DRAFT SYNOPSIS
Public Consultation - Gaspé, March 15, 2001

Foreword

The Atlantic Fisheries Policy Review (AFPR) is being undertaken by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) to develop a consistent and cohesive policy framework for the management of Canada’s East Coast fish stocks. The process of the review includes consultations with provinces/territories, aboriginal interests, the fishing industry, and other interested parties.

The work of the AFPR is being done in two phases: Phase I will produce a policy framework, which will address the questions: What do we want to achieve in fisheries management over the long term? What are our objectives and principles? Phase II will establish priorities and begin to operationalize elements from the policy framework (developed in Phase I), and will answer the question: How do we get there?

The purpose of the public consultations held in March and April was to receive comments and feedback about Phase I of the policy review – the development of a policy framework. A discussion document "The Management of Fisheries on Canada’s Atlantic Coast – A Discussion Document on Policy Direction and Principles" was prepared by DFO. The document which sought to provide a focus for stakeholder input on policy directions and options, was used to guide the round of public consultations held across Atlantic Canada.

The discussion document outlines broad objectives and proposes several principles centred around four main policy themes: conservation, economic and social viability, access and allocations and governance. It also contains a section on roles and responsibilities, which clarifies DFO’s role with respect to other federal departments and agencies, other governments, the commercial industry, and other resource users.

The document was released on February 7, 2001, and distributed to stakeholder groups and others who had indicated an interest in the Review process. In addition, a brochure, which summarized the document, was mailed to every commercial fisheries licence holder in Newfoundland, the Maritimes, Quebec and Nunavut (65,000 copies).

The 19 public consultation sessions held throughout Atlantic Canada, Quebec and Nunavut in March and April, 2001, were open to all and a broad cross section of those with an interest in the Atlantic fisheries came to the sessions and expressed their views.

The same format was followed at each meeting. The meeting began with a brief discussion about the purpose of the meeting and the agenda for the consultation. This was followed by a short presentation which summarized the discussion document. Registered speakers who indicated they would like to make formal presentations were next to speak. Finally, a round table discussion on the four policy themes was held, followed by a brief discussion on next steps including options for additional input.

We indicated that written summaries of the 19 public consultation sessions would be provided to those who attended the meeting and who had signed our registration sheet. This report honours that commitment. The summaries are divided into three parts. First, re-occurring issues or themes from the public meeting which include comments from the formal presentations and round table discussions are provided. The themes are included for ease of reference and should not be interpreted as having more importance than individual comments. Second, a list of speakers who made formal presentations and the highlights of their presentations are noted. Third, a summary of the comments provided during the round table discussion organized by policy themes, is also provided.

In addition to holding public consultation sessions, we invited groups and individuals to submit written comments on the discussion document (with a deadline of May 31, 2001).

Fisheries and Oceans
August 2001

Themes arising from the Session
Gaspé, March 15, 2001

• General support for the principles but concern about how they will be applied.
• A concern that ‘other users’ will displace existing commercial fish harvesters to whom priority access should be given.
• Support for the ‘de-politicizing’ of the allocation process.
• Fleet separation and owner-operator policies should be given more emphasis by DFO.

Registered Speakers

• André Boucher, Regroupe des Pêcheurs Professionels de nord de la Gaspésie
• Stéphan Morissette, Président, Regroupement des mariculteurs du Quebec
• Yvan Bernier, Consultant

What we heard in the Presentations

• A request for clarification of how traditional fish harvesters will interact with First Nations; DFO needs to clarify what is meant by ‘priority access’ and ‘social purposes’, and where the commercial fishery fits in the hierarchy of access to the resource.
• DFO should indicate if and how it will recognize current sharing arrangements (i.e. by province, by fleet, by historical dependence, by species, etc.).
• A regulatory framework for aquaculture, presented to DFO in December 2000, was highlighted.
• If amendments are needed to the Fisheries Act, DFO should not hesitate to move forward.
• Support for the themes in the document; it reflects that DFO has been listening but the principles do not go far enough. Suggested inclusions are:
• Transparency: consideration should be given to the establishment of a separate agency to conduct scientific research which would remove scientific advice from those making management (harvesting) decisions and thus de-politicize the process;
• Neutrality/impartiality: DFO is both judge and jury and it is time to change the current system of lobbying (for allocations) to one that is open, neutral and impartial.
• Stability: stability of allocations is required to provide a level of predictability in planning; DFO should consider allocating by ‘fishing community’ and oblige landings to a home port. DFO should also consider reducing licence fees in return for an equivalent investment in the community.

What we heard in the Round Table Discussion:

Conservation

• Politics has to be removed from fisheries management; as long as the system is politicized, conservation cannot be achieved and fish harvesters cannot have confidence in the current review. Fishermen’s input should be sought on de-politicizing the allocation process.
• There is little or no respect for what fishermen have been trying to conserve stocks in the past; professional fish harvesters are far ahead of government with respect to conservation - it is not the professional fisherman who destroys the resource, it is the politicians.
• Now is the time to move beyond studies and start acting.
• Scepticism that the definition of conservation will ensure that the use of destructive gear (such as scallop draggers) will stop.
• DFO should look at the impact of various gear types on the resource and develop mechanisms to stop the destruction of fish habitat; any such process should allow for input from citizens.
• A request for clarification of how DFO will handle conflicts between resource users and a concern that the Department is abdicating its responsibilities.
• Commercial fish harvesters developed a code of conduct in 1998 which was rejected by DFO as being premature; now the Department is trying to impose co-management on the industry and withdraw from its management responsibilities.
• DFO should clarify what mechanism(s) it will establish to resolve opposing views on allocation; what forum will exist to which the parties can go; how can impartiality be assured; how can differences between fleets (i.e. inshore and mobile) be settled.
• Better science is needed on all species; the dockside monitoring program needs to be improved.
• When aquaculture sites are being considered there should be consultation with fish harvesters who could potentially be affected by the location of the site(s).
• It is unclear which level of government (federal or provincial) has responsibility for aquaculture.
• DFO is downloading costs to the fishermen; DFO is mandated to conserve the resource and should not expect the fishermen to pay.
• Owner-operator and fleet separation policies should be principles.

Economic and Social Viability

• DFO has done a lot of work and has identified the main problem areas but there is still a long way to go.
• The Department must recognize regional differences; even within provinces situations vary widely. In many fisheries, it is existing fleets who have made the fishery viable; everyone wants into the fishery when it is good.
• If Canada is to remain competitive internationally, particularly against those countries whose wages are very low, subsidies must continue.
• DFO should communicate regulations as soon as they are promulgated as they take effect immediately, currently there is a time-lag; fishermen should also be informed when changes to regulations are contemplated.
• Fishermen have to be viable but not at the expense of the resource; fishermen need to know exploitable levels in advance of the opening of the fishing season.
• Corporate concentration of licences should be avoided and the owner-operator policy should be enshrined as a principle.
• A request for clarification of how the provinces fit into the document (what is their mandate) and a request that DFO should clarify the roles of both levels of government, particularly with regard to economic and social viability.
• DFO should address the discrepancies in earnings in the fishing industry; some fishermen are at subsistence level while others (particularly large companies) make considerable sums of money.
• When DFO establishes a structure to share responsibility for decision-making, this should not add to the already cumbersome process.

Access and Allocations

• The access and allocations process must be de-politicized.
• DFO must consider how it will allocate (what criteria will be used) when there is an increase in the biomass; the industry must be consulted. The instrument – a co-management agreement – already exists to allow this.
• DFO should define what is meant by ‘enterprise’.
• The resource belongs to all Canadians; DFO’s responsibility is to allocate the fish; access criteria must be defined.
• DFO should clarify whether it will be respecting existing sharing arrangements; in the past decisions have gone against understandings and agreements and this should not be allowed to continue.
• A concern about how other resource users could have a place in the fishery; priority should be given to the commercial fish harvesters.
• DFO should include fleet separation and owner-operator policies as principles.

Governance

• A concern that DFO is placing too much emphasis on other resource users and that, over time, these other users could displace the commercial fishermen (as happened with the commercial salmon fishery).
• Fishermen’s groups should overcome the divisions within their own organizations and present a united front when dealing with DFO.
• Doubt that the industry would be able to develop and implement sanction mechanisms; this would have to be far in the future, and would require legal training.
• Aquaculture should be viewed as a development opportunity, and not a threat to the commercial industry as their concern is primarily access to water, rather than access to the resource.
• A recognition that it will take to time for industry to develop the capacity to assume greater responsibility for decision-making; training will be required.