Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Fisheries and Oceans
Issue No. 8 - Evidence - December 6, 2016
OTTAWA, Tuesday, December 6, 2016
The Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans met this day at 5:52 p.m., in public, to study Maritime Search and Rescue activities, including current challenges and opportunities; and, in camera, for the consideration of a draft agenda (future business).
Senator Fabian Manning (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Good evening. My name is Fabian Manning, I'm a senator from Newfoundland and Labrador and I am pleased to chair this evening's meeting. Before I give the floor to our witnesses I would ask the members of the committee to introduce themselves.
Senator Tkachuk: David Tkachuk, Saskatchewan.
Senator Hubley: Elizabeth Hubley, Prince Edward Island.
Senator McInnis: Thomas McInnis, Nova Scotia.
Senator Raine: Nancy Greene Raine, British Columbia.
The Chair: The committee is continuing its study on issues related to the federal government's current and evolving policy framework for managing Canada's fisheries and oceans. We will be hearing this evening from senior officials from Transport Canada regarding the department's role in regulating the safety and seaworthiness of marine vessels. I will ask the witnesses to introduce themselves; I understand they have some opening remarks, and then we'll get to questions from our senators. We may have some other senators joining us, as the Senate just rose for the evening.
Donald Roussel, Associate Assistant Deputy Minister, Safety and Security Group, Transport Canada: Thank you Mr. Chair and honourable senators. I am Donald Roussel, Associate Assistant Deputy Minister, Safety and Security Group at Transport Canada.
Luc Tremblay, Manager, National Marine Safety Program, Transport Canada: Good evening, Mr. Chair and senators, I am Luc Tremblay, Acting Executive Director for Domestic Vessel Regulatory Oversight and Boating Safety at Transport Canada.
Robert Turner, Manager, Navigation Safety and Radio Communications, Transport Canada: My name is Robert Turner, Manager, Navigation Safety and Radio Communications, with Marine Safety and Security at Transport Canada.
The Chair: Thank you all. I apologize for our tardiness this evening; we cannot meet until the Senate rises. I understand you have some opening remarks; the floor is yours.
Mr. Roussel: Thank you for this opportunity to address the Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans.
Transport Canada plays a key role in ensuring the safety and security of all modes of transportation. The department is responsible for legislation and regulations that govern transportation and it also fulfills an oversight function by issuing licences, certificates and permits as well as conducting inspections and audits in the marine sectors.
The legislative framework for the marine sector consists of the Canada Shipping Act, 2001; the Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act; the Pilotage Act; and the Marine Transportation Security Act. There are also regulations made under each of these acts.
The regime comprises several elements. These include measures that aim to prevent incidents from occurring; those that help protect life in the event of an incident; and measures that make it possible to determine where an incident has occurred.
Preventative measures address questions such as vessel construction to ensure vessels are seaworthy. Protective elements include requirements for life-saving equipment such as life jackets or personal flotation devices, life boats and firefighting equipment. On many vessels it is mandatory to have emergency position-indicating radio beacons which locate vessels in distress.
Over the past several years we have enhanced our regime significantly. For example, the Canada Shipping Act, 2001 came into effect in 2007, modernizing the previous 100-year-old legislation. In the same year, we introduced the Marine Personnel Regulations, which govern the fitness and qualifications of crew on board vessels. We are proposing to amend these regulations to implement new international requirements and other criteria.
In addition, Canada helped negotiate the Polar Code at the International Maritime Organization which, once it comes into force, will enhance safety and help prevent incidents involving vessels transiting Arctic waters.
Since the early 2000s, Transport Canada has also put in place initiatives to increase the safety of small commercial vessels. These include the introduction of stability requirements and completely new Small Vessel Regulations that came into effect in 2010, among others.
One area of concern continues to be deaths in high-risk areas, such as the fishing industry, which is one of the most dangerous in Canada.
All things being equal, however, we have seen significant improvements in the loss-of-life ratio with a decline in fishing vessel fatalities from 0.24 per 1,000 vessels in 1999 to 0.18 in 2009. We are doing better than other jurisdictions — for example, the United States, the United Kingdom, Sweden, Norway, Australia, South Africa and New Zealand — but we shall not sit on our laurels. We need to continue our effort to save lives, which is a drama for each person who has to live with the consequences. We can also compare the rate of fatalities among fishermen to the rate for other occupations. In Canada, it is 3.5 times higher than in other types of activities for workers.
We would like to bring the Canadian numbers down further. Next July, new fishing vessel regulations will come into force following amendments to the existing regulations. They will update the existing safety equipment and vessel stability requirements and will introduce new requirements for safe operating procedures. We consulted at length with the commercial fishing industry on these changes.
Currently, work continues on phase 2 of the small fishing regulations which will deal with ship construction and other elements.
Awareness of safety is key to change and Transport Canada actively seeks to educate boaters about safe practices.
Through the Boating Safety Contribution Program, Transport Canada also supports organizations that educate the public across the country and in both official languages. The program applies to operators of pleasure craft and small boats, and large numbers of fishing vessels. Since its inception the department has contributed $7 million to this program and expanded funding is planned to fiscal year 2020-21, by which time a total of $11 million will have been invested.
Since 2015, Transport Canada has also funded education initiatives under the new commercial fishing safety component of the program, which aims to ensure that knowledge of best practices and tools for safety are made available to fish harvesters.
The Boating Safety Contribution Program will provide $900,000 over three years for this component and will reimburse up to 75 per cent of eligible expenditures.
Transport Canada also supports search and rescue through its regulatory responsibility and, as I have outlined, department-regulated safety equipment, including emergency distress beacons and lifesaving equipment. These are important for survival at sea and assist search and rescue.
Additionally, we are responsible for the National Aerial Surveillance Program, the aircraft of which are often tasked by joint rescue centres to assist with search and rescue incidents on our three oceans.
Transport Canada focuses on preventing accidents whenever possible, protecting the people on board vessels in the event of an incident and making it possible to detect vessels in distress. We take our mandate extremely seriously and will continue to update our regulatory regime in the best interests of Canadians.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Roussel. As usual, we'll go to our first questions from our Deputy Chair, Senator Hubley.
Senator Hubley: Thank you for your presentation this evening. Last month, we heard from officials from the Transportation Safety Board. I asked them about the new Fishing Vessel Safety Regulations that were published in July of this year and whether they felt the new regulations would be effective. I asked them about the time it seems to take for the recommendations to be implemented when they are implemented at all. They noted that they have made more than 40 recommendations since 1992, and seven are still outstanding, some for a very long time. What are the factors you use in determining how to proceed with implementing or not Transportation Safety Board recommendations, and what framework or criteria do you use in assessing the risks?
Mr. Roussel: Thank you for the questions.
Each of the recommendations from the Transportation Safety Board is taken extremely seriously. When we do the analysis regarding each of those recommendations, we look beyond the recommendations themselves. We also have to deal with the feasibility of these recommendations. Some of these recommendations sometimes become outdated with time. They are either overridden by new technologies or other elements. When it is time to implement them, of course, through the cabinet directive on regulations, we have to deal with the consultations with the stakeholders and this is where the challenge is for most of what we're trying to put forward. In these situations, we have to do an extensive consultation, and we also have to look at the recommendations against the type of fishing. Coastal fishing, for example, zero to 20 miles, may have different requirements than 20 miles to 200 miles and right up to the extensions of the Exclusive Economic Zone that take vessels right up to our 200 nautical-mile limit.
Beyond that, you have also the high seas fishing that takes place, for example, for tuna in the North Atlantic or some other long-migratory fish on the Pacific side. All of those elements need to be taken into account when it is time to implement the recommendations. But we think that, with the coming into force of the fishing vessel regulations — we leave it, of course, to the board to make the decisions — we are in a position where significant numbers of those recommendations will move to satisfactory in part or, we hope, to fully satisfactory, following the analysis by the board. We're not complete. Mr. Tremblay can explain in more in detail what part 2 of the Small Fishing Vessel Inspection Regulations will encompass.
Senator Hubley: That will be part of my next question, Mr. Tremblay. I'm sure that you know that, even though the number of commercial fishers has declined in the last decade, the average number of fatalities has remained the same, although I did note some of the numbers that you had given us up to 2009. Fishing safety has been on the Transportation Safety Board watchlist since 2010, and it is still on the watchlist that came out at the end of October.
The regulations I mentioned earlier were phase 1, but they took more than a decade. You have mentioned phase 2, which we may hear more about, and also phase 3. When will it be initiated? How do you expect the outstanding Transportation Safety Board recommendations to be reflected, and do you have a timeline for completion?
Mr. Tremblay: Thank you for the question. To explain to you the three phases of the regulations, phase 1, which is the one that was published this summer and will fully come into force next summer, is addressing fishing vessels below 24 metres. There are some variations to that, but I'm just keeping that number as the general number for that.
We made the regulations phased to try to push forward the most important aspects of the regulations, for example, the stability of fishing vessels, because we know that a number of accidents are due to vessels capsizing or sometimes being overloaded. So that's one of the components. The other element that we address in that first phase is the requirement for a safety operating procedure, which has been an ongoing issue. You're talking about the Transportation Safety Board watchlist. They have, for example, a recommendation about safety management systems. We're not totally adopting this system for fishing vessels because, as Mr. Roussel said, we have to consider the capacity of the industry to implement the system, but we still have new requirements so that they have procedures. So that's one of the elements. The third major element is preventive or safety measures, like additional lifesaving equipment that will be there. So we now have requirements, in case an accident happens, to have elements like immersion suits that will protect fishermen if they have to evacuate the vessel and survival crafts like life rafts. So those are the elements that we were considering the most important to be addressed first.
Phase 2 will be addressing the construction of the vessel. Watertightness, safety for fire, et cetera, will be phase 2.
Phase 3 will be addressing larger vessels above the 24-metre threshold that I mentioned, so those are the fishing fleets, as Mr. Roussel was mentioning, that are fishing on the high seas. There are less than 200 of these vessels in Canada. The regime right now is probably more modern than the other one, so that's why we kept that one for phase 3.
We hope that, when these three phases are done, all of the recommendations will be addressed fully or in part, as mentioned by Donald.
As for the timeline, we have our capacity to put forward the regulations, but we also have to consider the capacity of the industry to implement it. Right now, we're focusing on the implementation of phase 1. We're working with the industry. We have a number of implementation sessions programmed for the next year so that the industry is aware and can take the measures so that they can be fully compliant with the regulations.
In parallel, we are working with phase 2, which is, I will say, a couple of years away from being done. Then phase 3 will follow after that.
Senator McInnis: Thank you very much for coming. I want to come back quickly to follow up on Senator Hubley's questions and not to provoke controversy, just to come to an understanding. This deals with all the vessels under 24 metres.
When the Transportation Safety Board appeared here, about two months ago, it was a bit alarming to hear some of their comments and that they made recommendations in 1992, 24 years ago. That included vessels stability, crew training, operating practices, proper emergency procedures, equipment and other devices. You are doing in phase 1, which I understand will come in next year, did I hear you say, vessel stability, safety operations procedures, safety equipment? That's phase 1 and then phase 2, which will come some time later, is small vessel construction. Phase 3 will be the large vessel construction requirement under the Cape Town Agreement.
The commercial fishery is a very large fishery. I forget the number of vessels approximately, but it's a great fishery. If I ordered a boat built today, there is such a demand that I would have to wait till probably 2020 to get one. Here we are talking about stability of a vessel in the construction. It strikes me this should have taken place some time ago. That's number one.
The crew training, the proper emergency procedures — were these things being done prior to this? I have to believe they were, but if they were, who was overseeing it? When you have hundreds and hundreds of vessels, crews and so on — I can go out and buy a boat. I don't think I have to take a test. I can go out and fish.
So who has been overseeing this? That's my first question. Why did it take 24 years for what I perceive to be extremely important recommendations by the Transportation Safety Board?
I know you'll have an excellent answer and I'm looking forward to hearing it.
Mr. Roussel: We have an answer.
There's a regime in place. It's not like there's no regime. Let's take one example, which is marine personnel, which are the qualifications for a fisherman. With the Marine Personnel Regulations, we did reduce the requirements. We brought the tonnage to have a qualified captain on board from 100 tonnes down to 60 tonnes. We did that through the Marine Personnel Regulations in 2007.
So it took lots of time to get an agreement with the industry to take it from 100-tonne vessels down to 60-tonne vessels. A 60-tonne vessel will be a vessel of about 50 feet, roughly 15 metres, from a 100-tonne vessel which could be well above a 20-metre vessel.
It was long negotiation with the fishermen. They all agreed with it.
But when it's time to deal with the qualifications of the fishermen, then it's a joint venture with the province. Education is provincial. Then we have to deal with fishery school and making sure that the curriculums are in place.
We cannot just put the regulations in place; it's a dialogue also with the other jurisdictions. First, it's on the education side. But when it comes to the actual prevention and mechanisms for prevention, it is working also with the worker's compensation boards of the different provinces.
So on the qualifications of what we'll call the fishermen, we made a great leap increasing the requirements by reducing the tonnage where a fishing master is required, including the first mate. So that was great leap when it came to the qualifications of the fishermen.
With that type of certificate comes also what we call "marine emergency duty training.'' So we did a lot of work on that.
The other elements related to prevention and the culture in the sectors are joint ventures with compensation boards, like I mentioned. When it came to stability, if you order a fishing vessel tomorrow morning, it depends on the size. If you order a vessel that is 15 tonnes and above, which is about 40 feet, the naval architect will develop a minimum stability for it. It is where we require it by regulation that we have enhanced the requirements.
Senator McInnis: Were there regulations in place to ensure that the boat builder would do that?
Mr. Roussel: For some vessels, there have been, but we have been reducing the threshold. Mr. Tremblay can give some details.
We have continued to improve by reducing the threshold where these requirements that you have highlighted are required on board those vessels. The majority of the vessels that we're dealing with in small coastal communities are what we call less than 15 tonnes, which is less than 40 or 42 feet; vessels 12 to 13 metres; small lobster boats; and very small to the coast. As soon as you get the threshold up, the requirements increase.
That's what we've done: We increased the requirement by going lower and lower with time. That takes decades of discussion with the fishing industry. It's pretty fragile as you go down. It's pretty challenging to make additional requirements.
Mr. Tremblay, do you want to give the details of where the stability had been requested for those?
Mr. Tremblay: Yes, thank you for the question. As Mr. Roussel said, there was a requirement before. Just to give you more detail, the requirement in the existing regulation was separated in two. Again, for the larger fishing vessels, there was a requirement for all of them to have a stability assessment done. There are standards for that. It's mostly based on international standards.
Below that size threshold, 24 metres, or more or less 150 gross tonnage, if you want to talk the other language, the requirement in the regulations per se was only for vessel engaged in certain fisheries, mainly herring and capelin fisheries, and other similar fish — I don't want to get too technical here, but it's what we call "free surface,'' where the fish are acting like water in the vessel. That's a natural stability risk. These were the ones required by the regulation.
However, while we were working on the development of the regulations and negotiating with the industry what will be a solution that is viable for them, also — because as we said, contrary to the TSB, which is informing us a lot on safety issues but doesn't have to consider the feasibility of the solution, we do have to do that part and engage in discussion with the industry.
In the interim, we published a number of recommendations and guidelines, and an instrument that we had that we call a "ship safety bulletin'' that was distributed to all ship owners. All fishermen got that.
In the early 2000s, we recommended stability criteria and stability calculations for all vessels to be made if they met a certain number of risk factors identified in this communication.
We also work with the building industry. We work a lot with the Nova Scotia Boatbuilders Association that is on a certain part of the Atlantic, with some builders in Newfoundland and also with naval architects, and we encourage them to actually assess the boat. The majority of boats right now that are built are built voluntarily with the assessment. But the regulation will formalize and make it mandatory for the future.
Legally, yes, it's still possible to build a boat without stability. Until the regulations are there, certainly.
Senator Tkachuk: We were talking about increasing the regulations by decreasing tonnage. You said you had discussions with the industry, which took decades. I found that a little stunning. Is there a formal process of consultation? Do you have groups that are recognized groups or is it with individuals? Is the process by legislation?
How do you conduct these consultations, if it takes decades? You have to meet them one at a time or what? I don't get it.
Mr. Roussel: It's not by legislation. However, the cabinet directive on regulations requires us to consult. We have to consult.
So we use two main forums, and one is what we call the Canadian Marine Advisory Council, and we have subcommittees. One is specifically on fishing vessels.
They are done here in Ottawa. The industry presents. They come either by association, or individual fishermen come to Ottawa. We also have the original seamen, which is original Canadian Marine Advisory Council. We meet fishermen all around the country, region by region.
I can tell you that even after three, four or five years of consultation, as soon as we published the regulations, there will be a group somewhere that will tell us they never heard about that. And you can quote their names of when you went and saw them. I can tell you that.
So we have to start again, making sure that there's a good understanding of what we're putting forward, because they will oppose the regulation for all sorts of good reasons. It takes a tremendous amount of effort, energy and resources to convince the sectors to move forward on some of the items.
Senator Tkachuk: Are you paid by the day or what? What do you pay these people?
Mr. Roussel: We like them a lot. They're great partners.
Senator Tkachuk: If you get paid by the day, of course, it would take them decades.
Mr. Roussel: But when we achieve a consensus, or as close to a consensus that we can have, we'll move forward. But in the last wave of consultations, the sequence was exactly as I described it to you. They came across and said, "We never heard about that.''
Senator McInnis: You hit the point. I was going to follow up on that further, but maybe I'll get a chance later.
I wanted to ask you about the article I saw in the paper last week in Nova Scotia, "Coast guard running short of vessels.'' The Coast Guard is looking for a few ice breakers and tow vessels. I'm not sure if that's within your mandate but there was an RFI, a request for information, sent out.
What was alarming to me in the article was that it discusses upcoming fleet gaps for vessels in Dartmouth, Argentia in St. John's, Quebec City and Victoria.
How serious are the gaps, and do they exist in each location? We've heard about those ice breakers. Are we going to be short ice breakers? And are we going to be short towing vessels? That could be somewhat damning for the environment if one gets away.
What dangers exist as a result of this? I rather suspect you're going into the private sector when you're looking for interest, correct?
Mr. Roussel: I cannot answer those questions. They're under the purview of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard.
Senator McInnis: Maybe you could answer this final question for me about EPIRBs, the emergency position-indicating radio beacons. Did I hear you say that they're on most vessels?
Mr. Turner: Thank you, senator. I wouldn't say they are on most vessels. Again, we've been trying to extend the EPIRBs carriage requirement down to smaller vessels for many years. Right now, any vessel over 20 metres that goes beyond sheltered waters requires a float-free EPIRB and any vessel that is over eight metres that goes more than 20 miles from shore also requires an EPIRB, and any passenger vessel going beyond 20 miles from shore requires an EPIRB.
That's the current state of play for the EPIRB. But in the new fishing vessel regulations that come into force next summer, we'll also have an additional requirement for EPIRBs for fishing vessels over 12 metres going beyond sheltered waters, and that's mandatory.
Senator McInnis: The immersion suits are not mandatory, are they?
Mr. Tremblay: Currently, they are not mandatory on small vessels but they will be under the new regulations for certain sizes of fishing vessel or boats that go a certain distance from shore. Below the 12-metre threshold there will be an option offered to fishermen, one of which could be a life raft or an EPIRB or an immersion suit. We tried to keep it flexible after discussions with the industry, depending on the need. There will be some where it will be mandatory, but on some other boats it will be an option.
Senator Raine: Thank you very much. I don't completely understand the regulatory regime, but what is the rule of insurance agencies in this capacity? Maybe when there's an accident, the boat sinks, they write it off and it doesn't really matter, but surely these boats are very valuable and they must be insured.
Is there a difference in the insurance rate if you have done everything possible to keep the boat operating safely, like having the vessel's stability testing done and having all the life rafts and stuff in place? Does that get you a better insurance rate?
Mr. Roussel: Thank you for the questions. The first criteria, usually, from the insurance company is that the vessel needs to meet the regulations. Depending on the vessel itself or its value, the company will also do an independent inspection and may have additional requirements in the sense of, as mentioned by Mr. Tremblay, everything we published, which is not necessarily a regulatory requirement but a strong recommendation — for example, the elements regarding stability. The regulation may not require you to have stability but we strongly recommend it.
The insurance company can have those additional elements and tell vessel owners they have to follow the regulations, whatever Transport Canada has published and any other good practices that are expected in the domain.
We work with the underwriters in the sense that we communicate with them on a continuous basis regarding the requirements to make sure that the overall cost of maintaining the activities is not exorbitant as far as elements affecting the premiums on the cost of a fishing vessel or any other type of operation.
Senator Tkachuk: I want to ask a couple of questions. This EPIRB intrigues me. It is an emergency position-indicating radio beacon and you say that not all boats have them. How much are they? Are they expensive? Why wouldn't a boat have one?
Mr. Turner: We would encourage boaters to voluntarily fit one because they do enhance safety. A float-free EPIRB will be about $900, plus every two years the hydrostatic release mechanism would have to be replaced, and every 4 to 10 years the battery has to be replaced, which is a couple hundred dollars, as well. There's a sort of ongoing expense.
Senator Tkachuk: Is that the reason why people aren't putting them on? It would seem to make sense. It would be like having a navigation system. You'd want people to know where you are if you have a problem.
Mr. Turner: Well, of course. Many would fit one voluntarily. I don't know what kind of numbers that would be, but I would want one if I was on a vessel of any size.
Cost is certainly always a factor. One of the issues that comes up when we are talking with the fishing vessel industry is that from a practical perspective, when you get below a certain size of vessel, there are certain considerations. One is that if your vessel flips over quickly, these things are designed to release at between two to four metres after being submerged, so there's a potential that your vessel will flip over and the EPIRB may not release or get trapped under the hull. On a larger vessel you can get it up higher, clear of things, and also deeper.
There's that aspect, but also sometimes an EPIRB will stay with the vessel. If the vessel doesn't sink, and say you're out by yourself crab fishing and you get thrown over the side, it's not going to help. Sometimes, another option would be to wear a personal locater beacon, which is less expensive. A lot of fishing vessels prefer to use their VHF radio so that they can talk to people or boaters in the vicinity. They feel their best chance of being rescued would be to call on other vessels in the area, if they're fishing with other vessels.
What we have a requirement for is a VHF radio that's fixed and has a digital selective calling capability, which means you can press a distress alert button. This is fairly new. It's what we required in 2001. If they hold the button, that distress alert will automatically go out to other VHF-DSC radios as well as to the Coast Guard station ashore if they're within 20 to 40 miles.
That's a multi-purpose piece of equipment that's less expensive where they can use it every day to communicate with other vessels but which also provides a distress alerting capability.
Senator Tkachuk: I want to go back to the question I asked earlier about consultation, because it bothers me a little. You mentioned the difficulty and also the fact that there will be always somebody who has not been consulted. You have to speak to everyone?
Sorry, I'm a little ignorant of this stuff, but maybe it's good that I am. I'm trying to make it clear. Do they have associations in each province? Do they have representatives? Do they trust their representatives, or do you speak to the representatives and it doesn't really matter; you still have to talk to individual fishing groups? What's the process? There must be a process. It must start somewhere.
Mr. Roussel: It's all of the above.
Senator Tkachuk: Oh, my goodness.
Mr. Roussel: There are in general groups under different associations. Some are very local in nature. Some are provincial in nature. Some are by type of fishery. Then you trust that the people you have in front of you are fully representative of their members.
It's challenging. Then, when it's time to publish the regulations or when we're making an announcement that we're moving forward, there are always others that come out of the wood work.
Did we need the listen to everyone? We needed to have a level of assurance that what we will put forward will be implemented. The challenge we have is when we go back out after on compliance and enforcement, how much energy do we want to spend in ensuring that no one will follow the regulations we published? So the level of non-conformity in the sectors is always a challenge. It's a large sector. We need to make sure there is a high level conformity when we do issue the certificate for the vessel.
Senator Tkachuk: When you're doing this, there's technology, new ways of building the ships and all of these things that are going on. If it's taking so long, do you get started with something and by the time you get to it, it's irrelevant and you need a new regulation, or you have to go in a different direction because the problem has been solved in another way?
Mr. Roussel: In general, technology does sometimes override us. For example, the recommendations of 20 or 30 years ago may not be relevant in today's world. It has been overridden by something else. Certainly, that's true in the communication world.
The challenge we're facing, mainly when it comes to the time for the consultation, is the implementation time. That means giving time to the sectors to be able to implement what we put forward. That takes a lot of negotiation. So you have a concrete example with the issuing vessel that we did publish last summer, some elements of it will come into force next summer and some additional further down the road to give time to the industry to say, "Okay, I have to amortize this equipment so I have to give myself time to modify the vessel,'' because some of the requirements could be a modification of the vessel. So they take appointments with the shipyards or other types of additional requirements.
These are the factors we take into account to ensure that when we put out the regulations, they are feasible. We can tell you that even if we give five years for something, at the end of the five years, we're having requests to make an extension. We had the example on the marine emergency duty training where it was clear that everyone had to be trained by such and such a date. Guess what? When the date arrived, there were gazillions of folks out there still chasing training. So we did extensions, and the industry is coping with that, working with the province to make sure the courses will be available — and also other programs where the financing for some of these courses needs to take place also.
It's an extremely challenging sector to deal with.
Senator McInnis: Just speaking for Nova Scotia, there are organizations all over the province of Nova Scotia, and they're quite sophisticated. We don't want laws all over the place but sometimes — and I don't know if you have the jurisdiction to do it; I suspect you do — but you have to implement the law and it has to be enforced.
Just last week, I don't know the circumstances so I will not get into it, but we witnessed and saw a film of how you throw a pump out and a rope goes across the vessel. That happened just a couple of days after dumping. It strikes me that there has to be a clear, comprehensive manner of communicating the strategy for safety. I'm not detecting that it's there. Do you agree?
Maybe it's not within the jurisdiction of Transport Canada. Maybe its Fisheries and Oceans, I don't know, but it strikes me that this cannot be that hard. These people are very sophisticated, and when you go to one of the meetings — and I've been on the opposite end on the provincial level, hearing them — they are well organized. I just cannot see here how this could take so long.
Is there such a comprehensive strategy there to preach safety? That's the question.
Mr. Roussel: Yes, there is a strategy. I'm sure they mention it, but when it comes to fishing sectors, it is not solely the responsibility of Transport Canada.
Senator McInnis: I know.
Mr. Roussel: We have extremely concrete examples of how we go deep and in details with different fishing communities where we do the meeting regionally. At the regional level, you have Transport and Fisheries and Oceans at the table. You will have the worker's compensation board at the table, and you will the underwriters at the table — all working together with the fishing communities on how to improve safety.
So it's working in different areas of the country. It's articulated better in some areas than others for all sorts of reasons. But we have extensive collaborations with WorkSafeBC, the CSST in Quebec and many other places. So the dialogue with the fishing sectors continuous.
The challenge that we face is when we try to impose the changes. Depending on what we're asking and the cost of what we're asking, this is where the buck stops. This is where we're facing significant resistance.
When it comes to stability — and that's a concrete example. If you have to use the service of a naval architect, that's pretty pricey. So we find different techniques on how to do this. We have developed guidelines on simplified stability assessments. We have a lot of success.
From a pure naval architect idea, "you shall have a stability test,'' we can come up after dialogue to say, "Well, all right, maybe we just need an assessment, and if the fishermen get this information, that will be safe enough'' and that will be sort of a first step.
This dialogue takes a while because we always come with the first idea, which is "let's go for the big thing.'' Then, after a good dialogue, we come up with something a lot easier to implement. This dialogue takes place and it takes a significant amount of time.
Do we have an excuse that we're taking a decade or 14 years, in particular, for the last regulations? We're not alone in the thing. We wish we could do it faster, but I can tell you we had to make significant compromises to even achieve what we've done so far. We had to actually split some parts of the regulations, because there was too much controversy, and put them into phase 2 so we could at least get these elements forward, the ones that you have seen in 2016 and then continue our dialogue with the sector.
Senator McInnis: Thank you.
Senator Raine: It's kind of funny. I guess it brings up the old adage that you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make them drink.
We have a lot of independent strong-minded people who think it will never happen to them, and it is going to be a long time to put, as somebody said, an awareness of prevention in the safety regime, which is challenging.
I wanted to ask you if the attitudes towards safety and the sort of the experiences are the same on the West Coast as they are in the Maritimes, on the East Coast and Newfoundland. In the West, I think we have far bigger distances sometimes between communities and where there is a safe harbour if you are in trouble.
Mr. Roussel: I'll get in a lot of trouble here. I would say that it's not a question of attitude. The involvement is pretty extensive across the country. I mentioned WorkSafeBC, I mentioned in Quebec, the CSST, and in Newfoundland you have very active fishing sectors, lots of involvement by the different marine schools. I think we have significant collaboration across the country.
It varies by fishery, I would say, where the more coastal you get, the more seasonal you get, that means the shorter and the more precarious the fishing is, the more challenging it is. If you have a very wealthy fishing sector or activities, it's a lot easier to implement a series of changes. But as you know, 30 years ago it was extremely active. It has been reducing with time, so those fisheries, mainly the coastal ones, are very short seasons, very seasonal in nature, so it's a huge challenge. So the smaller and the more precarious it is, the more challenging it is.
Senator Raine: You're saying that if there's only a small opening in the season and everyone is rushing out together, it's almost like we have to get there and take chances to get there and get our fish. Is that what's happening? Is there any way to deal with that in how we set quotas and things like that?
Mr. Roussel: That nexus regarding quotas and how it is set up are certainly factors that contribute to the management of the fishery as a whole. There's a direct link on the risk that people are willing to take, if they have to go and catch X amount of product.
Senator Raine: Actually, I've never been able to understand if we're trying to limit how many fish are caught why we don't just count them rather than say you have this time to this time, and whoever gets there first can get the most. It doesn't make sense to me.
Mr. Roussel: That's a Fisheries and Oceans question.
Senator Raine: It has an impact on safety.
Mr. Roussel: There are two elements, the opening and closing of fishing areas and how fast people can get quotas, individual versus collective quotas. That's certainly a factor.
Second, there is an element regarding the impositions of the size of vessel. The size of vessel is a matter of safety when it is going to sea. When you link it to an actual resource capacity, there have been documented challenges there on what that does to the actual design of an appropriate seaworthy vessel. So that dialogue for us is continuous with Fisheries and Oceans to make sure these elements regarding the size of the vessels are things left for design and safety rather than capacity or linked with the capacity to fish, which for us is extremely challenging.
If you have a naval architect, they can come and explain to this committee what this can look like.
Senator Sinclair: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Reading the material that was circulated in preparation for this meeting, I was struck by the impression that the regulatory and licensing, particularly the licensing provisions that fishermen and boat operators have to go through, is a little less stringent than I had to go through as a teenager to get a driver's licence for a car. Is that a fair impression? Do people operating boats have to take mandatory operator's courses and mandatory courses regarding safety, pass those tests and obtain and maintain appropriate insurance coverage before they can operate or while they are operating?
Mr. Roussel: It depends on the size of the vessel. For the vessels that are less than 15 tons, the requirement is a lot less stringent than the 15 and above. It's also where you're going, so if you are only operating coastal, some elements regarding some of the requirements are historically extremely limited. There were historically no requirements. It was like your father was a fisherman, you are a fisherman and you operate the boat.
Then, of course, as I mentioned, we did reduce the tonnage to ensure that the people who are operating vessels in different areas have the appropriate fishing vessel captain certificate and first mate certificates, so it varies depending on the size and the area where you operate.
Senator Sinclair: I can't operate a scooter on a road without a driver's licence and insurance coverage, but I can operate a 15-ton boat without an operator's licence or insurance coverage — or less than 15 tons?
Mr. Roussel: Less than 15 tons, the requirements are still pretty relaxed.
Senator Sinclair: Okay. Do you think that maybe one of the answers might be to increase the licensing and mandatory safety testing requirements in order to obtain and maintain a licence?
Mr. Roussel: Definitely training and appropriate licensing of personnel is one of the elements regarding safety measures.
But the likelihood that fishermen will not have any knowledge or have not taken any courses is pretty small. There's a significant amount of involvement at the provincial levels, so the fishermen are usually extremely conscientious. They take some courses, but do they have a formal requirement for smaller vessels and having to get a licence? Some may not have that for operating the very small fishing vessel.
Senator Sinclair: Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you and I want to thank our witnesses this evening for their input.
Before I finish up, we need to go in camera. Is it agreed that we go in camera?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: All agreed. Carried.
(The committee continued in camera.)
(The committee continued in public.)
The Chair: I call the meeting back to order.
Is it agreed that the budget proposal amount of $7,349 for the special study on the federal government's current and evolving policy framework for managing Canada's fisheries and oceans for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2017, be approved for submission to the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration?
Senator Hubley: So moved. Agreed.
The Chair: Seconded? All those in favour? Agreed. Contrary minded? Carried. Thank you.
(The committee adjourned.)