Minutes of the meeting of December 7 and 8, 2022

Meeting objective

Facilitate consultation and information-sharing on policy initiatives to develop and implement marine resources and establish guidelines to serve Quebec industry interests.

Attendees

ORGANIZATION	REPRESENTATIVES	PRESENT	ABSENT
INDUSTRY
CROSS-AREA ASSOCIATIONS
Alliance des pêcheurs professionnels du Québec (APPQ)	O’Neil Cloutier	X
Fédération des pêcheurs semi-hauturiers du Québec (FPSHQ)	Marcel Cormier	X
Gaspé–Lower St. Lawrence Area
Regroupement des pécheurs professionnels du Sud de la Gaspésie (RPPSG)	O’Neil Cloutier	X
Regroupement des pêcheurs professionnels du Nord de la Gaspésie (RPPNG)	Jean-René Boucher	X
Association des capitaines-propriétaires de la Gaspésie (ACPG)	Claudio Bernatchez	X
Association des morutiers traditionnels de la Gaspésie (AMTG)	Michel Syvrais		X
Association des crabiers gaspésiens	Daniel Desbois	X
Association des pêcheurs de crabe de la zone 17 (APCZ17)	Marc Doucet	X
Magdalen Islands Area
Association des pêcheurs propriétaires des Îles-de-la-Madeleine (APPIM)	Mario Déraspe	X
Regroupement des palangriers et pétoncliers uniques madelinots (RPPUM)	Pierre Chevrier		X
Regroupement des pêcheurs professionnels des Îles-de-la-Madeleine (RPPIM)	Paul Boudreau		X
Groupe de pêcheurs de la zone F inc. (GPZF)	Mérielle Ouellet		X
Rassemblement des pêcheurs et pêcheuses des côtes des Îles (RPPCÎ)	Charles Poirier	X
Association of the Inshore Fishermen of the Magdalen Islands (AIF)	Gil Thériault	X
North Shore Area
Association des pêcheurs de la Basse Côte-Nord (APBCN)	Curtis Stubbert	X
Regroupement des pêcheurs professionnels de la Haute et Moyenne Côte-Nord (RPPHMCN)	Line Arsenault		X
Comité de cogestion de la zone 16 inc. (CCZ16)	Paolo Gionet	X
INDIGENOUS ORGANIZATIONS
Wolastoqiyik (Maliseet) Wahsipekuk First Nation	Guy-Pascal Weiner	X
Innu Community of Pakua Shipi	Gervais Mallek	X
Community of Ekuanitshit (Pêcheries Shipek)	Guy Vigneault	X
Innu Takuaikan Uashat mak Mani-Utenam (Pêcheries Uapan S.E.C.)	Yan Tremblay	X
Council of the Innu of Pessamit	Majoric Pinette	X
Micmacs of Gesgapegiag	Christina Burnsed	X
Micmac Nation of Gespeg	Johanne Basque	X
Council of the Innu of Nutashkuan	Pierre Wapistan	X
Council of the Innu of Unamen Shipu	Alexi Lalo		X
Listuguj Mi’gmaq Government	James Metallic-Sloan	X
Council of the Innu First Nation of Essipit	Pierre Léonard	X
Observers
Mi'kmaq Maliseet Aboriginal Fisheries Management Association (MMAFMA)	Emmanuel Sandt-Duguay	X
Agence Mamu Innu Kaikusshet (AMIK)	Benoit Sioui	X
Agence Mamu Innu Kaikusshet (AMIK)	Serge Langelier	X
Mi'gmawei Mawiomi Secretariat	Tanya Barnaby		X
Regroupement des pêcheurs professionnels des Îles-de-la-Madeleine (RPPIM)	Rachelle Cyr
Council of the Innu First Nation of Essipit	Donald Bouchard	X
Rassemblement des pêcheurs et pêcheuses des côtes des Îles (RPPCÎ)	Léona Renaud	X
Micmacs of Gesgapegiag	Jaime Condo	X
Regroupement des pêcheurs professionnels du sud de la Gaspésie (RPPSG)	Claire Canet	X
Comité de cogestion de la zone 16 inc. (CCZ16)	Marie-Josée Gionet	X
Council of the Innu of Ekuanitshit (Pêcheries Shipek)	Jean-Yves Courteau		X
Council of the Innu of Ekuanitshit (Pêcheries Shipek)	Glenn McKinnon		X
Innu Takuaikan Uashat mak Mani-Utenam (Pêcheries Uapan S.E.C.)	Benoit St-Onge	X
Groupe GID	Marcel Rancourt	X
Groupe GID	Nancy Lavoie	X
Groupe GID	Youdjé Sarah Tchéidé	X
Créneau d’excellence Ressources, sciences et technologies marines Côte-Nord	Marilou Vanier	X
Listuguj Mi'gmaq Government	Fred Metallic	X
PORT AUTHORITIES
Port Authority Representative	Pierre Léonard	X
DFO
Standing members
Regional Director General	Sylvain Vézina	X
Regional Director, Fisheries Management	Maryse Lemire	X
Area Director – Gaspé-Lower St. Lawrence	Érick Saint-Laurent	X
Area Director – North Shore	Andrew Rowsell (represented by Yolaine Croussette)	X
Area Director – Magdalen Islands	Cédric Arseneau		X
Casual members (as needed, depending on the items discussed)
Regional Director, Small Craft Harbours	Boussaad Akrour		X
Regional Director, Science	Jean-Yves Savaria		X
Regional Director, Ecosystems Management Branch	Nicole Bouchard		X
Presenters
Director, Resource Management, Aquaculture and Indigenous Affairs	Jean Picard	X
Manager, Policies and Harmonization Division	Judy Doré	X
Senior Regional Officer, Species at Risk	Jean-Michel Poulin	X
Biologist, Demersal and Benthic Science Branch	Hugo Bourdages	X
Senior Policy Advisor	Florence Boucher-Boisclair	X
Aquatic Science Biologist	Caroline Senay	X
Senior Director, Resource Management – Operations	Todd Williams	X
Senior Advisor, Resource Management	Andrea Morden	X
Manager, Quebec Fisheries Fund	Julie Lavallée	X
Regional Senior Officer	Stéphanie Labbé-Giguère	X
Director, Marine Planning and Conservation and Species-at-Risk Management	Alain Guitard	X
DFO Observers
Associate Regional Director General, Quebec Region	David Rochette	X
Chief, Statistics and Licensing	Bernard Morin	X
Director, Conservation and Protection	Yves Richard		X
Manager, Strategic Services	Véronique Gagnon	X
Economic Analyst, Strategic Services	Laurence Richard-Nobert	X
Policy Analyst, Strategic Services	Joëlle Boucher-Kirouac	X
Senior Communications Advisor	Naomie Girard	X
Executive Assistant	Ariane Guy	X
Regional Officer, Fisheries Management	Thierry Marcoux	X
Regional Officer, Fisheries Management	Hélène Dussault	X
MAPAQ
Director, Fisheries and Aquaculture Policy and Analysis Directorate	Denis Simard	X
Intergovernmental Coordinator and Policy and Programs Advisor	Rabia Sow	X
EXTERNAL OBSERVERS
	Serge Langelier (AMIK)	X
	Claire Canet (RPPSG)	X

 

Items

Opening remarks

Maryse Lemire welcomed the participants.

Sylvain Vézina noted that the industry had faced significant challenges in continuing to operate during the pandemic and praised its resilience and adaptability. He provided an overview of the year in the fisheries: there was an all-time record landed value ($456 million) in 2022, but difficult decisions led to the implementation of moratoriums. He said a number of challenges lay ahead in the next few years because of the economic situation and the issue of access to international markets.

He cited some of the Minister’s commitments regarding the priorities outlined in her 2021 mandate letter:

• Protect 30% of Canada’s oceans by 2030.
• Growth of Canada’s blue economy.
• Support sustainable, stable, prosperous fisheries by implementing the modernized Fisheries Act.
• Work with Indigenous partners.
• Protect and restore our oceans and coasts.
• Support improvements in small craft harbours.

Sylvain Vézina assured participants that DFO Quebec Region was there to support Quebec’s fishing industry and represent the Quebec Region’s interests at the national level. He noted that the context in which the fisheries sector operated was changing and thus necessitated adaptation and innovation. He called for continued cooperation between DFO and the industry.

Industry questions and comments

• Request to add items under Other Business:
• Update on the use of electronic logbooks (ELOGs).

Governance of the regional Fisheries Management Program

Maryse Lemire gave the presentation. Key message: All fisheries management teams were interconnected in delivering the Fisheries Management Program.

Industry questions and comments

• The industry hoped there would be more stability in the DFO teams. The presentation of the organization chart was appreciated, but regular updates of the chart would be welcome.
• First Nations representatives emphasized the need for education in the fishing industry to help people understand the needs and importance of the fishery to First Nations and the resulting rights. Lack of understanding from non-Indigenous fishers is creating insecurity for Indigenous fishers. Education was a responsibility of the industry players supported by DFO. Public questioning of government decisions by associations was adversely affecting fellowship in the harvesting industry.
• Some associations stated that they considered First Nations to be business partners and acknowledged that the measures put in place did not create divisions between the various parties. Each group had unique characteristics, but all groups were equal partners.
• The industry noted that in the past, it had asked for a committee where Indigenous and non-Indigenous people could discuss fisheries issues together.
• One participant suggested that the associations themselves should do more outreach work with their own members (which in some cases included Indigenous fishers).

Development of a commercial fisheries licensing policy for the Quebec Region

Florence Boucher-Boisclair gave the presentation.

• The policy is in development.
• Industry consultation on the policy is planned for 2023.

Industry questions and comments

What is the purpose of a regional policy?

• Improve efficiency in licensing and document the licensing framework.

Are the control agreements part of the policy?

• The agreements were enshrined in the regulations (Atlantic Fishery Regulations [AFR]) with provisions regarding fleet independence. However, elements could be added to the policy.

There was concern that changes in the licensing system would create additional delays. The procedures would need to be streamlined.

• The policy would not change the system; its objective was to make things as efficient as possible. The topic of how to speed up procedures was often raised in consultations.

Update on the work of the Liaison Subcommittee – Vessel Replacement Rules

Florence Boucher-Boisclair gave the presentation:

Changes in the Vessel Replacement Rules.

Industry questions and comments

One member said that he disapproved of the proposed changes and that DFO should consult with stakeholders in person.

• In the course of its work, the Liaison Subcommittee had gathered comments and concerns for analysis over the past year. A written consultation was taking place until December 23, and questions and comments submitted would be considered.

The member noted that for fishers, the main issue was not vessel size but access to the resource. Fishing patterns and access to the resource would not be impacted by the changes since the fleets were already accessing the resource. For example, halibut near the Gaspé Peninsula coast was being fished by groundfish fleets even before the arrival of the lobster fleet.

Some industry representatives said they were waiting for the decision before building new vessels.

How did DFO distinguish between inshore, midshore and offshore fisheries? When Ministère de l’agriculture, des Pêcheries et de l’alimentation du Québec (MAPAQ) was managing the fisheries, inshore fleets had not been allowed to fish more than 12 miles offshore. Did DFO still consider offshore fisheries distinct from inshore fisheries? Yes

Update on the work of the Liaison Subcommittee – Residency criteria

Florence Boucher-Boisclair gave the presentation on residency criteria.

Industry questions and comments

How was the residency criterion applied on the North Shore (by zone, area, licensee’s residence, etc.), particularly for licences in zones that straddle more than one area or if certain zones should be associated with a given area (e.g., snow crab zone 16)?

• There were currently no residency criteria for lobster at Anticosti (Lobster Fishing Area (LFA) 17B), but there were for 12C crab.
• Those discussions were to take place in the Liaison Subcommittee. The Liaison Subcommittee was also tasked with discussing issues related to the setting up of licensing appeal boards.
• The Liaison Subcommittee would be asked to address outstanding issues and the management of transfers between licensees.

Specific cases had apparently been rejected.

• Specific cases would be discussed bilaterally (between the fisher and DFO) to resolve the issue.

Some industry members noted that the fact that the residency criterion does not apply to First Nations is contrary to the objective of protecting coastal communities when an Atlantic Fishery Regulations, 1985 (AFR) licence is withdrawn. Indigenous fishers from another province could acquire licences in Quebec and generate economic benefits outside Quebec.

• The licences were still Quebec licences.
• The residency criterion (of the original licence) would become applicable again if the licence was subsequently transferred to a non-Indigenous fisher.
• Note: DFO’s residency criterion does not apply to where fishers land their catches.

How were appointments made to the appeal boards for licensing appeals? First-level appeals went to an internal DFO committee, while second-level appeals went to an external board approved by the Minister and made up of members selected following a call for candidates.

Fish Stock provisions under the Fisheries Act – Review of amendments to the Fisheries Act and pre-consultation underway on the proposed second batch of fish stocksà

Stéphanie Labbé-Giguère gave the presentation.

• Stakeholders in the 4RS3Pn cod fishery would be asked this year to participate in the stock rebuilding plan.
• Consultations were underway for the proposed second batch of stocks.

Industry questions and comments

The industry pointed out that other species managed by Ottawa or other DFO regions but fished in Quebec, such as redfish and yellowtail flounder, were proposed but were not discussed in the presentation.

• The list of stocks identified in the batches would be shared.
• Management measures for yellowtail flounder were linked to the stock management process, which paralleled the Fish Stock provisions under the Fisheries Act. The Magdalen Islands industry’s comments and concerns regarding the changes had been received and understood.

The industry noted that meetings about redfish were often held in Halifax and stressed that Quebec’s participation in such meetings would be important.

Quebec Fisheries Fund – Summary of results

Julie Lavallée gave the presentation.

Industry questions and comments

How would the remaining funds be managed, since there were 15 months left to deliver about $30 million?

• The program might be extended, but nothing had been confirmed at that time.

How many projects had been submitted and rejected? Were there any plans to allocate the remaining funds to projects that had been rejected?

• A total of about 175 projects had been submitted, with applications increasingly aligned with program priorities. Some projects were being referred to other, more appropriate funding programs (e.g., Fisheries and Aquaculture Clean Technology Adoption Program [FACTAP], Aboriginal Fund for Species at Risk [AFSAR]). A number of applications had been withdrawn by applicants during the COVID period (e.g., expansion projects). DFO was providing support in the development of those funding applications.

Could DFO use that money to advance scientific projects, particularly those related to lobster harvesting on the North Shore? That fishery had a major economic impact, and there was openness to working in partnership with the government to accelerate the process.

• Although catches were abundant, more knowledge was needed to move from one stage to another. The Quebec Fisheries Fund (QFF) could serve as a lever for science projects (external to DFO) to gather that knowledge.

Presentation on RPPCI’s R&D projects

Charles Poirier gave the presentation.

Summary of several research projects, including one on determining the deployment date for lobster traps in the Magdalen Islands and one on the acquisition of multipurpose vessels. Activity reports of completed projects could be shared.
 

Industry questions and comments

The industry would soon be facing a problem with the supply of bait. All associations would have to play a part in developing alternative baits.

An R&D fund had been created by RPPCI with snow crab revenues, which supported fishers’ involvement in such projects. Tax refunds for the projects were being reinvested in other projects.

Greater support from DFO was needed in following up on applications, to speed up the QFF’s analysis/approval processes so that projects would no longer be at risk of not being able to proceed (analyses/approvals could take six to eight months). Fishers were investing resources without knowing whether there would be financial assistance.

Update on redfish stock status

Caroline Senay gave the presentation.

Comparison of the mentella and fasciatus species. Presentation of growth curves and precautionary approaches. Redfish dominated the Gulf’s biomass.

Industry questions and comments

Was a new wave of recruitment coming, and would redfish benefit from environmental changes in the Gulf?

• There were young fish every year, but nothing on the scale of the 2011 cohort. Changes in conditions might be beneficial for some stages of the redfish life cycle (e.g., reproduction) and detrimental for others (e.g., growth).

Have surveys been done in areas closed to fishing (marine refuges) to determine whether any large redfish were there?

• Tests were being carried out, and water depth appeared to play a greater role in the distribution of large redfish than closed or open areas.

What were the comparisons between Unit 1 redfish and Unit 2 redfish, especially in terms of feeding?

• The Laurentian Fan (Sydney Bite) was apparently a “hot spot” for S. fasciatus. Unit 2 stock assessment had recently been transferred to the Quebec Region. Research would be carried out.

What was the level of shrimp consumption by redfish in 2022?

• The consumption rate was stable, but population growth had led to an increase in predation. It was possible to extrapolate shrimp consumption by redfish in absolute terms, but it was a theoretical figure that should be treated with caution.

Would the science advisory allow the current quotas to be increased beyond 5,000 tonnes?

• Catches could be increased without any problems. Catches were less than 2,000 tonnes per year at the time.

Entry and allocation for the commercial redfish fishery

Todd Williams gave the presentation.

The next step was a decision in the winter (ideally in January or February), followed by a meeting with the allocation holders (instead of the Advisory Committee composed of historical holders and observers) to expedite discussions on important issues such as management objectives and scientific requirements,. Discussions would have to include the appropriateness of sub-allocations. Commercial fishing could theoretically begin in 2024 in Unit 1.

Industry questions and comments

How were these types of decisions made, and what was the reason for the delays, as the industry also needed time to prepare (harvesting, processing, marketing, etc.)?

• The Minister had many factors to consider in making her decision. Resource conservation and Indigenous reconciliation were the primary considerations. Closing a fishery was difficult and complex, but so was opening one.

Could the redfish fishery be considered a new fishery?

• There were not really any clear rules for making that determination. It would not be accurate to say that it was a new fishery, but it had been closed for more than 30 years. There was a period of several years for which a lot of information was available about the redfish fishery.

Why not open the fishery on an exploratory basis and allow some form of harvesting by Indigenous fishers?

• This was a good point that would be considered.

What is the status of redfish according to the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC)?

• COSEWIC was still recommending that redfish be listed under the Species at Risk Act (SARA), but it had not been officially listed. Discussions were underway between DFO Science and COSEWIC to modify the recommendation.

Were processing plants ready for the arrival of redfish?

• MAPAQ was reporting that some plants were already processing catches from the index fishery. The volumes to be processed would have to be known before any investments were made. Studies showed that there was a potential market and that the upgrading of processing companies in Quebec would cost $20 million.

Other business and conclusion

Bernard Morin presented an update on the deployment of electronic logbooks (ELOGs).

• The use of ELOGs, including simplification and standardization of reporting, would be discussed with each fleet at upcoming consultation committee meetings.
• DFO’s goal was to have ELOGs in place for all fisheries by 2024.
• Available applications were identified on the DFO website.
• The application was expected to arrive soon for snow crab (see the website for more information)
• Fact sheets had been simplified for developers.
• The first step was to convert paper logs to electronic form; then the records and data fields would be revised (after 2024). Discussions regarding adjustments could be held.

Industry questions and comments

Some changes had already taken place recently, and a year was needed to make the transition before implementation.

What was DFO’s involvement to ensure proper deployment of ELOGs to all fleets in 2024?

• DFO would provide increased support during deployment, including obtaining the ELOG key, following up and making any necessary changes, and providing information.

DFO would provide fishers with support to learn new technologies. The training provided by the Comité sectoriel de main-d’oeuvre des pêches maritimes (CSMOPM) had not been sufficient.

• Training or sharing information on the use of the applications themselves was the responsibility of the application developer.
• Discussions were underway with the CSMOPM to continue the training work in the short term.

There were many requirements to be met (ELOG, communications, etc.) for each fishing trip. Was it possible to simplify the tasks by developing a multifunctional tool?

• The ultimate goal was simplification, which would take several years. The ELOG was part of the process and was the current priority.

Would there be any consultations with fishers regarding the improvement of the fact sheets?

• Discussions on improving the fact sheets would take place at consultation committee meetings.

The industry was initiating a discussion on the use of alternative baits.

• Positive results had been obtained from testing alternative baits such as seal meat, which was abundant. There were questions about the possibility of using that alternative bait in the lobster fishery in connection with enforcement of the Marine Mammals Protection Act (MMPA) by the United States. The issue of using seal meat as bait had been raised with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), particularly where foreign bait might itself have impacts on marine mammals and jeopardize the export of Canadian products to the American market. A response was still pending.

The industry was initiating a discussion on how fishing would be viewed at the Conference of the Parties (COP) 15.

• The industry outlined its perception of Canada’s role at the discussion and decision-making table. Canada would play an observer role. Decisions made at such meetings had a significant impact on Canadian fisheries.
• Better representation of Canada’s fisheries was needed to emphasize that fishing was a low-impact food source, compared with others. The industry should push to increase that representation.
• An industry member noted that the Canadian Independent Fish Harvesters’ Federation would be representing the industry at COP15 on a 90-minute panel discussing artisanal versus industrial fisheries.

Sylvain Vézina wrapped up the discussions for the day and invited participants back for the Liaison Committee’s second day.

Presentation on the fishing gear project

Gil Thériault gave the presentation.

There were more approved devices, but availability was an issue. There had been some constraints in the experiments:

• Testing started during the fishing season, but it was not a priority for the participating fishers.
• The tests started in the third week of fishing, and since the gear was already at sea, it was difficult to modify.
• The devices should be made available at the end of the fishing season so that they could be installed before the next season.
• Devices had suffered premature wear due to incompatibility with the rocky bottom.

A presentation on the final report for fishers was planned. Several types of authorized devices should be available so that fishers could select the ones best suited to their situation.

Industry questions and comments

Empirical results (interviews with fishers) should also be compiled and shared.

Fishers had been reluctant to participate in the tests; how had they been encouraged to do so?

• Despite their initial resistance, all the fishers were willing participants. They understood the need for the measures and the benefits of better preparation.

Update regarding the coming into force of the MMPA

Todd Williams gave the presentation.

Deferral of enforcement of the regulations. Fisheries with little or no risk of contact with marine mammals would be exempted. The legislation was scheduled to come into force on January 1, 2024. Other so-called exporting fisheries needed further analysis (comparability study with U.S. fisheries).

The required information had been submitted to the NOAA, and DFO was at the question-answering stage. The NOAA was taking a uniform approach to all countries. Comparability did not imply identical measures; different measures might have a comparable effect. If the comparability study was inconclusive, the U.S. market was not automatically closed; there was a grace period.

Industry questions and comments

In the event that a fleet from another region did not take the necessary measures, would all Canadian fleets be impacted by the bans that might be put in place through the MMPA? The measures required would not necessarily be the same in all regions.
Were there any comparisons with other parts of the world? How did Canada’s proactivity rank?

• NOAA was responsible for interpreting and enforcing the MMPA and would decide whether all fleets would be impacted by the non-compliance of some fleets. There was substantial pressure on the NOAA from both environmental NGOs and the fishing industry. DFO was working with all regions to ensure a consistent approach to the extent possible.

Fishers were wondering when they would be informed which fisheries would be exempted.
The list of exempted fisheries was still under development, and fishers would be notified sometime in 2023.
Had phased-in implementation of the MMPA been discussed with the NOAA, or was the 2024 date firm? The legislation was scheduled to come into force on January 1, 2024.

Was there good cooperation between scientists in Canada and other countries, particularly with regard to ropes?

• Canadian and U.S. scientists were discussing various techniques, and some measures would develop over time. Ropeless/rope-on-demand technology would eventually be given priority because it prevents entanglement (the impact of entanglement on whales after they were freed was still unknown).

Would tagging and tracking right whales (300+ individuals) be a better option in view of the impact and cost of the measures in place on the fisheries?

• The idea of tagging right whales would be raised with DFO’s science team. Information about current projects could be shared following the meeting.

Right whale protection measures

Andrea Morden gave the presentation.

The program’s goal was to reduce the impact of fishing on marine mammals. Tools were being developed, but their effectiveness varied with the type of fishing.

Industry questions and comments

Could the opening date of the fishing season be brought forward so that it would precede the arrival of right whales in the area? New Brunswick was doing that, and there were concerns that New Brunswick fishers were gaining an advantage.

• DFO was working on an early opening program. However, even in the absence of ice, safety was still an issue in a context of changeable conditions. The Canadian Coast Guard might not be able to respond. The presence of other marine mammals, not just right whales, also had to be taken into account.

The industry pointed out that vessel speeds had been reduced even though the risk of collisions was low. In its view, 10 knots was too slow.

What was the status of the issue of the growing grey seal population and the MMPA?

• Seal hunting was possible despite the MMPA. This issue was being discussed within DFO.

The industry asked whether gear modification had to do with the MMPA or the Species at Risk Act (SARA). If it was the latter, the deadline could be extended since right whales were not in all regions.
Entanglements were not limited to right whales. There had been 17 confirmed entanglements of different marine mammals, seven of them fatal.

Could an industry representative be present at DFO’s negotiations with the NOAA regarding the MMPA?

DFO’s approach to the findings of international NGOs regarding Canadian fisheries

Todd Williams gave the presentation.

Sales of Canadian lobster did not appear to be affected yet, unlike the Maine market, which might be due to awareness of the effectiveness of Canadian measures.

Industry questions and comments

The industry noted that many organizations in Quebec had responded to the impact of certification on markets, but governments had not.

• The Prime Minister had been made aware of the issues associated with eco-certification, and the situation had been reported in the House of Commons.

The industry pointed out that there were many certifications and that each one had its own requirements and it would be impossible to meet them. Perhaps Canada should introduce one.

• DFO acknowledged that there were many criteria that had to be met for the various certifications. Some certifications were being given priority.

Ghost Gear Fund

Andrea Morden gave the presentation.

Industry questions and comments

Would maps of reported lost gear in each fishing zone be available?

Could the December 28 deadline for submitting projects be extended?

Presentation on the lost gear retrieval project

Claudio Bernatchez gave the presentation.

A grappling system had been developed. One of the challenges was to find the gear using the reported data, as it could have moved with the currents.

Industry questions and comments

What were the costs of a gear retrieval trip?

• The cost of a one-day retrieval trip had been about $4,500, but the estimate had been raised to $5,500 because of fuel costs.

Fishers said that current regulations preventing them from bringing back to the dock what they recovered on a fishing trip should be amended.

• A regulatory review was underway, and the recovery of lost gear was a departmental priority. A pilot project was currently underway in the Arctic.

How was recovered gear characterized?

• Recovered gear was identified and reported through the DFO system and tracked by the fisher to whom it belonged. Retrieval and disposal of gear remained a challenge.

General update on the Species at Risk Act

Jean-Michel Poulin gave the presentation.

Industry questions and comments

What was the status of witch flounder under the SARA?

The industry noted that critical habitat for listed species must be considered.

• Consultations were being held with the industry to identify critical habitats for species.

Monitoring of marine conservation activities

Alain Guitard and Jean Picard gave the presentation.

The focus was on collaboration between the industry and DFO for the establishment of marine protected areas (MPAs) in Quebec. Maritime sector workshops would be held through to March 31, 2023, to determine the industry’s needs through a participatory process.

Industry questions and comments

The industry said there was a lack of trust in DFO when it came to fishing in MPAs. There was concern that access to important fisheries funds would be restricted. Citations had been issued as a result of fishing operations in the Banc-des-Américains MPA.

• The Banc-des-Américains is an MPA with its own regulations, which prohibit all fishing operations with some exceptions. Traps, longlines or handlines were allowed outside the ridge.

Listing of the blue whale under the SARA, which would come with constraints, had been underway for five years. DFO needed to be transparent with fishers about the measures that would be put in place.

• For the blue whale, the determination of its critical habitat was currently under review. The industry would be consulted at that stage.

The establishment of MPAs in Quebec, the identification of critical habitats of species at risk, and measures affecting the fishing industry should be brought up at the Liaison Committee’s next meeting.

Fishers said that they were aware that measures were needed and that habitat protection was essential. Good management enabled coexistence.

Magdalen Islands fishers said that the slow pace of administrative change was an issue, because it was unable to keep up with rapid environmental change.

Status of groundfish and northern shrimp stocks

Hugo Bourdages gave the presentation.

The Laurentian Channel was warming rapidly.

• Northern Gulf cod appeared to be making a gradual comeback.
• The 2018 cohort was promising, but a number of cohorts of that size would be needed to rebuild stocks.
• Significant decrease in shrimp biomass since 2005.
• There was local migration near the cold intermediate layer.
• Four- to five-week change in spawning time to coordinate with phytoplankton bloom in the spring.

Industry questions and comments

The sentinel cod fishery had not been conducted on traditional fishing grounds, and therefore cod were not likely to be present. The protocol should have been adjusted.

• There were currently two sentinel fishing programs in the northern Gulf (mobile and fixed). The industry was satisfied with that approach to stock assessment.

The bycatch/incidental catch section in the logbooks was not in all fisheries. How were quantities estimated? And how were the data being used?

• Bycatch data for shrimp were from the At-Sea Observer Program or the Dockside Monitoring Program. The data were mainly useful for eco-certification.

Discussion on the future of the fisheries

Claudio Bernatchez initiated a discussion on the future of the fisheries.

General findings were presented under three main themes.

Possible prevention vs. support actions for fisheries in difficulty

Prevention: Potential solutions

• Innovations
• Identify new ways of fishing
• Define a vision
• Greater flexibility in institutional decision-making
• Build on lived experiences and resilience

Focus on product quality (niche products) rather than volume of landings

• Increase variety
• Explore the feasibility of retaining bycatch (challenge discarding at sea)

Greater cooperation within the industry

• Find common ground between fishers and fisheries
• Think about forming a strong alliance of fishers (currently, large number of fishers’ associations, organizations with different missions, etc.)
• Possibility of resource sharing within the industry (in the context of moratoriums)

Promotion of Quebec fishing and seafood products

• Adopt a global strategy (transformation, publicity); try to change eating habits
• Increase the fishing industry’s presence in major international forums
• Work on the fishing industry’s public image (advertising, eco-certification)
• Establish a Canadian eco-certification
• Promote the fishing industry’s role in food self-sufficiency

How to emphasize product quality and not volume in fisheries by developing niche markets

• In France, independent inshore fishermen land four to six species, particularly to avoid wasting incidental catch. Plants would be required to accept incidental catch.
• Industry discussion on the consumption of local products and waste was needed.

Fishing was an environmentally responsible way to feed the planet, but had an image problem that must be addressed. The Canadian industry should unite and get the message out through advertising, promotion of eco-certifications, a modern image, influencers, etc. The data being disseminated were old and outdated.

The industry needed to organize at the regional/provincial or even national level. Consultations for individual fisheries were not necessarily the best way.

The industry needed to recognize the hard knocks of the past, be resilient, and build relationships between fishers and fisheries.

A Canadian food strategy should be developed to educate people about Canadian marine products and promote greater domestic consumption.

• MAPAQ said that there had been improvements in Quebec, but that significant changes were needed. For example, there had been shellfish promotion initiatives.

The year 2022 had been a record year in terms of value, but also a difficult year for a number of fleets (Crab 12A and 12B, shrimp boats, etc.). The industry was looking at how to ensure better sharing and what types of alternatives could be adopted.

Conclusions (including action items)

Judy Doré presented the action items for DFO to work on (see attached Action Item Tracking document for details).

Sylvain Vézina wrapped up the meeting by wishing everyone a safe journey home.