THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON FISHERIES AND OCEANS
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Thursday, February 8, 2018
The Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans met this day at 8:30 a.m. to study Maritime Search and Rescue activities, including current challenges and opportunities; and to give clause-by-clause consideration to Bill S-238, An Act to amend the Fisheries Act and the Wild Animal and Plant Protection and Regulation of International and Interprovincial Trade Act (importation of shark fins).
Senator Fabian Manning (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Good morning. My name is Fabian Manning. I’m a senator from Newfoundland and Labrador and pleased to chair this meeting this morning.
Before I give the floor to our witnesses, I would like to invite the members of the committee to introduce themselves, starting on my immediate right.
[Translation]
Senator Ringuette: Pierrette Ringuette from New Brunswick.
[English]
Senator Munson: Jim Munson, Ontario.
Senator Hartling: Nancy Hartling, New Brunswick.
Senator Gold: Marc Gold, Quebec.
The Chair: Thank you, senators. I’m sure we’ll have some other senators joining us shortly. The committee is continuing its study on maritime search and rescue activities, including current challenges and opportunities. This morning, we are pleased to welcome representatives from the Transportation Safety Board of Canada to discuss the investigative report on the sinking of the Pop’s Pride.
I would ask if our guests would introduce themselves first, please.
Pierre Murray, Manager of Regional Operations – Atlantic, Transportation Safety Board of Canada: Pierre Murray. I’m the Manager of Regional Operations in the Maritime and Atlantic Region.
[Translation]
Jean L. Laporte, Chief Operating Officer, Executive Office, Transportation Safety Board of Canada: Jean Laporte, chief operating officer.
[English]
Kathleen Fox, Chair, Transportation Safety Board of Canada: Kathy Fox, Chair of the TSB.
[Translation]
Marc-André Poisson, Director of Investigations — Marine, Transportation Safety Board of Canada: Marc-André Poisson, director of investigations — marine.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you for taking the time to join us here this morning. My understanding is that we have some opening remarks. We’ll start with Ms. Fox, please.
Ms. Fox: Good morning, Mr. Chair and honourable senators. Thank you for inviting the Transportation Safety Board of Canada to appear today so that we can answer your questions regarding our investigation into the Pop’s Pride occurrence and how changes in the regulations might reduce the number of accidents and fatalities at sea and, as a consequence, reduce the demands on search and rescue resources. As the TSB last appeared before this committee in late 2016, I’ll begin with only a brief reminder of what we do.
The TSB’s mandate is to advance transportation safety by conducting independent investigations into selected occurrences in air, rail, marine and pipeline modes of transportation. We find out what happened and why, and then we make public what we’ve learned so that those best placed to take action — industry and the regulators — can do so. We operate at arm's length from other government departments and agencies.
[Translation]
This lets us be impartial, free from any real or perceived external influence. It also lets us avoid any conflicts of interest when we point out safety deficiencies to, say, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans or Transport Canada.
[English]
Which brings me to the subject of the Pop’s Pride. On the afternoon of September 6, 2016, the small open-fishing vessel Pop’s Pride was reported overdue when it did not return to St. John’s from the fishing grounds off of Cape Spear, Newfoundland and Labrador. Several vessels and aircraft joined the search, and the bodies of two of the four crew were recovered. The other two crew members were not recovered and are presumed drowned. The weather that day had been inclement, with winds and high waves that exceeded the vessel’s normal operating conditions. Nonetheless, the crew departed St. John’s harbour that morning to attend to cod gill nets that had been set two days previously. Once loaded, the combined weight of the catch and equipment left the vessel low in the water, and it swamped and sank. There was no distress signal.
The TSB’s investigation subsequently identified several risks that are, sadly, all too common across the industry: vessels that do not carry or are not required to carry automatic distress alerting equipment and design standards that don’t require all vessels to remain afloat and upright if swamped, regardless of length. Then there are the DFO rules that govern how, when and how much fish are harvested. These rules often create economic pressures that can lead fishermen to take risks to maximize their catch. For instance, weekly quotas instead of seasonal ones, unpredictable closing dates for a given season, and regulations on how frequently nets must be attended.
[Translation]
At the TSB, we see the combined results of these risks time and again. That is why, in 2010, we placed fishing safety on our inaugural watchlist. This list identifies the key safety issues that need to be addressed in order to make Canada’s transportation system even safer.
[English]
In 2012, we published a special study on fishing safety in Canada in which we identified 10 interrelated issues that required focused and concerted action from multiple levels of government and from fishermen themselves in order to improve safety across the country.
So that’s the broader context. Beyond this one accident, there are issues common to the entire fishing industry, and the TSB continues to see these issues in investigation after investigation. Moreover, occurrences involving disabled vessels, many of which are fishing vessels, continue to be the greatest call upon search and rescue resources. While the TSB has made numerous recommendations to TC, DFO and some provinces over the years, 25 marine safety recommendations are currently outstanding, including 13 pertaining to fishing safety. Four of these 25 recommendations have been outstanding for more than 10 years.
The TSB is aware that fixing these issues will require coordinated action by all stakeholders, but this is by no means an impossible task. Fishing safety associations have been created in provinces such as British Columbia, Nova Scotia, and Newfoundland and Labrador, where they have taken an active role in creating awareness and educating harvesters about fishing safety. Yet, the risks continue. So here is what we’d like to see done. With respect to DFO, their primary considerations when regulating fisheries are the economic well-being of the industry and the preservation of fish stocks. Yet, as I noted earlier, some of their rules and regulations can actually create safety risks. So we urge DFO to consider safety as an equally important criterion when making rules and to coordinate their efforts with Transport Canada.
[Translation]
As for Transport Canada, we would like them to more thoroughly address the issues we have raised in our numerous recommendations on fishing safety. Yes, Transport Canada has taken some action in the past, such as the new fishing vessel regulations. But the associated risks have not been reduced enough.
[English]
While the number of fatalities has lowered in the last few years, so too have the number of registered fishing vessels and the number of fishermen. Although this lower number of deaths is encouraging, we need to see if that is a trend that will be sustained. After all, many of these deaths are preventable, provided that further action is taken.
As for the applicability of Transport Canada’s rules, there are still too many — I am tempted to say — “loopholes.” Instead, I’ll say “exclusions.” Some rules, for instance, only apply to fishing at a certain distance from offshore. Others apply to vessels over a certain size but not others or only to new vessels or new crew members but not those already in service, even when those same safety risks are applicable to every vessel and every crew member.
In conclusion, we at the TSB will continue to do our part by investigating accidents and making public what we’ve learned. We’re also pushing hard for change via our Watchlist and our outreach program and by following up on our recommendations so that stakeholders and change agents like Transport Canada and DFO are compelled to take action. But, in that vein, perhaps this committee could help by publicly asking Transport Canada and DFO what they are going to do to address the issues that we’ve identified.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Fox. Certainly, being from Newfoundland and Labrador, I’m quite familiar with the Pop’s Pride disaster and tragedy and certainly many others that have happened. I usually don’t question things, but I just want to put out a couple of things before we start, if I could, deputy chair.
Recommendations currently outstanding, including 13 pertaining to fishing safety. Fourteen of these 25 recommendations have been outstanding for more than 10 years. That’s a major statement to this committee when we’re dealing with search and rescue.
I’d like to ask again, why do you or any of our witnesses believe that some of these recommendations are still outstanding after 10 years? What is the reason that you wouldn’t act upon it? Most of the recommendations, I believe, come from your investigations into tragedies that have happened and the recommendations come forward as part of your reports. So to have 13 — over half your recommendations — still outstanding after 10 years is to me a surprising number, but I’m maybe more surprised these haven’t been acted upon.
Ms. Fox: Just to clarify the numbers, there are 25 outstanding marine recommendations, of which 13 are fishing. Fourteen of the 25 are more than 10 years, and that includes six fishing recommendations.
The issue is: Why is it taking so long? There are a number of reasons that Transport Canada has given us over the years. Specifically, they often have to do consultation with industry. Sometimes they want to do focus groups or studies. We find that may be necessary in terms of consultation with stakeholders before making the regulations, but that process seems to take too long and the regulatory process takes a long time even once there is consensus with the industry.
Very often the reasons for some of these exclusions is that industry pushes back and rather than moving forward, Transport Canada amends its approach.
We became so concerned about the length of time that Transport Canada is taking to implement our recommendations — even those with which they agree — that we actually put this item on our last Watchlist that we issued in fall 2016. Transport Canada is taking too long to respond to our recommendations and that’s continuing to put lives at risk.
The Chair: I go back to vessels that are not required to carry automatic distress alerting equipment. That has to do with the size of the vessel, I believe, how far they are from the shore. Is it a recommendation or a suggestion from the Transportation Safety Board of Canada that all vessels carry some type of distress alerting equipment? Following the Ocean Ranger disaster in Newfoundland back in 1982, they made all kinds of recommendations with regard to having the EPIRBs on the suits, so people can quickly identify them. Because with search and rescue, from what we’ve heard in our testimony or over the past couple of months, is that the search part is what takes so much time. Once they get to the scene and use the resources to rescue a person, the chance of saving a life is much improved, but the search itself takes so much time. Maybe you can elaborate on the automatic distress alerting equipment you’ve talked about and what suggestions you have made in the past.
Ms. Fox: I will talk briefly to that, and I will ask Mr. Poisson to respond in terms of the gaps in the regulations with respect to EPIRBs.
Yes, the Transportation Safety Board of Canada has made recommendations in the past regarding the carriage of EPIRBs. Most recently, following the capsizing of the whale watching vessel Leviathan II, we believe all vessels operating outside sheltered waters should be required to carry an EPIRB. The problem is that when a capsizing occurs, it often happens so suddenly that no one has time to make a distress call using a VHF telephone or other means, whereas the EPIRB will give an automatic distress signal.
Mr. Poisson: In 1998, there was an accident called the Brier Mist and further to that accident, in 2000, the TSB made a recommendation to TC requiring that EPIRBs or another form of automatic identification be put on all fishing vessels, of all sizes. And that recommendation was specific to the smaller vessels, because the fishing vessels are categorized in small and large. It’s more the smaller ones that were affected when we saw the Brier Mist. So we have a recommendation outstanding since 2000 where Transport Canada should make it mandatory for all fishing vessels to have an EPIRB or other appropriate equipment that floats free, automatically activates, alerts the search and rescue system and provides position updates and homing in capabilities.
The Chair: Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Gold: Thank you very much for being here. This is very interesting and very important. It is terrible that your visit to us here is as a result of this tragedy.
[English]
The chair has asked the important question. In fact, your presentation was excellent because it also robbed me of my questions, which is what you recommend that we do.
Our focus in this study has largely been on the resources -- whether they’re government, volunteer, Coast Guard or others -- to address incidents at sea and as you pointed out, fishing vessels represent the largest category. I am intrigued and distressed by some of the things that underlay this tragedy, and that is the economic and other incentives for both to take risks. The report mentioned that in the case of the northern cod stewardship fishery, there were weekly quotas rather than seasonal quotas set in advance, and for an undefined period of time, which then puts pressure on the fisher to say, “I better grab what I can because I don’t know when the catch will be closed to me.” And that puts pressure on them to go out in inclement weather and also to retrieve their nets, because there are rules about retrieving the fish.
Is this typical or was this unique to this particular fishery, or are these kinds of incentives to take risks more widespread? Can you elaborate on the resistance that you have been getting to have these rules tightened up to minimize the risk?
Ms. Fox: I will ask Mr. Murray to respond with respect to the Pop’s Pride and what he sees on the East Coast of Canada.
Mr. Murray: In any business, everybody wants to earn a living. This is common nature. We all want to make as much as we can. Fisheries is no different. Fishermen are out there; they have to survive. There are more fisheries like the northern cod fisheries. This is a fishery where you were allowed to catch about 2,000 pounds a week in 2016. At 20 cents a pound, you will not get rich, especially if you have four men on board and have to split the money.
You have to optimize the catch, meaning that you will be out there and you will be fishing. Compared to previously in 2014-15 when you had a set period of time, you have three weeks to catch 5,000 pounds, you go whenever you can. Now they’ve cut it down. They say you have 2,000 pounds this week and next and by the way, we don’t know when we will close the season. So you might catch 2,000 pounds this week and next, but following week after, that’s it. You go home and there is no more.
So you will push the envelope to get your quota and that’s what we see in this particular fishery. In the Pop’s Pride, investigation, this particular boat, it is very common; I’ve seen it dozens of times. The weather is bad, it’s limited, borderline. It might not be safe, but let’s go do it because we have to retrieve the net. We have no choice. Fishermen are not aware that there are exceptions that they can ask for. They can call DFO and say it’s too windy today, I’m going to stay outside, can I leave the net outside for 24 more hours? They’re not aware of it. They say, “I have no choice. I have to go.” And they go. You see these risks taken all the time.
[Translation]
Senator Gold: How do you explain that the regulations that cause the risks remain in place, given the tragedies that may result?
[English]
Mr. Murray: We see the similar force at play here. In this particular case, where you see the weekly quota that came up, there are fish harvesters involved in this process, unions involved in this process, unions representing fish plants and workers and fishermen both together and also there’s the fish plant owner/operators that have a say in that decision. They meet every year. For the last two years, they met and proposed a plan to DFO.
If you think about the fish plant operators, they don’t want to get 100,000 pounds of cod arriving at their dock the first day of the season and nothing for the rest of the season. They want to spread out the workload. There are those forces at play that don't necessarily have safety of fishermen at the forefront. They have a business to run and they try to run it the best way they can, so that’s one of the reasons you see those rules not being changed, a lot of players, forces at play and a lot of interests at play here.
Ms. Fox: In fairness, there are two things. Over the years, on both coasts across the country, we’ve seen issues with measures; whether it’s the licence being restricted to a certain length of boats so in order to live within or to bypass that regulation, the fishermen will build an extension on the stern of the vessel that can affect the stability of the vessel. That’s a way of getting around the licensing restrictions, or there may be exemptions available, but those aren’t widely publicized or known to fishermen. It could also be the issue about quotas, the opening of a season and so on.
In fairness to DFO, they have taken action to provide guidance material in the development of integrated management plans for the fisheries, but some of that guidance doesn’t always get translated into practical plans when it comes to individual fisheries in individual regions.
Senator Munson: I was in New York City during the course of the Christmas break and a taxi driver said he felt safer driving a cab in New York City than when he was a fisherman fishing crab off the coast of Alaska -- the dangers, the quota, the pressure and how dangerous it all is. Has much changed since 2016 since the Pop’s Pride went down? Are there other new stringent regulations in place that may have prevented that tragedy?
Mr. Poisson: TC has implemented some regulations since 2016. However, there are still other regulations waiting -- the construction regulations and the large fishing vessel regulations. But more importantly, the committee may want to know that since 2014 — actually signed in 2015 — the heads of the Coast Guard, the commissioner, the DM from TC, the DM from DFO re-signed an MOU which went back from 2006, where they committed to meet regularly, actually have two meetings at least a year nationally before Canadian Marine Advisory Council to discuss these types of issues so the Pop’s Pride would have come up during these meetings. They had committed to come and advise the CMAC. In December 2017, we attended and didn’t hear anything. We weren’t invited to the meetings. We used to be invited. The last one was about six years ago. They also committed to have regional meetings, and the regional meetings are held in Nova Scotia, Quebec, and in B.C. In B.C. there’s a meeting but DFO does not attend the meetings.
So these issues, senator, could be raised at those particular meetings and these three departments could ensure that they’re discussed and brought up.
Senator Munson: Wouldn’t you be a natural partner?
Mr. Poisson: We are, we are nominated in the MOU yes.
Senator Munson: You weren’t at some of these meetings?
Mr. Poisson: We attended the Quebec meetings going on right now, the Nova Scotia meetings, the B.C. meetings, but we have not been invited to national meetings yet.
Senator Munson: That is something for us to try to comprehend. This committee has been to Norway, Denmark, the U.K. and Ireland. I have some notes here that the library has prepared for us. How do we compare to other countries in terms of our safety record and regulations? Are we number one, two or way down the list? How do we compare to our neighbour the United States?
Mr. Poisson: We compare quite fairly. We do review internationally and compare notes. However, the fishing vessels, because of their tonnage, are not covered by international regulations or conventions, so for the smaller fishing vessels, it’s each country doing their own thing. It’s only the large fishing vessels that are covered by the IMO conventions. We compare and we do share notes. Canada does compare and is quite on par with other countries. Iceland may be doing a bit better than us, that’s the only country that we see. But it is a challenge worldwide.
Senator Munson: Senator Manning talked about EPIRBs and others, but in the real world would you like to see every fishing vessel have these on board? I come from northern New Brunswick. A lot of fishing boats go out and I don’t think they have anything on board except they are going out for the day and days change quickly on the water.
Ms. Fox: We believe that EPIRBs are a sound financial investment in safety because capsizings can happen very quickly. We would prefer to see all commercial fishing vessels equipped because it may not be possible to make a distress call. Certainly in the case of the Pop’s Pride, it could have facilitated an earlier rescue. Whether it would have saved lives, we can’t speculate, but the fact is that vessel wasn’t reported missing until six hours after it was last seen. We don’t know exactly when it foundered. An EPIRB can provide early distress and a much better opportunity for early rescue.
Senator Munson: Are they expensive?
Mr. Poisson: No, they are not that expensive. We are not talking several thousands of dollars, but I don’t have the exact number.
Senator Munson: Fishermen may say this cuts into paying the crew and doing all of these things.
Mr. Murray: When they first came out years ago, they used to be a few thousand dollars. Now they are a few hundred dollars. They are cheap enough now that pleasure craft have them on board.
Senator Munson: Should it be mandatory?
Mr. Laporte: It should be mandatory for all commercial vessels.
The Chair: Getting back to Ms. Fox’s comment regarding the six-hour period, if you respond in half an hour, you may not be able to rescue everyone, but I know in the history of Newfoundland and Labrador, bringing a body home sometimes is a consolation to family versus not being able to find the body. So even if EPIRBs help that process, it would be easier for families to deal with rather than not having anybody to say goodbye to.
Senator Ringuette: As a politician, I always had the impression that we were living in our own little silos and that was most unfortunate. The silo is deep that you’re living in. I cannot believe that in 2018 this flow of communication and cooperation is not happening. There is also an issue of out of sight, out of mind. The eastern fisheries and the western fisheries are not centred in Ottawa, so out of sight, out of mind.
Therefore, we have in front of the Senate a Transport Canada safety bill called Bill C-49 that calls for web cams in trains and other items. Could you look at that bill and provide us with possible wording to have these transponders — I call them transponders; you call them EPIRBs — mandatory, because we will not see another Transportation Act for safety in front of Senate for maybe another three or four years. Why not further the proper cause — that is, the needed cause that you’ve been trying to put forth for 10 years?
Ms. Fox: The Minister of Transport currently has the authority to mandate that all vessels carry EPIRBs — that is, all commercial vessels or whatever segment — and that can be done through regulations. It does not require any enabling legislation to happen.
Senator Ringuette: But that’s not being done so what is the alternative?
Ms. Fox: Fishing safety is on our Watchlist and has been since the original Watchlist in 2010, through our outreach programs and through various opportunities. We do speak regularly with Transport Canada. All of our marine recommendations that have been outstanding for years are currently going through our annual reassessment. We are looking at what progress has been made and will be updating our reassessments and making them public as soon as they’re ready. We regularly have discussions with DFO. In fact, Captain Poisson and I met with the Deputy Minister and the Commissioner of the Coast Guard last year. They’re well aware of our concerns.
We hope that, through this appearance and the work that you’re doing, you can highlight the need for some of these issues.
Mr. Laporte: I think the best thing this committee could do is call Minister Garneau and ask him the question why is he not regulating this? In 2016, new fishing vessel regulations were put out by Transport Canada containing some provisions for EPIRBs to be installed on certain ships under certain circumstances instead of saying “all commercial vessels.” They had the opportunity to do it, and we’ve been after them for the last 10-plus years on a consistent basis. Perhaps the committee could ask Minister Garneau the question. As Madam Fox indicated, the minister has the authority to regulate. There is no change required to legislation to effect this change.
Senator Hartling: Thank you for your presentation. I’m new to the committee so this is very enlightening. It sounds like you’re talking about risk, economics and people who are taking those risks to make their livelihood. As Senator Ringuette has said, it has gone kind of underground for the rest of us, but what you said is interesting.
I was thinking about what Senator Munson said about the cost so thank you for that. I imagine that for some people even that would be a case of what do we buy, food for our families or do we do that? I’m wondering if advocacy or awareness groups are in the community. Sometimes after tragedies, people get together and start to make change. Are you aware of other groups that support your recommendations and are working alongside you to move things forward in these communities?
Ms. Fox: Many of the regions, but not all, have fishing safety associations. For example, the west coast is very active, as is Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia. In Quebec, there is the equivalent now of the CNESST — I’m trying to think of the name, but it deals with the work safe aspect, occupational health and safety. We believe it’s not just about regulation. It’s also about education and awareness, peer pressure and peer support, and so on.
For example, we have outstanding recommendations on the wearing of personal flotation devices. We know that two of the bodies that were recovered from the Pop’s Pride were wearing PFDs. We don’t know about the other two because they were never found, but they typically did wear them. Some of that is having an effect in terms of improving the culture.
One of the issues we face is that not all provinces regulate the fishing vessels as a workplace. For example, the Province of New Brunswick does not regulate fishing vessels as a workplace. That’s something we’re also trying to advance. Definitely the fishing associations can play and are playing in many cases a very constructive role in terms of changing the culture. They don’t necessarily always agree with regulations because of the costs involved, but certainly they’re supportive of doing more to bring fishers home safely.
Senator Hartling: You mentioned you did outreach. What does that mean?
Ms. Fox: It means that we don’t make a recommendation and then sit back and wait for something to happen. We go out and talk to government and various departments. We talk to industry. We talk to the fishing associations. We speak with the media — however we can get our message out, we do so. We’ve also done some very individual practical things like a poster on fishing safety that we developed. We asked DFO and Transport Canada to help us distribute it. We’re trying to get our message out and not just wait for others to speak for us.
Senator Hartling: Thank you for your good work.
The Chair: You have another question, Senator Gold?
Senator Gold: Thank you for the material that you provided also, which included outstanding recommendations. You mentioned your Watchlist on a couple of occasions. Forgive me for not knowing this but do we have a copy of your Watchlist or is it on the Web? Perhaps you could provide one to us.
Ms. Fox: It is certainly on the web. We will provide you with copies.
Concerning our Watchlist, because our investigators were identifying that the same findings as to cause and risk were appearing over and over again in investigations; and given the length of time in implementing our outstanding recommendations, the board created its first Watchlist in 2010, representing those safety issues that posed the greatest risk to Canada’s transportation system and needed to be addressed. We update that every two years. Our last edition was in fall 2016 and we will issue an updated issue in fall 2018. There are currently 10 issues on our Watchlist: four in rail; three in air; one in marine, namely, fishing safety; and two multi modal issues, including safety management, which also affects the fishing safety and marine safety.
That’s our way of drawing attention to those key safety issues that need to be addressed. We would be pleased to provide copies to you.
Senator Gold: Again, in your presentations and in the questions and answers, you’ve provided us with a number of suggestions regarding how we might amplify the importance of safety. Are there any other concrete suggestions you might make for us in terms of either the report that we’re going to develop or the questions we might ask of other responsible persons or agencies?
Ms. Fox: I’ll start, and if any of the others have anything to add in detail that I’ve missed, they can do so. When it comes to fishing safety in particular, we know that many of these deaths are preventable.
What’s required is concerted action on the part of all involved. They touch on things like vessel stability. We’re stating that all vessels should have stability assessments, that the information should be provided in user-friendly format to the crews and that they should be kept updated. That came out of a large fishing vessel accident on the west coast, but we believe it should apply to all vessels, because the stability is a big issue.
The second aspect is life saving-appliances. That’s mandatory wearing of PFDs while working on deck, carrying EPIRBs and other life-saving equipment. In the event that people end up in the water, for whatever reason, they have a better chance of survival. Certainly, training to make sure that people are aware of the risks and what they can use, and definitely more concerted action between DFO and Transport Canada in terms of combining their efforts, working with the industry to improve safety.
For example, one very basic thing that we identified to DFO last year is that, right now, in some parts of the country, fishermen have to get a fishing licence to fish and should register their vessels with Transport Canada, that oversees the safety, but there is no cross-checking of that. So, for example, in the case of the Pop’s Pride, it had a fishing licence from DFO, but it hadn’t been registered with Transport Canada. That’s something that shouldn’t happen in this country.
The Chair: If I could, on your report on Pop’s Pride, on page 28, you noted that a safer environment for fishermen cannot be created by addressing each safety issue individually, given their complex relationship and interdependency. These issues must be addressed all together.
Should a particular body or organization — or would you be able to suggest a particular body or organization — be mandated to lead the development of such a comprehensive action plan? Because it seems to me, just looking from the outside, that almost everybody understands what the issues are and what the concerns are and what some of the solutions are; it’s just bringing that into a cohesive way of developing it. I’m just wondering: Can you make a suggestion to us, or is there any particular body or organization that should be mandated to carry that out?
Mr. Poisson: The answer would be no if you’re just asking the question if someone should be mandated because that’s not the finding of the board. The finding of the board is that there needs to be a coordinated effort. The 10 safety issues in themselves should not be taken individually. They have to be taken as a group because one specific item, let’s say training, affects another item which is stability, which may also affect the fisheries resource-management decision. So if those three items in themselves are taken individually by only one department, by only one organization, then you may not fix the problem because it needs to be coordinated.
One thing that we did say, and the TSB did say, is that you need to meet. You need to share this information. Invite us. We’ll participate in these meetings, and we’ll try collectively to fix these problems.
Now, as I mentioned before, there is an MOU signed between the Commissioner of the Coast Guard and two deputy ministers that say that they will meet, at least regionally, with the industry, with the provinces, with the regulators and will talk about these issues and will bring them together and will try to move forward. It’s been five years now that the SII has been finalized. So it’s not like our message is new today. It’s known to the industry. It’s known to TC. It’s known to DFO. It’s known to the Coast Guard. It’s known to the provinces. It’s known to the associations, and we talk to fishermen. They know also about these solutions that we think should be implemented.
The Chair: Again, I may not be aware of everything. Why wouldn’t the TSB be part of that MOU?
Mr. Poisson: We’re not prescriptive. The recommendations are provided, however the industry and the community decide how to fix the problem, and we can be there to explain what the problem is, but we believe that, when we make recommendations, we should not be prescribing how you fix the problem. But we are willing to participate to let everyone know what we did find.
Mr. Laporte: I think what is important as well is that we have to remain independent and objective. So we can’t get too far into the rule making and the coordination of activities and so on. So we can participate by providing data, providing information based on our investigation, our findings. We could provide statistics and so on to support the dialogue and the discussion, but we cannot actively engage and lead rule-making and implementation plans and so on because then, when something goes wrong, we’re seen in a potential conflict of interest as investigators.
The Chair: I understand because, in my own experience, when something happens and the Transportation Safety Board is called, I know that, in my own province — and I’m sure all across Canada — people wait for your investigation. We wait for your recommendations to see what we can learn from mistakes that have caused loss of life.
My concern here this morning is what I hear in these discussions. I don’t want to take away your independence in any way, shape or form, but I’m not sure that all these groups coming together without the knowledge that you have gathered over the years, without the recommendations that you have put forward — and you touched on earlier that recommendations have been on the back burner for 10 years — It concerns me, as Chair of this committee — I’m sure it concerns all of our members — why you’re not involved in those discussions all the time with regard to asking for your expertise and being able to get into the position where you can question the powers that be as to why recommendation number 17 hasn’t been acted upon in six years. Am I wrong here? I’m not sure —
Mr. Laporte: We are involved where meetings are taking place, but part of the issue is that some meetings are not taking place in some regions. For example, my colleague indicated that, in Quebec, we are invited by the regional folks to their meetings, and we are participating actively. In other parts of the country, there are no meetings taking place at all.
Also, the odd time, there are meetings where we are not invited, but that’s fair because sometimes they want to discuss things on their own without our input. But we don’t wait. As Ms. Fox indicated, we do have an outreach program. So we go out. Every year, we spend a lot of time and energy reaching out to various groups to provide them with information in a proactive manner. What we haven’t done is brought everybody together where they’re not getting together, and that’s something that perhaps we could consider in future — organize a meeting and invite people if they are not organizing one themselves. But we are reaching out to individual associations, to individual government agencies and sharing the information. We’re not waiting for them to call.
The Chair: Thank you.
On behalf of our committee, I would like to say thank you for your time here this morning. It has been very enlightening, to say the least, and certainly addressing some of the concerns that we have, as a committee, in our study. Certainly, we will be taking your comments to heart.
Before we proceed, I would like to remind senators of a number of points. We’re doing clause by clause.
If at any point a senator is not clear where we are in the process, please ask for clarification. I want to ensure at all times that we all have the same understanding of where we are in the process.
In terms of the mechanics of the process, I wish to remind senators that when more than one amendment is proposed to be moved in a clause, an amendment should be proposed in the order of the lines of a clause. Therefore, before we take up an amendment in a clause, I will be verifying whether any senators have intended to move the amendment earlier in that clause.
If senators do intend to move an earlier amendment, they will be given the opportunity to do so.
One small point is that if a senator is opposed to an entire clause, I’ll remind you that in committee, the proper process is not to move a motion to delete the entire clause but, rather, to vote against the clause as standing as part of the bill. I refer to Beauchesne citation 698(6), which notes:
An amendment to delete a clause is not in order, as the proper course is to vote against the clause standing part of the bill.
I would also like to remind senators that some amendments that are moved may have consequential effect on other parts of the bill. I refer to Beauchesne’s, 698(2) which notes the following:
An amendment must not be inconsistent with or contradictory to the bill as so far agreed to by the committee; nor must it be inconsistent with a decision which the committee has given upon a former amendment.
In the spirit of this statement, it would be useful to this process if a senator moves an amendment identified to the committee other clauses in this bill where this amendment could have an effect. Otherwise, it would be difficult for members of the committee to remain consistent in their decision-making.
Staff will endeavour to keep track of these places where subsequent amendments need to be moved and will draw our attention to them. Because no notice is required to move amendments, there can, of course, have been no preliminary analysis of the amendments to establish which ones may be of consequence to others and which may be contradictory.
If senators have any questions about the process or about the propriety of anything occurring, they can actually raise a point of order. As chair, I will listen to an argument, decide when there has been sufficient discussion on the matter or order and make a ruling.
The committee is the ultimate master of its business within the bounds established by the Senate and a ruling can be appealed to the full committee by asking whether the ruling shall be sustained.
As chair, I will do my utmost to ensure that all senators wishing to speak have the opportunity to do so. For this, however, I will depend upon your cooperation and ask all of you to consider other senators and to keep remarks to the point and as brief as possible.
Finally, I wish to remind honourable senators that if there is ever any uncertainty as a result of a voice vote or a show of hands, the most effective route is to request a roll call vote, which obviously provides unambiguous results. Senators are aware that any tied vote negates the motion in question.
Are there any questions on any of the above? If not, we shall proceed now that we’re clear on all that. Everybody has all the documentation in front of them.
Is it agreed that the committee proceed to clause-by-clause consideration of Bill S-238, An Act to amend the Fisheries Act and the Wild Animal and Plant Protection and Regulation of International and Interprovincial Trade Act (importation of shark fins)?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Agreed.
Shall the title stand postponed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall the preamble stand postponed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 1, which contains the short title, stand postponed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 2 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Shall clause 3 carry?
Senator Gold: Chair, I would like to propose an amendment. If I may, for the benefit of those who are listening, just explain this amendment, because there are a series of amendments to accomplish the same objective. This bill bans the importation of shark fins into Canada.
The amendments that I’m going to be introducing are designed to ensure that the rules that —
The Chair: Senator Gold, if you could read the amendment first, please.
Senator Gold: So, chair, I move:
That Bill S-238 be amended in clause 3, on page 2, by replacing, in line 12, the words “port, or attempt to import, into” with “port or export, or attempt to import or export, into or from”.
[Translation]
In French:
I move:
que le projet de loi S-238 soit modifié à l’article 3, à la page 2, à la ligne 12, en remplaçant « d’importer ou de tenter d’importer » par « d’importer ou d’exporter, ou de tenter d’importer ou d’exporter ».
[English]
The purpose of these amendments and others to follow is to make it clear that not only is the importation of shark fins to be prohibited into Canada but so, too, is the exportation of shark fins. That brings us into line, as we best understand it, with our international trade obligations.
The other amendments that will be introduced, if you will permit me, is to include in the ban of import and export of shark fin derivatives of those products so that we capture the full range of possible imports and exports that the bill seeks to enjoin. Thank you, chair.
The Chair: Is there any other discussion? Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion in amendment?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: The motion has been carried.
Senator Gold: I move:
That Bill S-238 be amended in clause 3, on page 2, by replacing, in lines 12 and 13, the words “that are not attached to a shark carcass” with “or parts of shark fins that are not attached to a shark carcass, or any derivatives of shark fins”.
[Translation]
In French:
I move:
que le projet de loi S-238 soit modifié à l’article 3, à la page 2, aux lignes 14 et 15, en remplaçant « des nageoires de requin séparées de la carcasse » par « tout ou partie de nageoires de requin séparées de la carcasse ou de produits qui en proviennent ».
[English]
The Chair: Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion in amendment?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Shall clause 3, as amended, carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 4 carry?
Senator Gold: I have an amendment to propose.
I move:
That Bill S-238 be amended in clause 4, on page 2,
(a) by adding, in line 18, the words “or parts of sharks fins” after the word “fins”; and
(b) by replacing, in line 19, the word “carcass” with the words “carcass, or any derivatives of sharks fins,”.
[Translation]
In French:
I move:
que le projet de loi S-238 soit modifié à l’article 4, à la page 2, aux lignes 20 à 21, en remplaçant « de nageoires de requin séparées de la carcasse » par « toute ou partie de nageoires de requin séparée de la carcasse ou de produits qui en proviennent ».
[English]
The Chair: Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion in amendment?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Senator Gold: I have another amendment. I move:
That BillS-238 be amended in clause 4, on page 2,
(a) by adding, in line 18, the words “or exportation” after the words “importation”; and
(b) by replacing line 21 with the following:
“(a) the importation or exportation is for the purpose of scientific re -”.
[Translation]
In French:
I move:
que le projet de loi S-238 soit modifié à l’article 4, à la page 2:
a) par adjonction, à la ligne 20, des mots « ou l’exportation » après le mot « l’importation »;
b) par substitution, à la ligne 22 de ce qui suit:
« a) d’une part, que l’importation ou l’exportation est effectuée à des fins ».
[English]
The Chair: Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion in amendment?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Motion carried.
Shall clause 4, as amended, carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 1, which contains the short title, carry?
Senator Gold: Chair, I propose an amendment. I move:
That Bill S-238 be amended in clause 1, on page 1, by replacing line 21 with the following:
“tation and Exportation Act.”
[Translation]
In French:
I move:
que le projet de loi S-238 soit modifié à l’article 1, à la page 1, par substitution, à la ligne 23, de ce qui suit:
« 1 Loi interdisant l’importation et l’exportation de nageoires de requin.».
[English]
The Chair: Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion in amendment?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 1, as amended, carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall the preamble carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: No amendments? Shall the title carry?
Senator Gold: I have an amendment at M-6. I move:
That Bill S-238 be amended, on page 1, by replacing the long title with the following:
“An Act to amend the Fisheries Act and the Wild Animal and Plant Protection and Regulation of International and Interprovincial Trade Act (importation and exportation of shark fins)”.
[Translation]
In French:
I move:
que le projet de loi S-238 soit modifié, à la page 1, par substitution, au titre intégral, de ce qui suit:
« Loi modifiant la Loi sur les pêches et la Loi sur la protection d’espèces animales ou végétales sauvages et la réglementation de leur commerce international et interprovincial (importation et exportation de nageoires de requin) ».
[English]
Senator Ringuette: I think we may have a little issue here.
Regarding M-1, in the French version, I think it’s not line 23 but it’s line 20. Could we double check that to make sure?
The Chair: It takes up more words. Is that fine with you, Senator Ringuette?
Senator Ringuette: Yes.
The Chair: Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion in amendment?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall the title as amended carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall the bill as amended carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Does the committee wish to consider appending observations to the report?
Hon. Senators: No.
The Chair: Is it agreed that I report the bill, as amended, to the Senate?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Thank you, senators, and I thank Senator MacDonald for his efforts on this bill and all committee members for their work.
There are only a few of us here now, but there is a bit of business I need to take care of. I guess it doesn’t pertain to any of you though, as I’m talking about the trip to British Columbia and none of you are going so we won’t be having that conversation with you people. Sorry about that. I just looked around the table.
(The committee adjourned.)