DRAFT SYNOPSIS
Public Consultation - Québec, March 23, 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
Québec, March 23, 2001

• General agreement on the principles, with some differences in interpretation.
• The principles of owner-operator and fleet separation are paramount.
• The current and future management of the Atlantic fisheries must reflect a sustainable development approach, thus the precautionary approach to conservation is supported.
• There is merit in separating scientific research and advice from the management (decision-making) body; the FRCC is an example.
• DFO must be involved in resource access and allocation decisions using clearly defined criteria; the process must be transparent.
• DFO must continue to support professional organizations in the fisheries sector.
• Sport fishery associations are not being responded to by DFO and management plans are too late to allow marketing to tourism targets.

Registered Speakers

• Audrey Samson/Jacques Brunet, Alliance des pêcheurs professionnels du Québec
• Guy Girard, Société touristique du FJORD

What we heard:

• DFO and professional fish harvesters must together agree on a management approach and implement it.
• Greater use could have been made of the External Advisory Board to the AFPR; the discussion document is a product of DFO and does not consider representations made by External Advisory Board members.
• Given the scope of the policy review, additional time to provide comments would have been appreciated.
• General agreement on the principles but two are missing: owner-operator and fleet separation which are fundamental to establish access to the fisheries resource and can contribute significantly to conservation and economic and social viability.
• The principles must be supported by directions aimed at facilitating access to the fisheries for the next generation; access to funding and training for these new entrants are essential.
• Large corporations should not be able to use loopholes in licensing rules to acquire licences and concentrate ownership in the fisheries.
• Fishermen want to see the emergency of a much more positive, stable and transparent context for the fisheries.
• The current and future management of the Atlantic fisheries must reflect a sustainable development approach.
• Agreement with an eco-system approach to resource management.
• Precautionary approach is supported; the desire for greater scientific exactness must not support a desire not to impose stricter conservation measures; if in doubt, we must act in the best interest of the resource.
• There is merit in separating scientific research and advice from the fisheries management decision-makers; the FRCC is an example of a move in this direction.
• The economic viability of fish harvesters and social viability of communities are directly linked to resource access and allocation.
• Temporary allocations are a way to strengthen economic and social viability.
• Many existing co-management agreements are not equitable for all fishermen.
• DFO must continue to be involved in access and allocation but must exercise its responsibility in a transparent and consultative manner with the final decision remaining with the Minister.
• A committee of experts or an independent panel to rule on access and allocation decisions is not supported.
• Need an in-depth analysis and evaluation on the application of access criteria such as historic dependence, adjacency, and socio-economic considerations.
• Commercial fish harvesters should be entrenched as DFO’s priority access to the resource, once conservation and legal obligations have been met.
• Access to the resource for the next generation of professional fish harvesters must be examined; an exemption to the capital gains tax should be looked at as should income stabilization programs similar to those available in the agriculture sector.
• Decentralization of responsibilities without decentralization of financial means is doomed to failure; fish harvesters organizations are already overloaded just following the agendas of the government.
• DFO should be more decentralized in its decision-making and involve industry associations in the strategic direction of fisheries management but the document does not place sufficient importance on financial support for fish harvesters organizations.
• DFO is neither listening to nor responding to sport fishery associations.
• DFO should provide sportfishing access to crab and shrimp in the Saguenay; just because the request for such an activity is unique does not mean that DFO should not consider such a fishery.
• While it is recognized that sportfishing is not DFO’s top priority, DFO should at least acknowledge that it exists.
• It is also recognized that DFO has limited resources to devote to recreational fishing but research into species and the health of Saguenay fish stocks is required; there is an absence of research because the commercial fishery is not dependent on these stocks.
• DFO should devote more attention to the sportfishing potential in the Saguenay; this is a particularly important tourism destination and could be enhanced with access to sportfishing for marine species.
• By the time management plans are developed, it is too late to market to tourism targets although the Saguenay Fjord is open year round and holds great potential.