Public Information Sessions

In 1999 the AFPR met with provincial and territorial officials and held public information sessions in Halifax, Moncton, St. John's, Quebec City, Iqaluit and Charlottetown. The summaries of these discussions presented here have been distributed to 800 stakeholders.

Halifax – June 14, 1999

Synopsis

Principal themes arising from the session:

• A policy review needs to be done
• A set of Atlantic-wide principles is needed, with clear overall objectives, while allowing flexibility to manage appropriately in a given area
• All parties should be involved in the consultation process; which should be wider (i.e. additional communities should be visited)
• The allocation process needs a major overhaul to ensure it is clear and transparent to all to counteract the perspective that DFO has "wronged" certain areas and favoured others, i.e. the creation of a conflict resolution process

What we heard:

• A call for increased municipal participation as decisions taken by DFO have a major impact on the first level of government
• That it is inappropriate for DFO to be leading the review, an independent review should be conducted
• As set out, the review is just a housekeeping exercise whereas what is needed is a commitment that DFO is not doing another meaningless review
• We should have started with what needs to be done and how do we fix it
• That it would be hard to develop a consistent Atlantic-wide policy
• That the policy (and, by implication, DFO) cannot be all things to all people
• A concern that input from these public sessions may be ignored and that attendees will have wasted time and money to participate
• A call for a conflict resolution process, involving industry, with clear principles for decision making
• That the allocation process in DFO is unfair and unclear
• That DFO does a poor job of communicating its policies; it should develop good policies and the ability to communicate with its stakeholders and the general public
• That too much power is vested in the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans
• That a consistent, clear policy, understood by all, is needed for the Atlantic but concern that in order to make the discussion document acceptable to all, it will end up being too vague.
• That DFO’s decision making should be open and transparent; right now DFO is operating under a closed door policy of decision making
• That there is dissatisfaction with DFO but it would be a mistake to assume that there is consensus within the dissatisfaction so DFO should not pursue a "one size fits all" approach to the Atlantic
• That DFO should increase the Science budget
• That by definition the policy framework will have to be in a number of different parts, i.e. broad definitions that would apply to all fisheries
• DFO has to recognize that the world has changed since 1976; that the policy framework should be designed to enable industry to function and compete in the changed global environment
• A plea to involve industry in preparation of the discussion document, as a result of a concern that if a bureaucrat writes the document, it will be only a DFO document
• The review will not be easy to do but clear overall objectives are needed
• Develop a discussion document so people have an opportunity to comment and provide advice
• Once the discussion document is prepared, it should be thoroughly discussed with stakeholders and the public; there has to be room for correction of errors
• If DFO is to have a conservation regime, it must be paramount and not able to be compromised
• That DFO should make a list of current policies, including regional practices, and set down the best current thinking of DFO in a policy framework containing objectives and procedures. DFO will complete and make the document available for further input and comment
• A request to include all users (specifically the recreational fishery) in consultations and when considering allocation of the resource
• A need to persuade the Minister to adopt a strategy of regional policy development
• General support for the concept of an External Advisory Board to be used as a "sounding board", with no decision-making authority

Moncton – June 16, 1999

Synopsis

Principal themes arising from the session:

• General support for the development of high level, Atlantic-wide principles, and a call for Regional flexibility in their implementation
• That DFO should clearly indicate which policies are not "on the table"
• That DFO should undertake an evaluation of existing policies
• That DFO should expand its consultative process to include all interested parties
• A two-tiered consultation process on the review consisting of meetings with the fishing industry, followed by meetings with the general public

What we heard:

• If DFO has objectives for the review, they should put them on the table and clearly define them
• DFO should indicate in the discussion document which items are negotiable and which are not
• A concern that whatever policy is developed will not work for the weir fishery
• Multi-species approach to fishing makes sense and is the dominant practice in the Gulf and other areas
• A concern about why DFO is doing this review now and why it was initiated
• That CCPFH has proposed establishment of a joint industry/government steering committee to oversee the review process
• DFO should recognize that the fishery is represented by organizations and that there is a need to consult with organizations during this process
• A call for a special forum for fishermen’s organizations to discuss the review
• Confusion as to what is happening at DFO at the present time – drafts of many things (Fisheries Act, partnering, Senate report) that can’t seem to get beyond the draft stage
• Independent owner-operator must be the primary focus of fisheries management policy
• That someone has to put accountability and trust back into DFO
• With the exception of Nunavut, Aboriginal participation in the consultation process does not appear to be addressed
• There does not appear to be a recognition of specific concerns in the outline of the review
• The timeframe for the review appears overly optimistic
• DFO's decisions have, in many cases, been disastrous for plantworkers who should be a part of the consultation/decision making process
• The Department does not have a firm policy on who is speaking for the industry and is seen to be downloading policy direction
• The Province of New Brunswick supports the need for the review and will participate in any future public meetings which, they suggest, should include all stakeholders
• A statement that fishermen’s needs should take precedence in the development of any Atlantic-wide policy
• A call for DFO to consider all interests, in addition to those of fishermen, i.e. oil and gas expansion, aquaculture, etc.
• A call for DFO to evaluate the effectiveness of existing policies
• Given the very strong force that can lobby the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, particularly in terms of allocation, any policy developed should be able to protect the fishery

St. John’s – June 17, 1999

Synopsis

Principal themes arising from the session:

• That a policy review needs to be done
• While there should be consistency at a high level, regional flexibility should be allowed for (that a "one size fits all" policy for the Atlantic may not work)
• That consultations with stakeholders should be as geographically broad as possible, covering all areas of the Province
• That additional scientific research is needed to help DFO manage the fishery
• General support for an External Advisory Board

What we heard:

• That we should be tackling sweeping changes to the management system, rather than a policy review
• There has been very little scientific research in Northern Labrador; additional studies need to be done on all stocks
• There is a need for an Atlantic wide policy, with general principles but the operational staff should not be hamstrung as a result of the policy
• While there should be consistency at a high level, regional flexibility should be taken into account
• In the past, economic viability has been used as an allocation issue
• General support for an External Advisory Board
• A concern that political interventions result in decisions being taken that are not open.
• That it is imperative DFO clarify its existing policies
• That decision-making should be delegated to the regions
• That it is impossible to have an integrated view of the fishery as long as the Federal Government is managing the harvesting of fish
• The timing and location of consultations is critical; direct stakeholder meetings should be held in as many communities as possible
• A request for an overhaul of the current licensing policy, particularly the system in place for obtaining a licence
• That we should be looking at a "common sense" policy that works; that a "one size fits all" approach to the Atlantic may not work
• That some policies are a problem for inshore fishermen, particularly in Northern Labrador
• That DFO policies have an (unintended) impact on communities in Atlantic Canada; DFO was urged to consider the potential impacts of decisions on communities in Atlantic Canada
• DFO was urged to take a close look at its policy on seals, particularly in light of a principle on conservation, and the ecosystem management approach to fisheries management
• The Fisheries Act gives the Minister absolute power (totally outside any policy); DFO was urged to consider this in the design of any policy framework
• DFO’s ability to fulfill its mandate is being jeopardized by the reductions to its budget
• Some of the monies being collected in access fees should be returned to DFO’s budget to allow for more scientific research

Quebec – June 18, 1999

Synopsis

Principal themes arising from the session:

• Science and industry must develop a mechanism that allows for greater credibility in the stock assessment process
• Decision-making must be delegated below current levels
• General support for the policy framework, provided some Regional flexibility is built in
• A two-tiered consultation process on the review consisting of meetings with the fishing industry, followed by meetings with the general public

What we heard:

• DFO’s credibility is dreadful, the department has made fundamental mistakes, particularly with regard to the management of groundfish
• DFO should conduct a "post mortem" of the groundfish crisis before embarking on this review
• Expectations of the policy review were greater than what presented by the Review Team
• Fishermen should receive a priority over other stakeholders during consultations
• A request to delegate more decision-making to the Region
• Support for a single policy framework, with regional specificities
• Too many mechanisms proposed by DFO have gone nowhere; before embarking on this process, stakeholders want to be assured of results
• Not enough priority is given to fishermen’s opinions when stock assessments are conducted
• With the exception of Nunavut, Aboriginal participation in the consultation process does not appear to be addressed
• External advice is important; DFO should consider seeking the advice of external neutral people in this exercise, and should not forget the unique role that academics could potentially play in the process
• A concern that existing practices that work will be affected by the policy review
• A concern that DFO will force fishermen to either an IQ or a competitive fishery
• A suggestion that there be 100% monitoring of landings at the wharves

Iqaluit – June 22, 1999

Synopsis

Principal themes arising from the session:

• Nunavut does not always want to resort to the court process to settle disputes between the Federal Government and the Territory, but will if they have to protect the rights of the Inuit
• Adjacency must be recognized by DFO when allocations are being made
• That consultations must be expanded beyond one visit to Iqaluit
• A desire to participate fully in all decisions taken that affect the waters adjacent to Nunavut
• That there are inconsistencies between DFO’s fisheries management policies and the Nunavut land claim decision
• Support for an External Advisory Board

What we heard:

• An appreciation for the opportunity to be included in the policy review
• A desire for a more active role in the decision-making that affects the waters adjacent to Nunavut
• Support for the External Advisory Board and a request to have representation from Nunavut on the Board
• Inuit have not been given an opportunity to participate in the fisheries in their adjacent waters which makes it difficult to develop an industry
• The need to establish better working relationships with other users of the waters
• A desire to encourage people into the fishing industry
• Inadequate resources have been invested in scientific research in the waters adjacent to Nunavut
• The External Advisory Board would allow pro-active, positive outcome to the policy review process
• A commitment is required from DFO that the review will widely consult in Nunavut
• The three major concerns of Nunavut are access to the resource, allocation and adjacency
• DFO was urged to fully and properly clarify the definition of adjacency
• DFO was urged to review its current policy on access to the resource to allow Nunavut opportunities equal to the provinces; right now allocation of quota is seen as arbitrary
• A request that a separate policy be developed to cover all aspects of the fishing industry, relating specifically to the unique situation in Nunavut
• A desire to see legislative changes to assist Nunavut in accessing the resources
• A request to bring fisheries policy in line with the contents with the land claim decision

Charlottetown – June 24, 1999

Synopsis

Principal themes arising from the session:

• General support for a high level review of Atlantic fisheries management policies
• DFO has assumed a parental role vis à vis the fishing industry and this should change
• DFO should increase its scientific research
• A conflict resolution process should be established
• That policies are being applied inconsistently from one province to the next
• That consultations should include both consumptive and non-consumptive stakeholders

What we heard:

• June is the height of the fishing season, not a good time to be having public consultations
• There is a perception that DFO’s primary mandate is being ignored
• There is a movement towards professionalization and certification of fishermen which will likely re-define the relationship between fishermen and the Federal Government
• DFO should listen to the fishermen when making allocation decisions
• Processors feel they are asked to consultative meetings as "window dressing", having little or no impact on decisions made yet have a great deal of money invested in the industry
• New policies need to answer some of the fundamental questions associated with conservation, increases in existing technologies, economic viability and measuring effort. Taking fish from one sector to give to another is not conservation
• Multi-species licence approach vs. specialization needs to be addressed
• DFO should widen its consultations to include others with interest in the resource
• A request for a clearer definition of co-management
• Because of DFO’s shrinking budget, there is inadequate scientific research being conducted and the level of enforcement has declined
• A need for a conflict resolution process
• Include work from the new aquaculture policy in the review
• A concern about the application of current policies, particularly allocation
• A comment that the review must recognize current inconsistencies and, where they prove unfair, correct them before moving ahead
• When talking about the fishery of the future, particularly DFO’s move towards multi-species licence holders, DFO must not forget that a groundfish licence covers many species (i.e. cod, flounder, redfish, etc.)
• A concern about how aquaculture fits into the present review and how current policies may affect allocation to the aquaculture industry
• That pollution is becoming a factor in the fishery
• With the advances in technology, and the resultant ability of fishermen to find and harvest the resource, all species will decline
• Allow for a period of time (one month) between release of the discussion document and consultations so people can comment