats? Why would they do that, and what's the process to do it?

[Jacqueline Perry]

I'm going to ask Verna to speak about the situation with the crab fleets because it's illustrative of how the issue of a platform or a stern extension was identified as a need, and the department responded accordingly.

[Verna Docherty]

It was actually the lobster fishery in the Maritimes region. In lobster fishing areas 33 and 34 on the southwest coast of Nova Scotia, they have been limited since 1980 to vessels that are no more than 45 feet in length overall. In the late 1990s and early 2000s, people were pushing and at times surpassing that limit, and found that they were able to get away with it by the stern extensions, which weren't being registered in DFO's licensing system as part of the length overall of the vessel.

In 2002, following a couple of years of consultation with the advisory committees of those two groups, the department did mail out a ballot, a survey, to license-holders in those areas, asking if they wanted the 44'11'' limit to be respected, if there was any leeway for a stern extension, and what such a stern extension should look like. There was majority support to maintain the limit at 45 feet, but there was also majority support to allow a moderate extension of no more than five feet.

To get back to the beginning of your question about the motivations, I could make a supposition but it would be just that. I expect it would be to carry more gear so they can do it in one trip instead of two trips, and to be able to haul more fish.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Thank you very much.

Mr. McDonald, you are up for seven minutes again.

[Ken McDonald, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Again, this is just for the information of the committee, because Mr. Donnelly, a colleague across the way, mentioned having to ATIP information. The fisherman who did that, who made a request under ATIP and got the information about the change in some regulations, will be appearing before the committee as a witness. You'll be able to ask him first-hand why he had to take that route to get the information.

I know it was mentioned that the consultation is done with representatives of the different fleets. The representative, I guess, for anyone in the fishery in Newfoundland and Labrador is FFAW, which is the union, and right now there's quite a battle on between another body trying to be the union, and the union itself. A lot of things are done behind closed doors because that union doesn't want anybody else to know what's on the go. They decide what gets done and what doesn't. I'll give you an example and perhaps Ms. Perry can respond to it.

Last year, for example—and I've provided copies to my colleagues—when somebody went to register their boat, as part of the application, there was a form provided that allowed them to put a five-foot extension onto the stern of the boat that would not be included in the overall length measurement. So if you had a 39'11'', you could put this five-foot extension on. There was a diagram showing how it had to be done, how it had to be attached, the whole bit, and you could use that, and it wouldn't be included in the overall measurement.

But this year, when you go to pick up the same application, it's changed. The diagram has changed. Somewhere through the process, they began to tell fishermen they had the wrong diagram with the application. To me, it's like buying your ticket from Air Canada, and Air Canada comes back and says you got a bargain you weren't supposed to get.

I know a fisherman who had a 44'11'' boat. He had to cut five feet off the stern to go to 39'11''. Then he applied to put a five-foot extension onto the deck. This is how crazy this gets. It cost him tens of thousands of dollars. He did it last year, managed to get a little bit of fishing in by the time he got it all done. This year he gets a notice that he has to remove it, they're not allowing that anymore because they're including it in the overall length of the vessel.

He can't register his vessel today to get ready to go fishing in April unless he removes the five-foot extension that was put on as per the regulations given to him last year. That change was made after consultations between DFO and FFAW, behind closed doors, without taking any consideration of harvesters whatsoever. I know of three who did it, and they have to go to the expense now of either removing it, or cutting their vessels, or doing whatever, if they want to be able to fish. They're supposed to be getting ready to fish now for April, but they've got appeals in. There was one appeal heard this week. He's been told it could take four weeks to hear whether he has won his appeal or not. Another fisherman is still waiting to find out when his appeal is. The fishing season will be here and done.

If that's consultation, then I'd like someone to define what's not consultation, because it is not happening. With regard to that, you mentioned in Nova Scotia that the 44'11''s could put on the extra five feet. So that's not included in the overall boat length?

[Verna Docherty]

That's correct. We've amended the length-overall description specific to lobster vessels in lobster fishing areas 33 and 34.

[Ken McDonald, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

They do want it to carry extra gear; that's where it came from. They wanted to carry more pots. It's no different for the crab fishery in Newfoundland. They want the extra space to carry the pots. It provides a bit more safety on the deck of the boat when you're actually hauling the pots. You have a little more room to work in a safe environment. That's one example of how it's different from Nova Scotia to Newfoundland. The rules are not universal.

There's another rule that exists, I've been told, in Nova Scotia. I had a fisherman tell me that he allowed his boat to be used in Nova Scotia, from Newfoundland. He wasn't using it. He was actually building a new boat. In order for him to take that boat back to Newfoundland to use it, he had to wait a full year before he could register it again in the Newfoundland fishery. In Nova Scotia, it takes a month. The rules are different province to province. It's not just in boat size. It's even in registry. On the Conne River Indian Reserve in Newfoundland, they can change it over in a day, but a fisherman who is outside the reservation has to wait a year before he can bring that vessel back to the Newfoundland fishery. It is something in the wind that...let's eliminate the Newfoundland fishermen because we don't want to be dealing with them. The union is not picking up on this. They're letting this take place.

Can somebody comment on that difference from one region to the other in registration, even for a vessel?

[Jacqueline Perry]

I believe you're speaking about what we call in the Newfoundland and Labrador region the 12-month rule. The status quo scenario is that when a vessel is registered in the name of a commercial harvester, it stays associated with that commercial harvester for 12 months. That's to ensure stability in the fishery so we don't have boats moving around randomly from harvester to harvester.

I believe that exemptions have been made for harvesters who have been able to do business arrangements with enterprises in Nova Scotia on a case-by-case basis. I'm not familiar with the particular circumstance that you're referencing. We have in fact approved harvesters to bring their boats back and re-register them on their Newfoundland- and Labrador-based enterprise when those types of business arrangements have been put in place.