Frequently Asked Questions

Minister Thibault's Response to the Independent Panel on Access Criteria

1. Who provided input for the Minister's Response?

The Minister sought the views of the Atlantic provinces, Quebec and Nunavut. He also received advice from industry leaders and Aboriginal groups.

2. What is the next step now that Minister Thibault has responded to the IPAC Report?

The IPAC exercise is now concluded. The Minister's Response will be incorporated into the Atlantic Fisheries Policy Review which will put in place a clear and consistent policy framework to serve as the foundation for the long-term, sustainable management of the Atlantic fisheries.

3. Will the New Access Framework be considered when providing new access to all fisheries?

It will guide all decisions on new or additional access to Atlantic commercial fisheries, which have undergone substantial increases in resource abundance or landed value.

4. What was the mandate of the Independent Panel on Access Criteria?

The IPAC was asked to review the criteria that guide decision-making when providing access to new or additional entrants in a commercial fishery that has undergone a substantial increase in resource abundance or landed value, or in new/emerging fisheries (Stage III, commercial licenses.) The IPAC was also asked to provide advice on the definition, ranking/weight, application and appropriateness of the access criteria, as well as general advice on the decision-making process, including ways to ensure openness and transparency. In addition, the IPAC examined access criteria and mechanisms used in other jurisdictions and resource sectors.

5. Why was the IPAC established?

Decisions surrounding new access to increasing fish stocks are of significant importance to provincial/territorial governments, fishing industry organizations, Aboriginal groups and other stakeholders. This is evident in a number of fisheries, and was particularly evident in the 2000 northern shrimp fishery. As a result, following further consultation with the provinces and Nunavut, the creation of an independent panel was proposed to accelerate a portion of the Atlantic Fisheries Policy Review (AFPR) discussion on access decisions in increasing fisheries.

6. How does IPAC relate to the AFPR?

The AFPR is a comprehensive review of fisheries management policies aimed at developing a clear and consistent policy framework for the long-term sustainable management of Atlantic fisheries. The Minister's Response to the IPAC report will be incorporated into the AFPR.

7. How did the IPAC conduct its work?  When did consultations take place?

The IPAC began its work immediately upon being announced on June 28, 2001. As the first stage of the Panel's mandate was to study the subject matter, extensive briefings were held to provide IPAC members with background information on access criteria and decision-making processes. The IPAC was also provided with substantial briefing materials for their own review. From August 20 to October 23, the IPAC held four rounds of consultations with a total of 66 meetings. The consultations included meetings with DFO, two meetings with the governments of the Atlantic Provinces, Quebec and Nunavut, and meetings with Aboriginal organizations and key fisheries stakeholders. The IPAC also wrote to 205 other individuals/organizations soliciting their written input to the process. Information on the IPAC and its work, including consultations, is available on the AFPR website www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/afpr-rppa.

8. Did the IPAC make recommendations on access issues related to specific fisheries?

No. The IPAC was asked to provide advice that could be applicable to all commercial fisheries where it has already been determined that there has been a substantial increase in abundance or landed value, or in new or emerging commercial fisheries (Stage III, Commercial licences).

9. Did the IPAC decide what constitutes a "substantial" increase and when it has occurred?

No, the IPAC did not determine when a substantial increase has occurred in a fishery. What constitutes a substantial increase may vary from fishery to fishery, and is determined by DFO in consultation with stakeholders.

10. Is IPAC a permanent access and allocation board?

No. The IPAC is now dissolved. The IPAC's work was completed with the delivery of its public Report to the Minister on March 28, 2002.

11. What was the IPAC's mandate with regard to First Nations?

The IPAC's mandate was limited to the provision of recommendations on the decision-making criteria and process for new or additional entrants in a commercial fishery that has undergone a substantial increase in resource abundance or landed value, or access to a new or emerging fishery (Phase III, Commercial Licences). The IPAC's mandate excluded Aboriginal and treaty rights issues that may be addressed in the long-term process led by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (DIAND) with specific support from DFO on fisheries issues. However, given the present and expanding Aboriginal presence in the Atlantic commercial fisheries, the IPAC's work was intended to be common to all in the fishery. That is why the IPAC was directed to meet with Atlantic First Nations and Aboriginal organizations as part of their mandate.

12. Does the Minister's Response to the IPAC Report affect Aboriginal peoples' access to fisheries resources?

The Minister's Response is consistent with the constitutional protection provided to Aboriginal and treaty rights as well as land claims agreements between Aboriginal groups and the federal government. It is separate from the DFO negotiations with the First Nations potentially affected by the Marshall decision. It is the intention of DFO to continue to work with the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (DIAND) and with Aboriginal groups. The work of the IPAC and the Minister's Response to the IPAC Report are separate from and will not replace any DIAND process.

13. How were the IPAC members selected?

The goal for the IPAC was to provide an unbiased, thoughtful and practical set of considerations and recommendations. Therefore, members were chosen based on their independence from the existing Atlantic fisheries decision-making processes, their impartiality, their expertise in areas that are relevant to the work at hand, and their capability in completing the work required while operating in a transparent fashion. Members were selected with the agreement of provincial and territorial Ministers and in consultation with the members of the External Advisory Board to the AFPR.