Fisheries Committee on March 27th, 2018

[Roy Careen]

It's very frustrating because, first of all, it doubles your expenses. Then you have boats to maintain. There's a lot of stuff involved in it. As Mr. Smith said about their communities, most of the people are 58 years of age, so in seven or eight years' time, they won't have any worries about pressure on the stocks. They're all going to be out of the fishery.

My opinion about this is that we do live in Canada, a great country, and that everybody is supposed to be.... I'm fortunate, you know. I have a couple of 50-foot boats. What about the guy who has a boat that's 39 feet 11 inches? Why can't he be on an equal playing field with me and have the 50-foot boat with me if he chooses to? We're fishing the same species. It's all IQs. I don't know where those gentlemen got that the fishery is not IQ.... I'd like to know because I like to get involved. I'm a competitive fisherman.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

You still have over two minutes left, Mr. McDonald. You go right ahead.

[Ken McDonald, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Stratton, you mentioned the non-core cod fishery and how people were limited. It's my understanding that in the non-core cod fishery the maximum you can have is a 28-foot vessel.

[Billy Stratton]

Yes.

[Ken McDonald, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Once you stop fishing and while you're fishing, you can't sell that particular quota to Mr. Careen, Mr. Thorne, or Mr. Woodford. That quota dies when you decide not to fish it. Can you explain that to the members of the committee, please?

[Billy Stratton]

Yes. You're right in what you're saying there. What's been done to a lot of those people who've slipped through the cracks is wrong; they didn't know where the people were to get core. What's happened is ridiculous.

Up in my area, a man died about a month ago. His wife works in a fish plant. His son fished with him. He fished all his life. That's all he ever did. Right now he can't turn it over to his son and his wife can't sell it. It's automatically going back to DFO. What's going on with this non-core, which is non-core against core, is ridiculous, as far as I can see. We're all in a little community. We know each other. We're not here in Halifax; this is the first time ever in my life that I was here. I have a job to walk up the street because I'm running into people and everything, right?

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[Billy Stratton]

What they're doing is not sustainable. We all have the same quota for codfish. How's a fellow going to compete in a 29-foot boat against a fellow in a 65-foot boat like those boys? They're going to have to change the rules on those boat regulations.

The other thing I'm going to speak on now while I'm at it, is that we're running a company. If I wanted to get a boat, 44 feet 11 inches, say, or if I wanted to scale it down one foot, that should be up to me. If I say that I have to go where this man just told you here at the time on the screen...that's where we're heading. Crab is failing desperately in our area so we're in cod now and turbot. I have the same licence as those boys have, the same thing. They're going to be able to go comfortably, and I'm going to have to go in nothing. I'll be grounded. It's all about safety. What they're doing is very wrong. Anyway, that's my answer.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Thank you.

Mr. Woodford, I'll give you a very quick reply. I have to go to the next question, but go ahead.

[Eldred Woodford]

I'm a little dissatisfied here this morning with the way this is. I thought the issue was vessel length policy. We've gone into many issues that are using up a lot of valuable time here, because we can explain some stuff with regard to vessel length policies that could probably better inform your members, Mr. Chair. I'm very disappointed in this.

You've questioned me, Mr. McDonald, with regard to the size of vessel that I operate. It's a 50-foot vessel. It's outside of the parameters of what this policy changes and what you're contemplating there now. It is a prime example of how policy change affects others after it's done. I went through, witnessed, and experienced the change in 1997 after the supplementary crab fleets and the full-time crab fleets were allowed to increase their vessels and go up to 65 feet.

At the time, there was no resource issue. We were out there fishing , and whether you fished in April or I fished in June, there was a lot of resource there and everyone got their quotas. Right now, I have an IQ on crab. I'm going to go fishing now in two weeks' time and I'm going to carry 300 pots on my vessel, maybe more, to try to compete with the larger vessels that can now carry 800 to 900 pots.

Once these regulations change.... You have to understand that you might say today that you're satisfied with something. At the time when the offshore crab fleets were allowed to increase their vessel length, we were using 300 pots. Everyone was using 300 pots. Now we're using 800 pots, and those guys have a complete advantage. Under the policy of 1997, by increasing your size at that time, you were not supposed to have any competitive advantage. That changed with some other policies that fell through after that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Thank you, Mr. Woodford. I have to end it right there because someone else has to ask a question.

Regarding clarification on your point about the subject matter, at this committee it is normal for us to give the floor for seven minutes to the questioner and the witness. They can talk about whatever they wish, really.

[Eldred Woodford]

Well....

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

We could make a ruling if it comes from one of the witnesses that we've gone off track, but we normally give people a lot of leeway in these types of hearings.

Mr. Arnold, go ahead for seven minutes, please.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

First, I want to thank our witnesses this morning for taking the time out of their busy lives to come in and testify before us today, but I'm going to use my time a little differently this morning, Mr. Chair.

During the course of the three meetings we've had on this study, the committee has received testimony from 20 witnesses. In the testimony, the committee has received evidence describing the federal government's misaligned processes, administered by multiple levels of federal government entities, for licensing of commercial fishing vessels.

At times, the evidence, including that from federal departmental officials, has been contradictory. Evidence has described a process administered by multiple federal entities that is inconsistent in a way that fails to ensure the safety or regulatory certainty for commercial vessels in Atlantic Canada.

It's reasonable for this committee to believe that risk to human life on board commercial fishing vessels can greatly be reduced in the process for licensing commercial fishing vessels if it is rationalized and harmonized among federal entities.

Rather than see this study derailed, in light of what's been taking place recently and the time allocation vote on Bill C-68, the Fisheries Act, which will be coming before this committee and which would disrupt this committee's activities for probably six or more meetings, I'd like to move the following motion so that action can be taken before further risk to life and the certainty of commercial and family fishing operations is put further at risk.

Therefore, I move: that, within 48 hours of passing this motion, the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans send to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and the Minister of Transport a letter and attach to the letter the evidence received by the committee during meetings 87, 90 and 91; and that the letter respectfully request that the two ministers meet by April 10, 2018, within two weeks, to discuss the process of licensing commercial fishing vessels, and the applicable factors of vessel length, as administered by their respective departments; and in that letter respectfully request the ministers direct the appropriate representatives of their departments to meet to identify steps to resolve the apparent inconsistencies of the licensing process by April 24, 2018, within 4 weeks; and in that letter respectfully request that representatives of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the Department of Transport invite all holders of licences for commercial vessels issued by federal entities in Atlantic Canada to attend consultation sessions or submit input in writing so that all licence holders may provide input for improving the licensing process; and respectfully request that by June 5, 2018, within 10 weeks, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and the Minister of Transport provide the committee a written summary of input received and steps identified by the ministers and their departmental representatives to harmonize and rationalize the process used by federal entities to license commercial vessels and increase safety of those operating and working on those vessels; and respectfully request that the appropriate minister, or both ministers, initiate the regulatory and legislative changes required to implement the steps identified to harmonize and rationalize the process used by federal entities to license commercial vessels and increase the safety of those operating and working on those vessels.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Everybody has read and understood...?

We have a motion on the floor, gentlemen, and we have to deal with that first.

Mr. McDonald, do you care to comment?

[Ken McDonald, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair.

I thank the member for putting forward his motion, but right now we're kind of past the midway point of this study on vessel length and regulations. I'm not prepared to wipe the slate clean and do this. I want to see this finished. We have the rest of today—an hour or whatever it is—to hear from these witnesses. We have again on Thursday I believe scheduled the departmental officials to come back, the same ones who presented at the first meeting. Then we will be able to put forward recommendations that we want to see included in this study.

That's the path that I would like to see. I'm not going to shortchange it now and require the minister or two ministers to meet to discuss what we're talking about, because we're not finished. I won't be supporting the motion. I want to hear from the witnesses today and again on Thursday.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Is there any further comment?

Mr. Arnold.

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

Certainly, Mr. Chair. I by no means meant that this study should be over, but I can see the potential delays because of having to deal with Bill C-68 within committee. As we know, legislative business takes precedence over committee studies, so this process could be delayed by weeks or months, or possibly into the fall, because of the process of dealing with legislative business in the committee.

I certainly by no means wanted to imply that we were going to end this process, but I see an urgency and a necessity to address the inconsistencies between two federal departments that are causing great strife in Atlantic Canada, with fishermen, their families, and their communities. Those two ministries need to meet to start to resolve these issues sooner rather than later.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Mr. Miller, and then Mr. Donnelly.

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

Thanks, Mr. Chairman.

I certainly support what Mr. Arnold is trying to accomplish here, and I think he should have just satisfied Mr. McDonald's concern about the study ending. The last thing we should want is that.

With regard to the testimony I've heard today, I have never heard of a federal law, or any other law, that is so bizarre and totally incomprehensible at times. I'm still trying to get my head around it. With this motion that Mr. Arnold has put forward, if it's followed to the letter, things will actually get done on this. In the meantime, we can still talk about it and hear witnesses. I'm looking forward to my questioning as well, when the time comes. I think it's a potential solution. It doesn't mean that we can't add to it at some point.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Mr. Donnelly.

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

I think Mr. Miller brings up a good point when he talks about the intent of the motion if it's followed. The question is—and I wonder if Mr. McDonald realizes it—what could happen if this isn't passed. Perhaps I'd ask our clerk to clarify in that event.

Mr. Chair, as you know, several times I've brought up Bill C-68 coming to this committee. You've said we can't speculate. Fair enough, and we're still dealing with hypotheticals, but in the event that Bill C-68 does come to this committee, does that supersede the current studies? Maybe you or the clerk could give some clarification as to whether that's actually the case. The Conservatives have a good point.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

When we receive an order of reference about legislation, it takes precedence, period. That's it.

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

If the vote happens on Wednesday, it will come on Thursday. I ask the Liberals if they understand that, because that's the point being made by Mr. Arnold. That comes to committee and, depending on how many witnesses we see and how long that takes, it could go right through the summer.