Evidence of meeting #91 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 boat.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Joël Godin Conservative Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I completely agree with what my colleague is proposing in his motion. There is uncertainty in the industry, so we need to move quickly in order to bring clarity to the process. We need to be mindful of fishers, and the motion establishes a reasonable time frame for the ministers to respond and put measures in place. This will help bring about an effective system in which fishers know what to expect.
Liberal
Ken Hardie Liberal Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC
Mel's motion makes a lot of sense, but it calls for some rationalization, some simplification, some sorting things out between the two ministries. From listening to these folks from the east coast—and I'm from the west coast, so conditions are a little different—I get the impression that there's something really fundamental here that needs to be looked at a bit more closely. This isn't just a matter of getting two ministries in sync. There are some fundamental decisions that need to be looked at a little more closely.
What problems are we trying to solve through the rules that are in place right now? Are there different ways of solving those problems? I get the sense that there are. The coordination between the two ministries might just simply be putting patches on an old boat. We actually need to take a step back and really ask ourselves some more fundamental questions before we send a couple of ministries down this rabbit hole.
Conservative
Mel Arnold Conservative North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC
Mr. Chair, I appreciate the comments from the others around the room.
We've heard testimony in the first three meetings on how fishermen's lives and investments have been put at risk. They're risking by fishing on vessels that have been modified and later finding out they weren't modified. They're having to spend incredible sums to remodify their modifications. I can't understand why the committee members would not support moving forward on this motion and not ending the study entirely...but let's get going so that lives and investments aren't put further at risk by further delay. We know that it's inevitably going to come because of the time allocation on Bill C-68....
NDP
Fin Donnelly NDP Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC
Mr. Chair, I'm seeking clarification, and I think you've provided some. Let's say this motion passes and then Bill C-68 is forwarded to this committee. What happens?
NDP
Fin Donnelly NDP Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC
Even if we pass the motion, we can't implement or exercise this.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
Technically we can continue on with what we're doing. However, it's been the practice of committee...and of course we primarily go by convention in many cases. We would go to Bill C-68 given the fact of prioritization when we receive the order of reference from the House on that particular bill. I hope that provides more clarification for you.
Ms. Jordan.
Liberal
Bernadette Jordan Liberal South Shore—St. Margarets, NS
Mr. Chair, I don't want to belabour this point because I really wanted to question some of these witnesses today.
This needs more discussion. It's actually a very good motion, but there could be some changes to it. Unfortunately, we can't do that. I can't support it as is right now. I really want to go to these witnesses who came a long way to testify today.
Would Mr. Arnold, who put the motion forward, be willing to table it Thursday, when we can discuss it during committee business?
Conservative
Mel Arnold Conservative North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC
Can we be assured that it will be on committee business and not disrupted by votes or other business?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
Order. You of course do realize that the situation you paint is not one I can predict, nor am I willing to. You can put the motion forward on Thursday if you so desire. Do you want to proceed with the vote right now?
Conservative
Conservative
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
Yes. We'll go to the vote on the motion in front of you by Mr. Arnold.
(Motion negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The motion is defeated, and according to the clock we have a few minutes left for the Conservatives.
You chewed up a lot of that with the motion, not that there's anything wrong with that—don't get me wrong. You have a couple of minutes left before we go to Mr. Donnelly.
Conservative
Liberal
Conservative
Larry Miller Conservative Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON
Thank you very much.
I want to really thank our witnesses here today. I do a bit of recreational fishing, but my background is beef farming. I've had a lot of strange stuff under my fingernails like you guys have, and I admire that. I also know that those of us in business, whatever it is, would sooner be at home looking after business than doing what you're doing, but it's important that you're here. Thanks for that.
I come from Ontario around the Great Lakes. While we have commercial fishing, it's not nearly to the extent that you guys have out there. I cannot get my head around this vessel length stuff. It should be about choice and I'm going to use it.... I hunt deer and I hunt moose. I have a licence to hunt both, and bear if I want, or whatever. It doesn't matter if I go out with my .308 rifle, a .22, or a damn club, I can only kill one of them.
Can somebody enlighten me on why it shouldn't be up to individuals to decide on their own what length of boat they use? Can somebody explain that? I only have a few minutes, so please keep it as brief as possible.
Fish Harvester, As an Individual
With regard to the length of the vessel, it always pertained to the fishery, I guess, that you were involved in. It was separated by fleet. The size of the vessel determined what fleet you were in.
Under the existing policy here now, we have a less-than-40-foot fleet and we have an over-40-foot fleet in Newfoundland. Prior to the last policy change, there was a less-than-35-foot fleet and an over-35-foot fleet. Many in the fleet that I represent....
I'm sorry to say “the fleet that I represent”, because actually I represent both fleets, over and under. I'm an elected representative on the inshore council, representing the less-than-40-foot and the over-40-foot.
It was basically a length that just separated the fleets in the category of practicable licences that you had and the quantity of fish that you had to catch. There was a separation there between the over and the under with regard to basically inshore and offshore. Prior to this committee's ongoing work with regard to the policy change to increase up to 44 feet 11 inches, a large number of enterprise owners within the province of Newfoundland and Labrador realized the policy change, understood the policy change, and worked within the existing policy to modify vessels to increase their sizes from 30 feet or 32 feet up to 39 feet, 11 inches. Some individuals on the island purchased vessels far in excess of that length policy and tried to modify them—some successfully, some not so successfully. That was an individual's decision.
A large number of vessels—I'll say again, a large number—were modified under the existing policy. Guys spent thousands and thousands of dollars to do that. If this committee does promote and advise a policy for the larger 44 feet and 11 inches, what will we do with all these vast majorities of individuals who have already spent thousands of dollars? Are we going to force them to spend more thousands to increase their size again? I mean, the size the vessel basically separated the fleets. That was it, right?