DRAFT SYNOPSIS
Public Consultation - Moncton, March 28, 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
Moncton, March 28, 2001

• The term ‘stakeholder’ must include sports fishing organizations, communities and environmental groups to provide for the sustainability of the fishery and optimum use of the resource.
• The public consultation process brings people together to present their views but does not require that they listen to other ideas and does not provide an opportunity for adequate discussion of options and views.
• A choice between two co-management arrangements: those that control access and concentrate benefits to a small number of fishermen or an arrangement that provides for the economic viability of the greatest number of industry participants.
• Notwithstanding a desire for consultations and co-management opportunities, there is an expectation that DFO will exercise control of the common property resource and be responsible for the outcomes.
• The owner-operator policy must be retained and priority access given to the inshore fishery.
• Aboriginal access to and participation in the commercial fishery figured prominently.

Registered Speakers

• Gérald Haché, New Bandon Fishermen’s Association
• Sherwood Good, New Bandon Fishermen’s Association
• Mike Belliveau, Executive Secretary, Maritime Fishermen’s Union
• Paul Jagoe, Class B Lobster Licence Holder
• Stephen Chase, Atlantic Salmon Federation
• Jean Gauvin, Directeur de l’Association des crabiers du Nord-Est Inc.
• Ariella Pahlke, Nova Scotia Women’s FishNet
• Mary DesRoches, Nova Scotia Women’s FishNet
• Ian Andrew, Maritime Representative, Canadian Sportfishing Industry Association
• Inka Milewski, Conservation Council of New Brunswick
• Donna Murray, Botsford Professional Fisherman’s Association Inc.
• Jeannine Poulin, Association des Employé(e)s d’Usines de Produits Marins
• Gary Dedrick, Eastern Fishermen’s Federation
• Franklin d' Entremont, Swordfish Harpoon Association
• Alyre Gauvin, Association des Pêcheurs de Poisson de fond Acadien (APPFA)
• Written brief received from: Ludger Lagacé, New Bandon Fishermen’s Association

What we heard in the Presentations:

• Class "B" licences are non-transferable and have a reduced complement of traps. Licence holders cannot apply for other licences; the same access, flexibility and successor rights as Class "A" licences should be accorded to Class "B" licence holders.
• Inshore fishery must play central role in the "vision" for the fishery; no need for offshore or midshore fishing Gulf cod stocks; these stocks should be for the inshore fishery from May-October.
• A multi-species approach to an inshore fishery, including Aboriginals, can provide viability for the greatest number of fishermen. Inshore fishermen in the Gulf must be given access to snow crab stocks.
• Owner-operator must be a principle.
• Industry co-management is a corporate model that provides select groups with protected access that excludes 95% of fishermen. Current discussions with corporations who still hold 50% entitlement to groundfish - should they recover - will perpetuate this corporate model to the detriment of average fishermen. The current sharing arrangements must change.
• Atlantic Salmon Federation is broadly supportive of the review document and its objectives.
• DFO has a role to play in stimulating Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal joint management of community watersheds for sustainability of wild Atlantic salmon. The move to including recreational fisher organizations and other harvesters in IFMPs is a step in the right direction.
• The discussion document does not clearly define or incorrectly defines expressions such as "coastal communities", "interest groups", and "stakeholders" (must go beyond corporate stakeholders or current industry stakeholders). Others include: co-management (which does not include all stakeholders), viability should be defined as a balanced well-being of all involved not just a few large companies), sustainability and conservation must include communities as well as ecosystems.
• Buy-out of small fishermen is counter to achieving conservation and coastal community economic viability objectives.
• DFO policies have moved to privatize the industry and reduce the participation of those with traditional/historic attachment to the industry.
• Those who gain economic benefit from the fishery cannot expected to be the stewards of the resource or responsible for allocation decisions.
• Sportfishing is the smallest industry with the largest potential for increased revenues of small boat commercial fishermen; real opportunities exist to supplement their earning from fishing.
• Sportfishing or recreational fishing must be distinguished from food or sustenance fishing.
• DFO is spending too much time on industry research rather than conservation science; skepticism that DFO can implement the principle of conservation unless science is de-coupled from management.
• Industry-government partnerships place DFO in conflict of interest - no more so than in its promotion of salmon farming to the detriment of the wild Atlantic salmon fishery. DFO "must de-couple" fisheries research from industry and set up an independent scientific branch.
• DFO has failed to prosecute municipalities and agriculture for polluting coastal waters under the conservation provisions of the Act.
• Processors are also stakeholders and their interests should be recognized within the policy framework.
• Some concern that pendulum could swing too much in a new direction were DFO to download responsibilities precipitously.
• Native commercial fishery must be part of a coordinated commercial fishery - one season, one management plan.
• Disagreement with the way DFO is implementing a general program for native fishery based on a Court decision that was addressing an eel fishery only. The interpretation of the Government in Canada is not in synch with those received by the various fishing organizations. The Government of Canada should refer to the Court for clarification of the Marshall decision.
• Allocation boards will entrench, not replace, political decision-making and will not result in a transparent system
• While current access rules are unfair, opening up these rules to negotiation is undesirable but criteria for access should be developed for a time at which the stocks exceed historic levels.
• Our problem is not in choice of technology or in the choice of gear or boat size; we are capable of using technology for conservation.
• We need more brainstorming/consultation sessions such as this to have the opportunity to speak that will facilitate us working together.

What we heard in the Round Table Discussion

Conservation

• If DFO is to move towards an ecosystem approach, more science is needed, particularly biomass evaluations around predator/prey interactions.
• Fishermen have developed their own guidelines for conservation; the tone of the document does not give any credit to fishermen on the advances they have made.
• Seals are a major problem, right now they are taking three times the TAC.
• Sometimes a consensus is not possible, do not override conservation in order to achieve agreement of all parties, strive for an attitude change instead.
• There is a need for an evaluation of gear types.

Economic and Social Viability

• All licence holders should be able to input into the fisheries management process.
• The consultation process surrounding the development of management plans should be broadened to include everyone with an interest in the fishery, priority should be given to developing a mechanism whereby input can be given.
• Commercial fishermen believe they should have a role in discussions regarding finish aquaculture.
• New technology continues to improve our ability to harvest to stay competitive when we should be looking at cutting back.
• The resource is a common property and there is a clash of ‘rights’ between those who have participated in the fishery throughout history with Aboriginal rights to harvest and those who took risks, built the fishery over the years, and have a long term attachment to the fishery – an ‘historical right’ to harvest – who are not recognized as having priority access.
• The principle ‘to become more economically self-reliant’ is imprecise, we need something more concrete – DFO must be clearer about how it intends to help fishermen become viable.
• The industry wants to rationalize its operations to become economically viable; previous licence retirement programs have not succeeded in their objective because they were designed and conducted without consultation with the industry. We need to re-evaluate these programs and conduct another one that will truly rationalize the fishery.
• In the past, whenever there have been economic disasters in other industries, people turned to fishing to support their families; those days of unlimited resources are over.
• Licence holders have a certain responsibility toward plantworkers to ensure their continued employment in the community; the provinces should become more involved in the viability of plantworkers.
• Canadians do not eat enough fish! They eat considerably less fish than most countries and the industry is focused on volume instead of quality and market development. If Canadians ate as much fish as Europeans, we would have to import fish.
• A mechanism should be developed to allow other interests to input into the fisheries management process.
• Vessel replacement regulations should be examined and revised to help fishermen rather than placing stumbling blocks in their path.
• Local fisheries offices should be re-structured to offer help and guidance to fishermen, right now they are not responding to fishermen’s needs and are filtering information that is sent to Ottawa where the decisions are made.
• It must be recognized that we are not starting from scratch, we can put constraints on capacity and harvesting and have come a long way.
• We need professional fishermen’s organizations to adequately represent the interests of their members.
• The document is not clear if by viability it means viability of the existing industry or if it includes the viability of communities; the suggestion was to extend viability to communities.

Access and Allocations

• A change is needed to the licensing policy and DFO should be more explicit in the document about what it is proposing.
• After the collapse of the groundfish fishery, we switched to shellfish without knowing the relationship between them and without adequate information about the food chain and predator-prey interactions.
• We need additional consultation and discussion with fishermen, scientific advice has to be provided and disseminated to fishermen.
• The MFU does not support the current sharing arrangements; allocation issues cannot be put to a third-party dispute resolution mechanism – a public resource should be managed with public funds.
• The Minister of DFO should be committed to re-structuring; the groundfish fishery has not been restructured since the collapse (regardless of government programs, the corporate groundfish licences were not part of the programs) and we face the same players in the fishery should the stocks recover and the fishery re-open.
• If fishermen are to become self-reliant, they must become multi-species licence holders, able to fish many species and spend more time on the water; DFO policies should allow this to happen.
• When making allocation decisions, DFO should consider the plantworkers, and the affect these decisions can have on the plants and their capacity to process what is being harvested.
• The Marshall decision and DFO’s interpretation of that decision, is difficult to live with; DFO should return for additional clarification.
• The principles should apply to both native and non-native fishermen.

Governance

• Agreement with the principles, but uncertainty as to how they will be applied, particularly with respect to who will be able to input into the process.
• It is recognized that we must change, evolve and adapt but it appears that DFO is abdicating its responsibilities.
• Governance is a critical area; in the 1980’s we were asking for co-management and now find ourselves resisting it because of our experience with the process in the recent past.
• The Aboriginal Fisheries Strategy is a form of co-management which is very complex. The co-management demands on small Aboriginal bands are set up to fail.
• The inshore fishermen will end up paying for Burnt Church because the Aboriginal communities do not have the capacity to manage their participation in the fishery.
• Governance and access and allocations are related; it is difficult to talk about one without the other.
• An arms-length decision resolution process is not a comfort to fishermen who would prefer a transparent process with final responsibility resting with a Minister who is accountable for his/her decisions. There is a concern that a third party dispute settlement process may be unbiased at the start but after the first decision they may be seen to be biased and influenced by politics.
• This will not be easy to solve; DFO has a major task ahead of it.