Fisheries Committee on March 22nd, 2018

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

You didn't require the extra 20 seconds you asked for. You economize words better than you think.

[Jason Sullivan]

Okay. There we go. How long do I have?

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

I will give you another 30 seconds.

[Jason Sullivan]

I just wanted to comment quickly on Transport Canada, but they're probably gone. They were here earlier.

To make it easier for everyone to understand, the smaller boats don't fall under the CSI, which means that every four years you have to do an inspection on your boat and have a certain amount of safety equipment and all of that. That's not a fault of the fishermen; that's a fault because we're not allowed to get a big enough boat to fall under those rules. If we could go to 44 feet 11 inches, we're over the 12 metres; 39 feet 4 inches is 11.99 metres, so by allowing people to get bigger boats, more people would fall under these regulations.

It's disturbing to read and hear some of the stuff people are saying, because these are the guys who are governing safety, and disturbing to hear DFO people talking about competitive advantage when that's false. They're leading you down this garden path to make you think that Newfoundland is a free-for-all, that you can go out and catch what you want whenever you want. That's garbage. It's foolishness. It's disturbing that these are the people who are the heads of these groups or associations. It's sad. No wonder we're in the mess we're in.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Thank you, Mr. Sullivan. I appreciate that.

Mr. Sullivan referred to appendices A to E in his document. The members of the committee do not have a document because it has to be in both languages, but rest assured, Mr. Sullivan, that it's being translated as we speak. Your document, with the appendices, will be distributed to the committee before we get into recommendations.

Mr. Brazil, you have up to 10 minutes please.

[John Will Brazil]

This isn't usually my scene, public speaking and such, but I'll give it my best.

Good morning, and thanks for the opportunity to state the concerns of myself and others about what has been happening for years.

Policy-makers are failing to see the real problems that harvesters have tried to deal with. Hopefully, someone will grasp that the changes that are being made to safety, such as PFDs and safety drills, are a help and a good idea but will not change the tragic statistics much.

Policy-makers need to focus more on real problems, the major one being vessel length restrictions in Newfoundland, where we have a fishery that is not competitive. This is one of the main regulations that is playing a major role in tragedies in this province alone.

As my story goes, I come from a fishing family and have been around the fishing industry all my life. From a very young age, I was on my father's boat, and I started to try to make a living from the fishery about 20 years ago. My wife and I came to the decision in 2014 to take the plunge and purchase the family enterprise belonging to my father, as this was the main source of income for my family.

Since 2008, the crab licence has been fished on my father-in-law's boat through a buddy-up agreement from DFO. I was left with very few options from DFO, only being allowed to buddy up for the crab fishery. On May 20, my wife and I decided to take the plunge again, cash in our savings, risk it all, and purchase a vessel so that I could fish other species and try to help pay for the expenses of the enterprise.

The boat that I purchased, formerly named Sam's Bride, was built in 1996, at 39 feet 8 inches length. Some time between 1996 and 2016, the boat was lengthened on the stern, making the length 43 feet, 8 inches, which was too long for my registration.

Before I purchased the vessel, I contacted the DFO office by phone and talked to Dave Parsons on a couple of occasions. He informed me that the vessel length would need to be remeasured. Knowing that the vessel was too long for my registration before purchasing, I went to the DFO office in St. John's, where I spoke to Dave Parsons in person about the foolish regulation and getting to use the vessel as is, or if need be, my plans for cutting the vessel and leaving the deck as a stern extension as per the figures on the form that Dave gave me for vessel registration.

I purchased the vessel on May 24, 2016. On August 15, 2016, after the crab season, I got the boat lifted and started cutting it back to its original length. I left the deck as a stern extension, which is seen all over Canada on other vessels. On August 18, 2016, the modifications were complete, and a marine surveyor came and measured the boat and filled out the form provided by DFO.

On August 22, 2016, I hand-delivered the form to the DFO office in St. John's, to Dave Parsons. It was turned down on the spot because he said the stern extension was not temporary in nature. I appealed the decision the same day and was later given a date in February 2017, which was later postponed again until April 2017, the start of the fishing season. Then it disappeared in the mess of things.

In between the mix of August 2016 and January 2017, after frequent visits, phone calls, and emails to DFO about the situation, and getting no further ahead, I turned to the FFAW, my union, for help. This also turned out to be a total waste of time.

After getting the feeling of getting nowhere, I contacted my MP, Ken McDonald's office and was in contact with Ken Carter at the time. Christopher Snow now holds this position. I also contacted the Hon. Minister LeBlanc's office.

In January 2017, I decided to cut the stern extension off, make a removable one, and bolt it on, based on what I was informed to do by emails, phone calls, and meetings with multiple employees of DFO. I cut off the stern extension, had an aluminum one made, and bolted it on in January with play-by-play pictures, phone calls, and emails to DFO's David Small in Grand Falls, Windsor.

David Small had replaced Kevin Hurley in his job position. Kevin and I had been in contact about the issue since DFO in St. John's decided to transfer it to Grand Falls. When it was completed in January, I was informed by David Small to hold off on getting the vessel measured again.

In March 2017, they gave me a temporary registration that allowed me to fish the vessel until December 31, 2017. Almost two years since May of 2016, and after one year of being held back from fishing species, DFO finally contacted me on March 16, 2018 and informed me that the vessel had been registered.

DFO guided me down the road, telling me to follow a certain registration form, and now the “length overall” definition has been changed by a few DFO employees through emails, which changes the form completely.

I will also note that the “length overall” definition did not seem to be officially passed by any board for approval and was not finalized by February. The emails with the DFO clearly show that it was backdated.

This entire process caused great financial and mental stress on both me and my family. DFO imposed on me a policy that was not in place at the time the modifications were completed on my vessel. On one hand, DFO are promoting safety, and on the other hand, they are playing with people's lives.

At the end of the day, the only advantage of a bigger vessel in a fishery like ours, which has set quotas, trip limits, etc. and is not competitive, is safety for all crew members who are trying to survive and provide for their families. The size of the vessel has nothing to do with the amount of species a certain licence is allowed to catch.

In between May of 2016 until current day, there have been multiple phone calls, emails, and in-person visits that have taken place with DFO, FFAW, members of Parliament, and the fisheries minister's office about my situation. This meeting time slot does not allow me enough time to get to you two years of contact information, but if need be, I can inform you of more information.

Thanks for giving me the opportunity to speak on this issue before you. Hopefully, we can all work together and make good use of this little bit of industry that is left and turn it back to a viable, sustainable, and safe one. We should not forget that this industry is what Newfoundland and Labrador were built on, and it plays a big part in the world.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Mr. Brazil, you started off by saying that this is not your thing. I think you may have proven otherwise. Nice job.

[John Will Brazil]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Mr. Cleary, welcome back.

[Ryan Cleary]

Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the committee.

My name is Ryan Cleary, president of the Federation of Independent Sea Harvesters of Newfoundland and Labrador, or FISH-NL, as we're known back home. I'm here with Merv Wiseman. He is one of the founders of FISH-NL. As mentioned, I'll be sharing some of my time with Mr. Wiseman.

I'll tell you a little bit about us. FISH-NL is a recognized union representing an estimated 3,000 inshore harvesters. We're not the official bargaining agent. FISH-NL is currently locked in a certification battle with FFAW-Unifor, the bargaining agent, to represent inshore harvesters. We've had an application for certification before the province's labour relations board for almost 15 months now. After almost 15 months, they're still trying to figure out how many actual fishermen and fisherwomen there are. But that's a story for another day.

Mr. Chair, having read the transcript of this committee's first meeting on vessel length policy, which made for some compelling reading, I saw that one of the more dominant themes was DFO consultation, or lack thereof. Mr. McDonald, the honourable member for Avalon, brought up consultation a number of times—I thank you for that, Mr. McDonald—and it's one of FISH-NL's and my central points today.

The first thing I want to make clear is that DFO in the Newfoundland and Labrador region has completely lost touch with inshore harvesters. I think the gentlemen here have made that clear. DFO does not have its finger on their pulse, and it has not had its finger on their pulse for decades. DFO acknowledged that point this past fall and winter, when it held a series of 20 face-to-face meetings with harvesters on every coast in Newfoundland and Labrador, the first such meetings in a generation. Fishermen in their sixties and seventies said they couldn't remember DFO ever holding such meetings. Instead, DFO has relied on the FFAW, the union, to speak for harvesters; only, most harvesters say the union is no longer their voice and hasn't been their voice for years. They say the union has lost its way. It's clear that DFO held the 20 meetings around Newfoundland and Labrador to reconnect with harvesters. FISH-NL recommends that such meetings be held on a continuous basis.

I also noted in the transcript from this committee's last meeting that one of the witnesses, Verna Docherty with DFO's maritime region, said that in the winter of 2017, her region undertook a licensing policy review whereby they sent an open invite to every single core licence-holder to attend open sessions on licensing policy. Such direct meetings between DFO and core licence-holders in Newfoundland and Labrador have never, ever taken place. FISH-NL recommends that in future they do take place.

Mr. Chair, inshore harvesters can no longer tell who is the manager—DFO or the FFAW. Who makes the rules? DFO must recreate and continuously strengthen a direct connection with inshore harvesters.

In terms of the policy on vessel length—more specifically, raising the length from 39 feet 11 inches to 44 feet 11 inches—the majority of the Newfoundland and Labrador harvesters I have connected with have no issue with such a policy change. In fact, they're for the policy change. They say that vessel length should be standardized across the east coast. They say that safety should be the primary consideration. Most are in favour of it.

At the same time, some harvesters in the over 45-foot fleet are against increasing existing vessel size, saying that bigger boats will create bigger appetites, and bigger will eventually want more. While the size of a boat doesn't factor into IQ fisheries, or “individual quota” fisheries, some harvesters say that allowing bigger boats will give them an advantage in competitive fisheries like mackerel—from what I can understand, there is only one competitive fishery, and that's mackerel—or fisheries that may be competitive in the future.

This all comes back to my point about consultation. FISH-NL recommends that when it comes to proposals for major policy change, DFO should consult directly, and as transparently and openly as possible, with inshore harvesters. FISH-NL would advise going so far as to create a ballot system so that harvesters themselves could vote on major policy changes.

When it comes to the variance in time frame for operator transfers, in Newfoundland and Labrador it's a year compared with one month in Nova Scotia and one day on the Conne River Indian reserve in southern Newfoundland. The transfers put Newfoundland and Labrador inshore harvesters at an economic disadvantage, and should be standardized across the regions.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'll pass it on to Mr. Wiseman.

[Mervin Wiseman, Member, Federation of Independent Sea Harvesters of Newfoundland and Labrador]

Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the standing committee.

My name is Merv Wiseman, and I have had a 35-year career with the Canadian Coast Guard. I'm retired now, of course. My first 16 years were served as a vessel traffic services officer in various locations in Newfoundland and Labrador and the Arctic. My final 19 years were served as a maritime search and rescue coordinator at the Maritime Rescue Sub-Centre in St. John's. During this period I co-authored a fishing vessel safety report for the Canadian Coast Guard search and rescue branch and subsequently assisted in the implementation of a safety program for fish harvesters in Newfoundland and Labrador. I later served on an assignment with Transport Canada to implement a similar program for fish harvesters in other parts of Canada.

I have a background study in nautical science and am a certified ship's officer in domestic and foreign waters. I have had some fishing vessel experience, and I have skippered a 50-foot longliner in the groundfishery for one season in the early 1970s.

It is my pleasure to present a brief in collaboration with FISH-NL on the important issue of vessel length and licensing policy in Atlantic Canada. The focus of my brief is to bring attention to the impact of vessel length restrictions on fishing vessel safety, which continues to have disturbing consequences, perhaps unintended, for those affected by it.

Fish harvesting is known to be the most dangerous commercial activity in Canada and globally. Transport Canada safety board marine, which is the agency responsible for investigations and recommendations into vessel accidents and fatalities in Canada, has elevated fishing vessel safety to its watch list, making it one of the two significant vessel safety issues in Canada that need continued attention for safety improvements. Despite numerous recommendations to Transport Canada to exercise its statutory mandate to provide solutions, an unacceptable level of accidents and fatalities continue to prevail.

During my time as a search and rescue coordinator at the Maritime Rescue Sub-Centre in St. John's, I was designated lead on the fishing vessel safety file for the Newfoundland region. After responding to a disturbing number of SAR incidents related to commercial fishing activity in the Newfoundland and Labrador region in the 1990s, the Canadian Coast Guard Maritime Rescue Sub-Centre undertook a review to try to understand the various safety dynamics related to these incidents. I co-authored a report entitled, “Fishing Vessel Safety Review (less than 65 feet)”. Unfortunately, the findings of the study and its report are as applicable today as they were almost 20 years ago.

The study found that 70% of all SAR incidents in the Newfoundland region occurred in the fishing industry. Moreover, the highest incident rate occurred in the small vessel category of the less than 34 feet 11 inches. The report also cited an Irish study undertaken in 1996, which established “the smaller the vessel involved in accidents, the more likely the accident resulted in fatalities”. Considering that almost 90% of this small vessel fleet type in Canada operates in waters adjacent to the Newfoundland and Labrador region, this continues to represent a deeply concerning problem. While the report identified a wide array of causes for these incidents and fatalities, one of the most dominant features was related to vessel modifications and the effect on stability.

The attempt by fish harvesters to adjust to new realities in the fishery after the 1992 cod moratorium by moving to alternative species, which in many cases were farther offshore, was a driving force behind the modifications. Furthermore, the DFO fish management restrictions leading to the inability of harvesters to fish in a vessel length category more conducive to the new operating environment forced harvesters into modifications that simply did not fit the vessel beneath them.

These conditions and restrictions still prevail. With an emerging cod fishery on the radar, one has to be concerned about a similar spike in incidents related to yet another adjustment in the operating environment for fish harvesters and the vessels they operate. Another layer of complexity may be arising with the new Transport Canada regulations requiring mandatory stability testing for all small fishing vessels. Aside from significant costs for testing, additional boat construction remediation required to offset the stability effects of vessel modifications due to the current length restrictions could create insurmountable financial barriers for affected harvesters.

In a recent hearing session of the current standing committee, Ms. Jacqueline Perry, acting regional director general for the Atlantic region of DFO, gave rationalization for the DFO vessel length restriction policy. The prevailing rationale appears to be rooted in achieving conservation objectives by controlling fishing capacity through vessel length restrictions. As members of this standing committee have questioned, the fact that capacity is controlled almost exclusively by IQs and other disciplinary management measures makes the policy seem uselessly redundant.

Aside from the unintended consequence for fish harvesters, the policy is made to look even more vacuous by the fact there is no standard correlation between vessel length and carrying capacity. For example, it is not uncommon for a 34 feet 11 inch fishing vessel to be designed to carry much more than the next category of vessel length, 44 feet 11 inches, and so on through the categories of vessel length.

While it would not be accurate to pin all the fishing vessel safety issues on fish management policies, there is no denying the underlying safety problems associated with vessel length restrictions. There are significant negative effects on stability related to the vessel modifications.

Fish management policy, which forces harvesters to undertake dangerous modification contortions in order to fit its designated length category, is effectively rolling the dice against the lives of the harvesters who have to fish in some of the most dangerous waters in the world. In recent years, stakeholders in the fishing industry, including fish harvesters, have made important adjustments against the backdrop of fishing vessel safety incidents and fatalities. This includes training, prevention, safety awareness, carriage of safety equipment, and significant regulatory revisions designed to ensure compliance with safety-at-sea operatives.

In recognition of the influence of fish management measures on fishing vessel safety, DFO has made some changes in its policy protocols. Unfortunately, the vessel length and licensing policy, which were designed to meet the needs of a 1970s fishery, have not fundamentally adapted to the realities of the current operating environment. However, there is a sense of optimism from grassroots fish harvesters that long overdue changes are about to occur.

It is with great hope and encouragement that the work of the current standing committee on vessel length and licensing will be the instrument needed to move the change over the top.

I sincerely wish you well.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Thank you, Mr. Wiseman, and thank you for bringing your experience to the table here today.

Folks, I'm going to extend this meeting up to five minutes, but there is a meeting after this. I can't go beyond that, as much as I dearly want to.

Mr. McDonald, please begin for seven minutes.

[Ken McDonald, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Thank you to our witnesses for being here today.

I know some of the people here. I submitted their names, and I did that for a reason, because I knew they were passionate about what was going on, whether it is the vessel length or regulations overall, at the local DFO in St. John's, Newfoundland.

Jason, you mentioned that you've been in the fishery for 20 years, and I would suggest you've probably been in it longer than that because you grew up in it. Your late father was involved in it for many years before that, so I guess you've been involved in it to some degree from day one.

You mentioned fishery change, and to some degree, I suppose, it's become more like a business now than it was many years ago. What do you have invested in the fishery as a harvester, as a boat owner? What dollar value would you put on what you have invested in it?

[Jason Sullivan]

My brother and I fish together. He owns licences. I own licences to work. When I say we fish together, we're not allowed to fish together, because DFO won't let us, so we have two different boats.

I'd say we have spent about $1.5 million, so sometimes what's happening is people.... I started fishing in the 1980s when you'd just spend $30 to get your licence, and you went from there. Unfortunately, these are the guys oftentimes who are sitting with the FFAW, with DFO making policies or asking for things to stay the same, and that doesn't reflect the modern-day fishery when I had to spend that much money to get involved. In order for me to make that pay.... I didn't get a licence for $30. It doesn't make sense.

Unfortunately, DFO doesn't consult with everyone. I was at a crab meeting a couple of weeks ago. My immediate family and I own about 20% of the crab in our area, and I was nominated numerous times—and John Will can tell you—to go on the committee at different times, and the FFAW wouldn't accept my nomination, because I didn't believe in their values. They even tried to schedule a meeting for the election on the day of my father's funeral just so I wouldn't be there.

Fast-forward to now, I went as being part of FISH-NL. I was invited to observe the crab technical briefing. After that was over, they had a negotiation about what sort of cuts and stuff you're going to get for that season, and when I went in, there were 40 or 50 empty chairs in the room. It wasn't like we were at capacity. The FFAW representative asked that I be removed from the room, and DFO, fortunately for me, had their wires crossed and said I was allowed to stay, that I was invited. At that time, the FFAW guy got up and left the room and called someone, one of his higher-ups, who called someone higher up at DFO in White Hills, and by the time they got it all straightened out, the meeting was over, but DFO came up and told me I wasn't supposed to be there and that I couldn't come back anymore, like next year or whatever.

I said it was pretty disturbing. We are pretty involved in the area, and I like to think I know a lot about the fishery. I'm not trying to brag or anything, but I just think I do. It is unfortunate that they don't consult with everyone. They have a small little clique of people, and John Will can vouch that they're the ones who get the say. Consultation, I guess, is one of their really weak points.

[Ken McDonald, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

I know that you mentioned the enterprises of yourself and your brother. You can't fish together, so you have to use two vessels.

[Jason Sullivan]

Yes.

[Ken McDonald, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

I understand why you need two vessels.

I'd like you to explain to the committee because some members may not realize why you're restricted to this for one vessel and this for another one.

[Jason Sullivan]

There is a buddy-up arrangement. The way it works is that, in Newfoundland, you're allowed to combine three licences, so you can buy three enterprises and stack them on your own. You can buddy up for up to five enterprises in total, so if I had three and my brother had two, we could combine them. Since we both have three each, we're not allowed to do it. These are the kinds of things that don't make any sense. I don't know who came up with them and it's impossible to get them back on the table to talk about it. Why would you be allowed to buy three each and not be allowed to buddy up and work together?

DFO is really concerned about controlling agreements and rightfully so. Anything they've done has not curbed that. If anything, it's getting worse. They're attacking the few independent guys who are still there and trying to make a living. If the licence-holders are aboard the boat, who cares? You have three licence-holders aboard a boat and the gentlemen can vouch for that. Why does it matter? You're on the boat, so who cares who owns the boat, if you're all together catching the stuff that you're licenced to catch?

[Ken McDonald, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

John, you mentioned the racket you had to go through with cutting off your boat. This didn't work, so you had to actually remove it completely and then put in another.

Could you explain to the committee how often you had to get your boat measured because of that and the cost that was involved?

[John Will Brazil]

Actually, I only had to get the boat measured once, as of now, because they kept telling me to hold off on it. They were pushing to get it measured more than once because if you cut it off one minute and then when he turns around and says no, that wasn't good enough.... Then he wanted me to get another guy in to measure it again. It was $700 or $800 every time you had the guy up, just to hold the tape on it and fill out that form for him. Yes, it is a big expense.

[Ken McDonald, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

You've been through a rough road in the past year and a half.

Ryan, you've been here. You've been an MP and sat on this committee.

If there was one recommendation that you could see going forward from this committee at the end of the day, what would it be?

[Ryan Cleary]

Mr. McDonald, you brought it up again in the last meeting of this committee, and it was mentioned here today, and it's consultation. Obviously, I mentioned it in my presentation. It's DFO having its finger on the pulse of what's going on with harvesters. It's not relying on any union. It's not relying on the FFAW and it's not relying on FISH-NL, but it's having direct communication with the harvesters, so they understand—we have a term back home—boots on the deck. It's having that connection with boots on the deck, so they understand and they can make common sense. There's one expression that's missing in this industry and that's common-sense regulations.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Thank you.

Mr. Doherty, you have seven minutes, please.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

I want to thank our guests for being here.

Mr. Brazil, as our chair said, you spoke very eloquently and Mr. Sullivan as well.

As you could tell from the previous session with the officials who were here, we were absolutely flabbergasted at some of the testimony that we've been hearing. We know that this affects families and the livelihoods of those in the communities. Our honourable colleague brought this motion to the table for us.

Much of what we've been hearing in this testimony and this study, we've heard in other studies as well. I'll bring you back to this. Mr. Cleary, forgive me if I'm wrong, but you were around when we were doing the northern cod and Atlantic salmon studies. That was a year ago, I believe. There were some things that I found very frustrating and I don't understand. I'm going to ask all four of you to perhaps chime in. Why is the union, and from our understanding, WWF as well, sitting around the table developing or deciding policy and quota in these areas?

Go ahead, Mr. Cleary, or anybody else who wants to chime in.