Fisheries Committee on Feb. 15th, 2018

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Am I out of time?

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Well, I did interrupt you, so I'm going to ask you to please keep it very short.

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

I will.

There's a document I have here from the Library of Parliament, “Individual quota (IQ) management systems were later introduced by DFO to manage catch. However, LOA restrictions remained” and fishermen have said that the replacement rules were now less necessary.

Can you comment on that? You now have both LOA and IQ in there. Shouldn't one be enough to control your objective?

[Jacqueline Perry]

I think I'll come back to some of the points that I raised in response to Mr. McDonald's question earlier. Our enterprises are typically multispecies enterprises. They're not fishing only one species, and not all of the species that they would be fishing are individual quota. They will finish their crab fishery, which is an individual quota, but then move to a competitive fishery such as capelin or groundfish.

When you look at a multispecies enterprise configuration, the length overall restriction becomes relevant, because it caps harvesting capacity, it speaks to enterprise viability, and it speaks to competitiveness between participants in a particular fishery. It's the multispecies aspect that gives us some rationale for retaining the length overall, at least in significant part.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Thank you.

Before we go to Ms. Jordan, I'd like to point something out. The Transportation Safety Board was invited today but could not provide someone. I know there were questions around Transport and Fisheries on these regulations. We are working on getting someone from the TSB to be here as a witness. That's just to let you know that we're not ignoring them. We're going to try to bring them in at some point.

Ms. Jordan, please, for five minutes.

[Bernadette Jordan, Liberal, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to the witnesses for being here today.

I represent LFAs 33 and 34 in Nova Scotia. It's interesting, I think, that you've mentioned that they've capped length—maximum vessel restriction—to 45 feet, but as you're probably aware, they're making the boats wider now. Good on them, you know: it's solving their problem of making sure the gear gets out in one trip as opposed to two. They're not dealing with length. They're dealing with width. Among the challenges we face with this now is that where we used to be able to berth three vessels at a wharf, we can now berth only two. As you know, if someone has a berth, they have a berth; it's not a matter of the width or the length. They have the berth. That's causing some backup and some problems in our small craft harbours.

Can anybody comment on that, on the width as opposed to the length? We have vessels now that look like boxes. They're square so that they can do their job. If they don't want to increase the length but they can still get their gear out in a different way, is this possibly another solution? If we're stuck on length, why isn't width an issue as well?

[Verna Docherty]

In the groundfish fisheries, we did remove the cubic number restriction. Back in 2003, the minister allowed community management boards in the fixed-gear, less-than-45-foot groundfish fisheries to decide their own fate for cubic number restrictions. Since that time we have seen that this is a growing concern—pun intended—

[Bernadette Jordan, Liberal, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

It's all good.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[Verna Docherty]

Certainly it has been raised as a concern by my colleagues and my contacts in small craft harbours. I understand that there is going to be a study by this committee of small craft harbours coming up, so I think I'll leave it there for them to comment on that issue further.

[Bernadette Jordan, Liberal, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Does anybody else want to comment on it? No?

I'm going to turn my remaining time over to Mr. McDonald. I think he still has another couple of questions.

[Ken McDonald, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Thank you, Bernadette.

Ms. Perry, you mentioned that the last review was done in 2007 with regard to vessel length and consultation. About a year ago, maybe, I met with your predecessor, Mr. Anderson, and he referenced that as well: that it's been 10 years since it's been done. He felt that it was probably time to do it again. Usually they try to do it every 10 years. Will your department commit to doing that vessel review sooner rather than later, now that over 10 years have passed?

[Jacqueline Perry]

I think I'm reluctant to commit the department, but I think we've demonstrated that we are, in fact, open to hearing from fleets. We've got several examples of instances in which we've done that. We're not averse to having conversations with the fishing industry either as a whole or on a fleet-by-fleet basis for their particular needs around vessel length.

We do have some concerns about exemptions based on individual requests. When we have lack of compliance with the vessel-length rules, it's harvesters themselves in the fleet who bring these lack-of-compliance cases to our attention. Harvesters have concerns about individual exemptions. We would be more than open to having conversations with fleets on whether or not the current vessel rules are appropriate in today's fishery or whether they need to be revisited. This includes matters such as the stern extensions and whether there is an argument to be made based on the nature of the fishery today that temporary removable extensions are prudent and safe to be used in fisheries.

Yes, we're always open to those kinds of things but definitely reluctant to do so on an individual case-by-case basis because of the controversy that this creates within fleets.

[Ken McDonald, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

On the vessel extension that you just mentioned and consideration for it, if the vessel extension thing stays as is now, according to the rule today, when you pick up an application to register your vessel, how are you going to deal with everyone who has this extension on? There are literally hundreds of people who have this extension on their boat. It may not be registered. You may not even know it exists, but those who did it by the books, you know about them, and you can tell them to take it off.

I've been told, and I've actually seen vessels that have the extension on, they're still 39'11" or 34'11", whatever it is, that nobody knows. Are you going to go all throughout Newfoundland and measure vessels to see who's abiding by the rules? If you're making one person abide by the rules, you should make everybody abide by the rules. You've got a lot of work ahead of you between now and April to get these boats measured to see who's abiding and who's not.

[Jacqueline Perry]

It would be our fishery officer cadre who would be involved in following up on investigations when we get indications that lack of compliance exists. Obviously, it's not practical for us to measure every single boat. We are taking action to investigate reports that are brought to our attention, and that is something that is taking place.

Rigour to the degree that we can introduce it into the system is taking place, yes. While we may have a lot of instances of these platforms out there, we are only aware of a couple of cases in which we have followed up. It's going to be a very challenging spring if it's as pervasive as you say it is, yes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Thank you very much, both of you.

Mr. Arnold, you have five minutes, please.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate the time we have today.

Looking again at the brief that was prepared by the Library of Parliament for us, there's a description of fisheries licensing regulations and policies. Atlantic fishery regulations, 1985, set out among other things vessel classes and vessel-length parameters for Atlantic Canada fisheries. Then there are about three different bullet points about how the fisheries policy in Newfoundland and Labrador sets out policy there. The aboriginal communal fishing licences regulations gives the minister authority to issue communal fisheries licences. Commercial fisheries licensing policy for the gulf region aims to clarify requirements and eligibility criteria established by the minister with respect to licensing and commercial fishing in the gulf region.

Again, I have to agree with Mr. McDonald about how the confusion results from vessels being transferred from region to region, and how fishermen are expected to try to comply with these varying requirements. We were also provided with a table, and there seem to be discrepancies from region to region and from province to province. Can you explain that?

[Jacqueline Perry]

I'm going to give the floor to my colleague from headquarters to start off, and then perhaps the regional folks can bring forward their particular perspectives.

Mark, do you want to start us off?

[Mark Waddell]

The fishery general regulations are the chapeau piece of which the Atlantic fishery regulations from 1985 are a subset. In essence, they're building blocks for the policies that have developed in discussion with the fleet sectors across the country, specifically across the Atlantic, over the last number of years.

We've had an evolution of the fishery from small vessels towards larger vessels, from single species towards multi-species, so the policies that support the department and support the issuance of licences have likewise evolved over that 40-year span. The last major consultation that was sort of pan-Atlantic was when the 2003 consultations were undertaken to develop a set of 10 principles that were specific towards vessel-length replacement policies. Then various regions, as Jacqueline has alluded to, have had subsequent consultations in 2007 and 2014. They're a building block, in essence.

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

I want to go a little further on Mr. Miller's question a few minutes ago about how vessel size and vessel replacement rules were less necessary following the introduction of individual quotas. Could you elaborate a little more on that?

Could lifting vessel-length restrictions with individual quota fisheries increase pressure on the resources? It sounds like, even originally, the regulations and individual quotas were put in place for conservation considerations.

Mr. Vincent, go ahead.

[Patrick Vincent]

Thank you.

You referred to the very important issue of resource conservation. Initially, limiting fishing capacity to a certain level was a big part of the reason for vessel length restrictions and also for the cube volume of vessels. With the introduction of individual quotas, and later transferable individual quotas, restrictions had less of an impact on conservation issues.

That said, we should note that individual quotas can be very effective and can result in the elimination or changes to vessel length restrictions. This works well when the resource is available and landed prices are good. These factors can be less impactful due to the market, exchange rates, or resource conservation. That is currently what is happening with shrimp. A larger vessel is more costly. This puts a great deal of pressure on both the fisher and the department. Thus, we have to find solutions to make the vessel profitable. As I already mentioned, a larger vessel is necessarily more costly. In this context, there can be a perverse effect on conservation. Increasing vessel length can put pressure on conservation.

We have not talked about the owner-operator issue. What happens if the fisher wants to transfer his licence and enterprise to a new entrant?

If the vessel is larger as a result of a merger of the enterprise, the transport cost will necessarily be much greater. In these conditions, new fishers face a barrier to entry in that it is much more expensive to purchase a fishing enterprise. This creates financing problems. An owner who must access financing may enter into controlling agreements.

The socio-economic aspect is also taken into consideration in consultations with fishers' associations and unions. This is an extremely important aspect when considering vessel length.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Thank you.

We may do a lightning round at the end of this, by the way. Don't be alarmed by the term, it's just a very quick question and answer. I apologize. It's been so smooth so far.

Now we're going to Mr. Morrissey for five minutes, please.

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

Thank you, Chair, and I do agree with the observations made by Mr. Vincent. I believe a lot of the issues we're dealing with today go back to the fact that the primary tool that DFO used for managing the fishery over the years was controlling the size of the vessel, especially with inshore fishers. That has changed dramatically in the last number of years and it's almost as if DFO's policy has not kept up with the evolution of the industry and the fleet.

While I would agree with you that DFO must maintain control of vessel length where it involves those species that are not individually controlled, when you look....I'll focus on the lobster industry. The lobster industry is probably one of the most controlled fisheries. It's controlled within specific seasons, it's controlled by how many lobster traps the fishermen can use.

In fisheries like that, the overriding decision should be one on safety and efficiency of the fisher to make a catch. This is where DFO loses credibility in the eyes of the community, when they sometimes pay more attention to the vessel being two inches longer than it says it's supposed to be. They focus on that instead of the conservation of the resource, on which in most areas now the department is doing a very good job.

We hear Mr. McDonald point out the frustration level on two things and I'm going to ask you to comment on that. One is there appears often to be just an inordinate amount of time in dealing with the paperwork to change something and the ability.... Some of these policies seem to make no sense, other than to frustrate the fisher. When you're looking at vessel length...and we went through this in the gulf region years ago. I believe it changed in 2003 when there was a review of the inshore fishing fleet, because again, you couldn't fish in a boat of 45 feet, but you could fish in one 44 feet 11.5 inches, and you think, why?

That's the frustration level that you get from the inshore fishers who are simply looking at it for safety, for the efficiency of fishing. And the fishing gear has gotten larger, but still it's controlled within that resource.

Could you comment on what you've been doing at DFO to look at the ability of timely response to fishers when they come in because six weeks.... Often a situation will present itself to the fisher where they need an immediate answer, and it just seems to take forever to get an answer to a simple position.

I simply want to leave the one comment that of course DFO should be managing the resource, and a lot of them you're doing very well, but at the end of the day, I think you have to also look at the safety of the fisher and the efficiency of the fisher in pursuing their catch.

[Jacqueline Perry]

I'll start, and then I think my colleague Verna has a comment, as well.

I want to pick up on the responsiveness to the individual harvester and the time that it may take to get a response or to adjust. In instances where we have had harvesters with vessels registered that exceed their eligibility, we have allowed them some time to make that adjustment. For example, we have allowed a vessel to be used in the current year with the expectation that they would be brought into compliance with their eligibility in the following year. We're trying to mitigate the economic impact that adjustment will have on harvesters by allowing that flexibility. Sometimes these lack of compliance situations occur because the harvester didn't know, didn't realize, or because they were able to purchase a vessel that was fairly inexpensive but still too large for their eligibility. There are various circumstances, and we do try to work with them to mitigate the economic impact.

Verna.

[Verna Docherty]

I'd like to speak to the situation in southwest Nova Scotia, where we did allow the five-foot stern extensions on lobster fishing boats. Many of those enterprises also had groundfish fixed-gear, less-than-45-foot licences. When the department made the announcement in 2003 that this would apply in the 2004-05 lobster fishing season, we were scrambling to determine what the spinoff consequences would be on the fixed-gear groundfish fishery in that area. At the end of the day, over a period of no fewer than six consultations with the fixed-gear groundfish fleet, we finally, in 2008, extended this modification to that fishery.

In short, the reason is that change is hard. Change is really hard. Sometimes people become very comfortable with the status quo. We did what we could to work with the industry representatives to make that change, something that would simplify life for them and people in that area. Still, it took us from 2004-05 to 2008 to get the representatives for the fishery on board to allow that change.