DRAFT SYNOPSIS
Public Consultation - Yarmouth, 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
Yarmouth, March 15, 2001

• Costs of licenses (driven in part by licence buy-outs for Aboriginal fishery) present a significant barrier to entry for crew and capital gains burden for families.
• Regulation of gear type must be seen as tool for conservation.
• Fleet separation and priority to owner-operator fleets provide for economic and social viability of fishing communities and the greatest return to the greatest number of participants. Enterprise allocation has provided processors with revenue stream at the expense of fish harvesters.
• Any fishery policy should not be a "one size fits all" policy that micro-manages every licence holder. Fleets should be given the autonomy necessary while ensuring that they follow the basic principles of a Canadian fisheries policy.
• Allocation decisions belong to the Minister - not the industry or allocation boards.
• Community-based management should be supported within the policy framework.
• Fishery management requires one set of rules governing natives and non-natives.
• Discussion document reflects significant advances and right direction.
• Once allocation is decided, conservation will follow.
• Need to research aquaculture’s effects to answer questions and allay fears of traditional fish harvesters.

Registered Speakers

• Shawn Symonds - Woods Harbour, Shelburne Co. speaking on behalf of full time fishermen who do not own commercial fishing licences.
• Mark Butler - Ecology Action Centre
• Herald Theriault - Bay of Fundy Inshore Fishermen's Association
• Graeme Gawn - Maritime Fisherman's Union Local 9
• Jan Slakov - Box 35, Weymouth, NS, President, Enviro-Clare
• Denny Morrow - Nova Scotia Fish Packers Association
• Jean Guy d'Entremont - Inshore Fisheries Ltd
• Vince Goreham - Independent Fisherman
• Wayne Spinney - West Nova Fishermens’Coalition and LFA 34 Lobster Committee
• Sterling Belliveau - Warden, Municipality of the District of Barrington
• Evan Walters - Scotia-Fundy Inshore Fishermens’ Association

What we heard in the Presentations

• For non-natives wishing to enter the fishery by purchasing a licence, there are many barriers to doing so such as the cost of licences (particularly since the Marshall buyback program) and the lack of financing. It is ironic that fish is a common property resource, but no one except those who are wealthy, who have access to the Minister or who are aboriginal can afford to participate as a licence holder in today’s fishery.
• Crew members are particularly frustrated with these barriers to entry. They feel they are a forgotten voice in the debate about Atlantic fisheries policy reform and that they should have a voice in the management of the resource. They are also being displaced without compensation because of the Marshall buyback program.
• The dragger fleets should be stopped from destroying the ocean floor and killing millions of juvenile fish; the gillnet fishery should also be stopped. Both these fleets should switch to less destructive gear.
• DFO should allow the hook and line fishery to catch an amount of fish per day, instead of giving them their quota in tons; this would eliminate high grading at sea.
• DFO should consider the prey species – if you over-fish them, other fish will have nothing to eat.
• DFO should establish what is meant by a moderate livelihood and allow all stakeholders to make a living from the fishery.
• Licences should be distributed on a fair and equitable basis: corporate concentration should be avoided.
• There is support for the definition of conservation and the five key points in discussion document, but concern remains on the issue of implementation, particularly if there are no changes made to the Fisheries Act.
• DFO must demonstrate that it has the capacity to change in ways that are truly positive for the ecosystem and the fishing industry.
• The impacts of gear technology should be a major consideration in implementing the ecosystem and precautionary approaches. DFO should begin the task of ranking gear types/fisheries according to their ecological impacts.
• The practices of dumping and discarding are alive and well and need to be a major consideration in the enforcement of quota management. DFO should conduct an independent review of quota management, including ITQs, and the alternatives.
• Funding for enforcement is key for the conservation and protection of wild fisheries. DFO should increase its enforcement presence in offshore waters in Atlantic Canada, particularly to carry out at-sea boardings.
• Fisheries, if conducted sustainably, can be carried out forever. Extraction of non-renewable resources, such as oil, is a finite activity and should not be pursued at the expense of the fisheries. DFO should accord a high priority to fisheries when permitting human activities in or on the ocean.
• DFO should actively support the creation of locally controlled, democratically run and publicly accountable institutions which would strengthen the transparency and accountability of the fisheries management process.
• Management of the Aboriginal fishery is a big, complex issue. There is disagreement with DFO’s approach to Marshall First Nations. Some think that DFO needs to be more respectful to First Nations. There is also the view that the fishing industry needs to be at the Marshall negotiating table.
• Part of implementing the AFPR means giving conservation groups a seat on all fisheries advisory committees.
• There is general agreement with many of the new policy directions. At the same time, there is concern about some of these principles and also concern about some of the omissions in the discussion document.
• There is support for the direction and definition of conservation. But there is a need to refer to harvesting technologies as a factor in conservation; some harvesting technologies are inherently more supportive of conservation than others (i.e. hand digging of clams versus mechanical harvesting, handlining versus otter trawl, etc.).
• On economic viability, there is agreement that a "one size fits all" approach does not work. However, there is a strong perception that DFO policies favor big business over small business. It is important to define viability broadly to include the well-being of coastal communities.
• Fisheries should be based on a broadly defined concept of viability based on the creation of moderate livelihoods (household incomes, rather than accumulation of wealth), while keeping within the limits required for long term sustainability of the resource.
• Federal policies should provide a capital gains exemption for inter-generational transfer of licences for fishermen, as it does for farmers.
• On access and allocation, the discussion document doesn’t talk about the historical attachment of coastal communities to the fishery.
• There is no mention of the fleet separation policy and of its serious erosion in Nova Scotia. This policy and that of owner- operator are key to coastal communities.
• Allocations should be re-opened and re-assigned based on historical attachment, adjacency, fairness, equity and economic viability of existing participants. The offshore should also be required to contribute to the cost of bringing First Nations into the commercial fishery.
• On governance, there is agreement with the overall policy direction, including the five principles with one exception - community based management is fundamental. Community based management should be defined in the fisheries policy framework, to include management responsibility for key areas of management authority, including access, harvesting, compliance, local policy and conservation.
• There is opposition to the codification of existing sharing arrangements, in part because of disagreement with past access and allocations decisions.
• Opposition to ITQ and EA policies, as they have been implemented mainly because of concentration, leasing, the resulting shifts in effort, the unfairness of allocations and the effects on communities.
• Allowing non-fishermen to hold fishing licences and allocations has a perverse effect on both conservation and fishermen’s incomes. By allowing "absentee landlord" arrangements, government is allowing the siphoning off of income from the pockets of those whose skills, knowledge and hard work generate the wealth from the sea.
• The word fishermen is not used in the discussion document. Regardless of the term used (licence holder, industry participant), they must be actual fishermen. The current loopholes which allow companies to buy licences and allocations must be eliminated.
• The owner-operator and fleet separation policies are key to ensuring that the benefits of the fishery are shared broadly amongst the independent professional fish harvesters of our coastal communities.
• There is no support for allocation boards. Allocation must be done fairly by the Minister; anything else puts the fox in the henhouse. But, the Minister has to establish clear principles around these decisions. The first principle is conservation, which implies an ecosystem approach. The principle of adjacency is of utmost importance and must be given prime consideration. Maximized employment in both the harvesting and processing sectors is another important principle; priority access should be given to the inshore owner-operator fleets.
• Industry representatives welcomed First Nations to the table as full partners, but state that conservation must not be jeopardized for the sake of First Nations’ pride, nor ours.
• Over the next decade there will be a large turnover in the owner-operator fleets. Capital gains tax reform, a "registered vessel replacement savings plan" and government-backed longer-term amortization of licence acquisitions are some things which are needed to allow future generations to prosper in the fishery.
• All relevant arms of the federal government need to work together on the professionalization file to ensure that they are not inadvertently working at cross purposes.
• There is some skepticism about the AFPR process which could be alleviated by DFO taking more time and not rushing through the exercise. An Atlantic Region fisheries management policy and planning body comprised of representatives of legitimate organizations should direct the development of the new policy framework in Phase II of the process.
• An essential part of any new policy must be to facilitate dialogue among people who care about the ocean and the fishery.
• Social justice should be factored into the economic viability debate.
• On the question of destructive fishing gear – use the appropriate gear to promote environmental conservation. An eco-labelling system should also be considered.
• There is much concern about oil and gas development. Buffer zones were suggested as a potential tool to lessen harmful impacts and to protect inshore stocks.
• The fishery is currently managed to suit the interests of big corporations. This approach should be abandoned in favour of one based on community management; DFO should foster the development of systems which would allow community-based co-management to work.
• The principles that are expressed in the discussion document reflect what is already happening in the management regime; DFO is sincerely trying to work with the industry to develop a management regime that recognizes the important role that the industry can and must play.
• The codification of existing DFO policies and allocation arrangements should have been done by now. At this pace, the AFPR will take years.
• Good science is essential; a pre-condition for achieving conservation objectives is good scientific information. Scientists need to increase the involvement of fishermen in the research and analysis process. Progress has been slow in this respect.
• Even though many say they want the political element eliminated in decision- making, that won’t happen. However, it is still possible and necessary to have clear decision-making criteria for access and allocation decisions. DFO also needs to be more open and transparent about its social and economic objectives.
• Enforcement responsibilities should remain with the federal government and its duly constituted enforcement agencies. Proper enforcement is essential if DFO is to have any success with its conservation mandate.
• For access and allocation dispute resolution, an arm’s length mechanism may be an improvement, bearing in mind that there will always be an element of the political to reflect the social and economic objectives of the government. Decision guidelines for the panel or board would have to be very clear.
• The AFPR needs to take fresh look at fleet separation to see if it works. Fishermen can buy and operate fish plants, tank houses and lobster pounds, while processors are not allowed to hold fishing licences.
• First Nations and non-natives need to fish according to the same rules and seasons. Those rules need to be clearly spelled out. There should be one enforcement body for all fishermen, with an expectation that penalties for violations will be consistent regardless of the race of the fisherman.
• Agree and approve of the directions taken in the document. The fishing industry on the Atlantic coast has grown since the 1982 Kirby Report and DFO fisheries policy has not evolved at the same rate (example was sanctions policies where we have taken steps backwards when administrative sanctions were revoked by the courts). The proper legislation must follow the new policy.
• Not only has the industry grown, but we are more diverse than ever; fleets have not experienced the same degree of change Atlantic-wide. Some fleets are on DFO-administered ITQ systems, while some are managed under industry administered ITQs. There are Management Boards, Enterprise Allocations, effort regulation, and competitive fishery.
• Each fleet has its own set of problems to overcome; for some over-capacity still exists, others have monitoring deficiencies, while others find themselves with enforcement deficiencies. There is a question of fairness when all fleets and sectors do not pay the same value of access fees even when it is for the same fish.
• Any fishery policy should not be a "one size fits all" policy that micro-manages every licence holder. Fleets should be given the autonomy necessary while ensuring that they follow the basic principles of a Canadian fisheries policy.
• The Atlantic fisheries policy should be a framework that benefits present and future generations of Canadians for the long-term. Please ensure that "conservation and sustainable use should be the cornerstones of fisheries policy" are not just "lip-service". If we squander the resource, we won’t have a fishery. Canadians should come first! The fishery has to be protected from foreign ownership.
• Stakeholders should be involved in all processes of policy review such as access and allocations, RAP, conflict resolution, etc.
• "Best use" decisions must reference the global marketplace or otherwise businesses won’t be able to be viable – we must remember that the Canadian fishing industry does not live and operate in a vacuum. This is one area where the fishing industry can input.
• It is important that the impact of different aspects of the Aboriginal fisheries be clearly defined to the point where the rules of the game were spelled out before we play.
• Intergenerational transfer is becoming too expensive and is now another barrier to new access.
• DFO’s current policies benefit big businesses and their shareholders, not fishermen.
• There was discussion about using fishing licences as collateral for loans and the current barriers to doing that.
• Better communication between DFO and fishermen is essential. One example is the Nova Scotia Loan Board issue.
• Conservation policies should be developed by DFO Science in coastal communities, not in Ottawa. More research is essential.
• On the topic of aquaculture, while there is potential in it as an industry, there are many questions that need to be answered before embracing it fully.
• The current commercial licencing policy leaves too much room for back room deals. As well, it is inefficient, especially in respect to the development of new species and the "draw" system.
• First Nations and DFO shouldn’t be creating a two tier system. Society won’t accept that proposal. Communication between industry and DFO is a serious issue and improvements must be made. The historical attachment of non-natives to the fishery is not being considered in the policies around the native fishery. Jim MacKenzie needs to visit the non-native communities.
• Nothing will work but one set of laws. Two sets of laws have not worked anywhere in the world. Equality between all Canadians is the key. The principles of the discussion document will only work if all are equal. Any enforcement activity has to be for all people.
• Industry is being offered several new fisheries management plans, but they need to be aware of how those will be impacted by the Aboriginal fisheries policies. All need to be aware of all of the rapid changes happening.
• There’s a lot of good stuff in the AFPR which is important because current policies are not working. They separate groups and communities instead of bringing them together, e.g., the AFS. It is essential that DFO’s policies reflect our hard work. Surveys and test fisheries done on a self-funding basis by fishermen need to be recognized.

What we heard in the Round Table Discussion:

Conservation

• Conservation has to be defined in a number of tiers with linkages. Some can’t be defined in an open forum of rivals because there’s no way DFO’s going get the industry to agree on micro issues.
• This is a stove-piped, single-species licensed industry right now. The discussion document is laid out properly, but it needs to focus on the high level. As it rolls down, leave it to stakeholders to work out the issues, especially on the short strokes for particular sectors. The goal posts will continue to shift as industry gets more information.
• ITQs are held up as being good for conservation, but what is not recognized is that in some cases, the crew is paying for the fishery because the crew’s share comes after expenses. They’ll be lucky to get their stamps out of it.
• Owner-operator should be mandatory for all sectors.
• High grading continues to occur because of basic human nature. A person is not going take the small fish when they can take the big one. Instead, DFO should look at limiting gear types and closing some areas to protect them. Areas that have been dragged have flat muddy bottoms.
• One company used to mow down shoreline trees with a cable to get into the shore. As well, the corals are growing upside down on the rocks because the tops are being destroyed.
• The allocation process does not support conservation and has to be done over again. Handliners are decreasing when longliners and gillnetters are increasing.
• Need to define the word "sustainable" and who will determine sustainability.
• The discussion document should look ahead to the next 30-40 years. We want a fishery that will benefit everyone. The discussion document does not go far enough into to the future and seems to be targeted at a select few interests.
• We need to use this exercise to correct what is wrong. This is an opportunity to be a model for other countries. Implementation will be costly because past mistakes must be addressed. But other countries forced into this have benefited from this type of exercise.
• The costs to industry were not discussed in the discussion document even though one theme is more industry involvement in science. Capacity among organizations is uneven. In order to take ownership of conservation, fishermen themselves have to be involved, but there’s a cost involved. This affects our viability in the markets. Industry is paying fees and will have to pay more and do more work. This affects the cost to customers.
• The discussion document has some good stuff about conservation, but serious concerns remain about implementation. There is a reluctance to comment until the AFPR unfolds further. How will the process work? How will DFO fold in all of the information and evaluate it?
• There was discussion around the gear technology used in the swordfish fishery and whether DFO’s decisions were consistent with the precautionary approach and an emphasis on conservation.
• A conservation ethic will emerge once the big access and allocation issues are settled.
• Conservation is a mighty big word and often the debate around it is quasi axe-grinding over allocation.
• The Minister is ignoring his responsibility on this role. He is not allocating enough resources for Fishery Officers. The Minister must understand that money for science and enforcement does not mean cost-recovery.
• Conservation is a very difficult topic to evaluate or measure. Few people have faith in science.
• Some quota owners do not necessarily agree with the quota system. Quotas don’t manage fish; they manage fishermen.
• The owner-operator policy is inherently supportive of conservation because if the licence holder wants time off, the fishery is going to have time off. With Enterprise Allocations, there’s no time off because the companies will drive those boats year round.
• There are some concerns about the precautionary approach buzzword because of the possibility that it will be applied in an unbalanced manner.
• Another aspect is oil and gas. They are going to be using the water column and the dangers that exist are unbelievable. We don’t know the effect or the risk. The counter argument of a compensation fund is not good enough. Strongly suggest that a wild figure of billions of dollars should be set aside purely for fishermen so that coastal communities could be paid for any losses that might incur.

Economic and Social Viability

• Capacity building and training are really important to prepare for the future. There is a need to construct local facilities to teach boat building, navigation training, upgrading of existing skills and education, science and research techniques.
• The fishery should benefit Canadians as much as possible. For transboundary resources, DFO should take the lead so that good deals result. When transitions are made, they have to be gradual and not abrupt for coastal communities.
• The fleet separation and owner-operator policies were developed to keep economic benefits in coastal communities where they belong. There’s no mention of these policies even though it was raised by the EAB and at other meetings. Have to be suspicious of the discussion document when much of key aspect is left out of the AFPR.
• Concern about native fisheries is alive and well. There is the perception that the government is willing to sacrifice the entire East Coast fishery to settle land claims. Is this what is going to happen and if so, what is the justification? Non-natives feel they have a competitor who operated under different rules without any regard to the economies of the fishery. This is partly because they don’t have to pay access fees or any other fees. Non-natives can’t compete or survive under that system.
• On the issue of foreign ownership, we have to do something to safeguard the Canadian aspect of the fishery; otherwise we will witness a duplication of what is happening in the Canadian oil and gas industry with the buyout by American interests. Most of our natural resources in this country have been sold to others.
• A purely social fishery is legislated poverty. A purely economic fishery is the Risley model where 75 vessels are reduced to 20. The principles of maximum profit and laissez-faire ignore individuals. Need to find the balance somewhere.
• The oil and gas industry has to file a local benefit plan and an agency holds their feet to the fire on its implementation. Maybe this could be used in the fishery. We need to talk about local benefits. Access to the public resource must equal public benefits.
• Natives haven’t been left out of the fishery anymore in the last 33 years anymore than non-natives have been left out. It’s not right for our government to give out handouts.
• Our government is giving away our property to oil and gas companies without consulting fishermen even though it was their log books that won the jurisdiction argument.
• The licence holders taking care of the fishery is not good because it is not the licence holders who are the fishermen.

Access and Allocations

• A policy of shifting decisions to allocation boards sounds like the Minister abdicating his responsibility.
• The idea about a local benefits plan deserves thought and discussions throughout communities. The plant owners say that if it wasn’t for Icelandic or Norway fish, there wouldn’t be any jobs. That’s free enterprise. When you put restraints on how much people can own, you are putting restrictions on free enterprise.
• Access will be limited in the future because of DFO’s decision to walk away from infrastructure, namely wharves and boats.
• Clear criteria for recreational and aquaculture access should be developed. We don’t object to shared uses of the water column. But we struggle with ownership of portions of the water column. There’s a real need for some good criteria to be laid out.
• There was discussion about the work yet to be done in Phase II under Access and Allocations. Meeting participants wanted to know if allocations are going to change or stay the same. DFO said that it was not going to reopen past decisions with the proviso that there are a few decisions that remain controversial and therefore will be examined.
• The discussion document as a whole does a pretty good job of proposing what the access and allocation solutions could be. But some people are able to use political access to get favorable decisions. How will this be curtailed? DFO would have much more respect if no one had access to the politics.
• Regarding the suggestion for an arm’s length process, DFO might be sending mixed messages by saying that there will be some exceptions to the earlier statement about not reopening past access and allocation decisions. DFO should find a more consistent approach. Any decisions that are reopened need to be reopened based on clear and transparent criteria. DFO can’t say some allocation decisions are final and others aren’t.
• Best use of the resource should also have to be defined by the application of clear and transparent criteria consistently applied. DFO should use this instead of hiring off quota and playing the quota game.
• The other criterion that should be considered in access and allocation decisions is balance (as laid out in the Oceans Act). This fits with the concept of integrated management. The Oceans Act has a very great bearing on the AFPR. Citizens of coastal communities have a very great role in helping to achieve that balance through Integrated Coastal Zone Management boards.
• Before aquaculture has guaranteed access, DFO needs to see how this impacts on conservation, especially in respect to finfish.
• The access and allocations theme is key to the other 3 themes: DFO has to settle the access and allocation debate so that the fishery can really progress. The Marshall debate will be difficult, but necessary.
• Because the access and allocations "piece" is one of the fundamentals of fisheries management, there needs to be some kind of system that has a framework which is removed from the political milieu. The Nova Scotia Arbitration Act was suggested as a model.
• Regarding the Marshall file, the view was expressed that the inshore sector has held the entire burden to date. Why isn’t the offshore taking some of the responsibility for Marshall?

Governance

• There is skepticism about DFO giving up power. DFO’s vision of that is making industry pay the bill and DFO keeping the power. Observer coverage is one example of this dynamic. Fishermen agree with observer coverage, but want to be able to sit down with DFO and negotiate where, when, how much, etc. This doesn’t happen. It’s very frustrating because the margins are so narrow now, there’s no room for DFO extras.
• A key point under the Governance section is the question of capacity building. There is nothing in the discussion document that talks about resources for this huge issue. There should be no shift in governance without an accompanying shift in resources. This is not a request for subsidies. Fishermen generate much wealth for the government. There is no disagreement with the general direction in which DFO is going, but there is no cushion to absorb offloading.
• Community and area based management should be specifically recognized in the discussion document and success stories in this regard should be told. There is a desire to see a specific written commitment to community management in the discussion document.
• There was a discussion about whether a debate on privatization would be helpful because the discussion document doesn’t deal with this issue. The Senate said that DFO should take a look at ITQs as a fisheries management mechanism. DFO is perhaps undermining its exercise by saying there are some issues they are not going to talk about. It harms the overall process to say there are things DFO won’t talk about. There should be a debate about ITQs – from soup to nuts. It’s important not to take such a central issue off the table.
• One of the problems with ITQs is that the corporations buy them. Which leads to corporate concentration. Another unresolved aspect of ITQs is that they were put in place when abundance was low. When abundance rises, there needs to be a cap to trigger a sharing mechanism.
• Put time limits on ITQs.
• The importance of local and regional decision-making by DFO was emphasized. Breakdowns occur when a decision has to go to Ottawa. Fishermen believe that the local and regional DFO people understand them better. DFO can’t stretch a blanket over Eastern Canada and think that it’s gonna cover it all. Management decisions need to take place at the local level.
• The individual fisherman has much to contribute to the management decision process, but a vision is needed. Fishermen have to be given the information to make the decisions. When decisions are made by internal DFO processes, there should be an opportunity for rebuttal by the sector affected. This includes the AFPR. Need to ask whether the industry agrees with what you wrote down.
• The implementation of shared decision-making will take time. It means taking the power out of the hands of the bureaucrats in Ottawa.
• The industry is at a crossroad. The DFO may need to take a different approach, but the desire for local management control and decision-making was reiterated.
• When fishermen sit at the table to make the decisions, it should not be a threatening atmosphere. People are not clear on how much power they will get or how this will work. Fishermen should participate in the social construction of the solutions.
• Legislative reform is absolutely necessary. The unfettered discretion of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans is unparalleled within government.
• Need to have clearly defined rules and some sort of intervention concept. It’s on for DFO to have a conservation veto.
• In order for the fishery to go forward responsibly, the Minister has to tie his hands somewhat.