Minutes of the meeting held on December 7, 8 and 9, 2021 (online)

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
INTERSECTORAL ASSOCIATIONS
Alliance des pêcheurs professionnels du Québec (APPQ)	O’Neil Cloutier	8-9	7
Fédération des pêcheurs semi-hauturiers du Québec (FPSHQ)	Daniel Desbois	7-9	8
Gaspé–Lower St. Lawrence Area
Regroupement des pécheurs professionnels du Sud de la Gaspésie (RPPSG)	O’Neil Cloutier	8-9	7
Regroupement des pêcheurs professionnels du Nord de la Gaspésie (RPPNG)	Jean-René Boucher	7-8-9
Association des capitaines-propriétaires de la Gaspésie (ACPG)	Claudio Bernatchez	7-8-9
Association des morutiers traditionnels de la Gaspésie (AMTG)	Michel Syvrais	7-8-9
Association des crabiers gaspésiens	Daniel Desbois	7-9	8
Association des pêcheurs de crabe de la zone 17 (APCZ17)	René Landry	7-8-9
Magdalen Islands Area
Association des pêcheurs propriétaires des Îles-de-la-Madeleine (APPIM)	Mario Déraspe	7-8-9
Regroupement des palangriers et pétoncliers uniques madelinots (RPPUM)	Pierre Chevrier		7-8-9
Regroupement des pêcheurs professionnels des Îles-de-la-Madeleine (RPPIM)	Marcel Cormier		7-8-9
Groupe de pêcheurs de la zone F inc. (GPZF)	Merrielle Ouellet	7-9	8
Rassemblement des pêcheurs et pêcheuses des côtes des Îles (RPPCÎ)	Charles Poirier	7-8-9
Association of the Inshore Fishermen of the Magdalen Islands (AIF)	David Burke	7	8-9
North Shore Area
Association des pêcheurs de la Basse Côte-Nord (APBCN)	Paul Nadeau	7-8-9
Regroupement des pêcheurs professionnels de la Haute et Moyenne Côte-Nord (RPPHMCN)	Pierre Barriault (in replacement of Frank Dubé)	7-8-9
Comité de cogestion de la zone 16 inc. (CCZ16)	Guy Vigneault (in replacement of Serge Poirier)	7-9	8
INDIGENOUS ORGANIZATIONS
Wolastoqiyik (Maliseet) Wahsipekuk First Nation	Guy-Pascal Weiner	7	8-9
Council of the Innu of Pakua Shipi	Gervais Mallek		7-8-9
Community of Ekuanitshit (Pêcheries Shipek)	Guy Vigneault	7-9	8
Innu Takuaikan Uashat mak Mani-Utenam (Pêcheries Uapan S.E.C.)	Yan Tremblay	7-8-9
Council of the Innus of Pessamit	Majoric Pinette	7-8-9
Micmacs of Gesgapegiag	Christina Burnsed	7-8-9
Micmac Nation of Gespeg	Johanne Basque	7-8	9
Council of the Innu of Nutashkuan	Pierre Wapistan		7-8-9
Council of the Innu of Unamen Shipu	Alexi Lalo		7-8-9
Listuguj Mi’gmaq Government	James Metallic-Sloan		7-8-9
Council of the Innu First Nation of Essipit	Pierre Léonard	7-8-9
Observers
Association de gestion halieutique autochtone Mi’gmaq et Malécite (AGHAMM)	Catherine Lambert-Koizumi	7-8-9
Agence Mamu Innu Kaikusshet (AMIK)	Benoit Sioui	7-8-9
Mi'gmawei Mawiomi Secretariat	Tanya Barnaby		7-8-9
PORT AUTHORITIES
Port Authority Representative	Pierre Léonard	7-8-9
DFO
Standing members
Regional Director General	Sylvain Vézina	7-8-9
Regional Director, Fisheries Management Branch	Maryse Lemire	7-8-9
Area Director – Gaspé-Lower St. Lawrence	Érick Saint-Laurent	7-8-9
Area Director – North Shore	Andrew Rowsell	7-8-9
Area Director – Magdalen Islands	Cédric Arseneau	7-8-9
Casual members (as needed, depending on the items discussed)
Regional Director, Small Craft Harbours	Boussaad Akrour		7-8-9
Regional Director, Science	Jean-Yves Savaria		7-8-9
Regional Director, Ecosystems Management Branch	Nicole Bouchard		7-8-9
Presenters
Director, Resource Management, Aquaculture and Indigenous Affairs	Jean Picard	7-8-9
Principal regional agent	Magalie Hardy	7	8-9
Principal regional agent	Jean-Michel Poulin	7	8-9
Regional officer – Fisheries Management and Aquaculture	Rémi Brine	7	8-9
Interim Senior Policy Advisor	Florence Boucher-Boisclair	7-8	9
Head of law enforcement operations, Conservation and Protection	Sébastien Beauchamp	8	7-9
Senior Officer, Whales team – National Programs / Fisheries Resource Management	Catherine Merriman	9	7-8
Scientific researcher	Edward Trippel	9	7-8
Manager, Quebec Fisheries Fund	Julie Lavallée	9	7-8
Interim coordinator for technological affairs	Yvonne Quirk	9	7-8
Manager – Fisheries interation and applied analysis	Mark Ledwell	9	7-8
Acting Manager, Policies and Harmonization, Resource Management and Aquaculture Division (Regional Fisheries Management Branch)	Bernard Morin	7-8-9
DFO Observers
Associate Regional Director General, Quebec Region	David Rochette	7-8	9
Manager – Indigenous Affairs	Sarah Larochelle		7-8-9
Acting Manager – Statistics and Licensing	Natacha Canuel	7-8-9
Director – Conservation and Protection	Yves Richard		7-8-9
Manager, Strategic Services	Evelyne Dufault	7-8-9
Regional Manager – Licensing	Valérie Leblanc	8	7-9
Senior Communications Advisor	Ariane Charette	7-8-9
Executive Assistant, Fisheries Management Regional Director	Véronic Lavoie	7-8-9
Regional agent	Thierry Marcoux	7-8-9
Interim regional agent	Dominic Cyr	7-8-9
Regional Manager, Port Development, Small Craft Harbours	Anouk Desjeans	7-8-9
MAPAQ
Director – Fisheries and Aquaculture Policy and Analysis Directorate	Denis Simard		7-8-9
Intergovernmental Coordinator and Policy and Programs Advisor	Rabia Sow	7-8-9
EXTERNAL OBSERVERS
	Paolo Gionet (RPPHMCN)	7-8-9
	Curtis Stubbert (APBCN)	7-9	8

 

Items

Opening Remarks

Maryse Lemire welcomed the participants.

Sylvain Vézina introduced himself as the new Regional Director General for the Quebec Region and presented a review of Quebec’s fisheries.

Follow-up on Action Items

Jean Picard introduced himself and followed-up on the actions items (issues) that had been listed in the follow-up table from the two previous Liaison Committee meetings in 2020 and 2019.

Only two issues remained: Regional Guidance for ITQ Program Management and the residency criterion. The residency criterion would be addressed at that Liaison Committee meeting.

Sustainable Fisheries Framework Work Plan

Magalie Hardy made the presentation.

Industry questions and comments

• Some Integrated Fisheries Management Plans (IFMPs) had been made a long time ago; as result, certain aspects of the precautionary approach would have to be reviewed, including the Limit Reference Point (LRP) and the Upper Stock Reference (USR) of area 22 lobster, whose stock status had changed significantly in recent years.
• The precautionary approaches would have to be adjusted according to the productivity regimes.
• Even though Newfoundland and Labrador was leading the work, Quebec would have to be part of the committee / working group working on capelin, since Quebec fishers were affected by this fishery.

The IFMPs and precautionary approaches would eventually be reviewed in order to consider the stock status changes. 

Codfish work plan 3On4RS: The industry would be notified once the working group was established. 

A follow-up would be done to ensure that Quebec’s harvesting industry could participate in the work on the capelin. 

Update on the Marine Mammal Protection Act – NOAA Comparability Findings and Decision-Making Schedule

Jean-Michel Poulin presented updates on the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA).

Industry questions and comments

• Some fisheries, such as the lobster fisheries around Brion Island, were heavily affected by groups of seals around vessels. Considering that they were no longer permitted to kill or even disturb these seals, what alternatives would fishers have to ensure safe fishing? Would it be possible to obtain a written document from the MMPA stating that it was possible to accept a certain % of some marine mammal bycatches (e.g. seals), given the state of their population?
• All the adaptations discussed were to accommodate the American market. Working on developing other markets was also important.
• The measures for right whales and other marine mammals were becoming very demanding and concerning. It would be important to ensure that the measures that would be required are adapted to the different conditions of each fishing area (current, hydrology, etc.) and the presence/absence of right whales or other marine mammals. The measures in place should not hamper the fishing activities or result in the loss of gear (ghost fishing). A portrait of applicable measures in other countries would also have to be obtained.

Lost gear reporting system

Rémi Brine made the presentation.

Industry questions and comments

• Was it mandatory to report all lost gear, such as a single lobster trap? Via the online system? It would be difficult to report this while at sea, particularly in difficult weather conditions.
• Would the system be compatible with / integrated into JOBEL?
• Was the system effective for food, social and ceremonial (FSC) fishing?
• It was hoped that DFO would take care of presenting this new system to fishers and not rely on the associations to share the information.

Reporting was already mandatory, but using the online system was optional. It could only be used with an Internet connection, so it was not always usable at sea. An application with an offline function was being developed and was to be integrated into JOBEL. 

Mandatory reporting applied only to commercial fisheries, but proactively reporting all losses was encouraged since the system permitted it. 

Update on projects funded by the Ghost Gear Program

Florence Boucher-Boisclair presented an update on the projects funded in the Quebec Region.

Industry questions and comments

• The weak link projects with funding could mean more lost gear. How would this issue be addressed?
• A $20M fund had been mentioned for measures regarding the North Atlantic right whale. Did this fund include gear retrieval projects?
• The industry was concerned that the amount of lost gear could increase significantly with the installation of weak links.

These questions would be dealt with in subsequent presentations. 

DFO shared their concerns about the increase in ghost gear. Small group discussions with various associations were expected in order to address the particularities in different fishing areas.

Report on the implementation of changes to the Atlantic Fishery Regulations

Florence Boucher-Boisclair made the presentation.

Industry questions and comments

• How far does “family member” extend for the purposes of interpreting the Regulations?

It includes close family (children, parents, brothers, sisters, spouse), and the spouse’s close family. Family members did not have the right to vote.

Update on the rules for vessel replacement – inshore vessel fleet – DFO analysis

Florence Boucher-Boisclair made the presentation.

Industry questions and comments

• Would the capacity of port authorities be taken into account in the Vessel Replacement Rules update? The port authorities’ capacity would be taken into account in the analysis and recommendations provided to management.
• Some associations, including the RPPSG and the APBCN, would have liked to have more details about the consultation process. A broader consultation of fishers should be considered.
• The trend seemed to be towards the disappearance of vessels under 49’11”, which created tensions for that fleet.
• Some unfavourable economic conditions, such as declining turbot quotas, should have also been considered.
• Fleet viability should have been taken into account. For example, a new vessel would incur lower maintenance costs.
• What would the timeline be for a response to the industry’s proposal?
• Vessel preparation required a lot of time, it was important to obtain a quick response (before the following Liaison Committee meeting) in order to be prepared for the 2023 season. Dialogue with the other fleets would have to be maintained because the results of the analysis should be transferable from one fleet to the other.
• Would the decision apply to fleets other than the three ITQ programs that made the request? It should be applicable to other fleets fishing for the same species in the same areas (e.g. 4RST). A region that was already disadvantaged by its port structures should not be put at a disadvantage. An application for the same species and fishing areas as those currently under analysis should yield similar and equitable results. Case-by-case analyses were concerning because they could lead to situations of discrimination.

The department must have received the recommendations of the other ministries and DFO branches, have analyzed the repercussions of the Quebec region's decision on the other DFO regions and have conducted broader consultations with the other associations in the region, before being able to make a decision.

Residency criterion: Industry recommendations

Florence Boucher-Boisclair presented the Quebec fishing industry’s recommendations related to the work of the Liaison Sub-Committee on the residency criterion.

Industry questions and comments

• The intersectoral freeze was problematic because it was preventing significant transactions. It was necessary to move forward quickly.
• There was a specific case in Gaspé where a fisher would be selling their business to the bank if it was not possible to sell to a Magdalen Islands fisher quickly. This demonstrated the need to act quickly.
• The Lower North Shore (LNS) did not want to impose its position on the other areas but did not want to have the entire region’s restrictions imposed on it. It wanted to be able to determine its own residency criteria. The LNS was in favour of a freeze until a final result on the residency criterion was presented by DFO. The LNS was losing lucrative licences (e.g. six out of seven shrimp licences). Some fishers did not even announce the sale of licences in the region, so that it was impossible for local fishers to make an offer. The already fragile region was dependent on fishing. It would be useful to give priority to fishers on the LNS, then the Upper and Middle North Shore (UMNS) and, lastly, to the other marine areas. The LNS was not against a subdivision of areas based on residency criteria.
• The UMNS agreed to keep the current residency criteria (intersectoral freeze) while waiting for the final decision.
• It was important that it was not a one-size-fits-all decision, but that it be tailored to the situation of each fleet/region and could be modified at any time.
• An analysis of the number of licences coming from the regions and their importance would be conducted.
• DFO-GLSL: The consultation on the residency criteria in Gaspé–Lower St. Lawrence had determined that it was important to validate how First Nations were affected by this issue. In general, it had also been determined that there were no major issues in Gaspé, and that the region wanted a free market, with the possibility of adjustments in the event of a critical situation, which would involve monitoring licence movements.
• DFO-NS: The consultation on the NS’s residency criteria had not ended with a final decision/recommendation. Because of the size of the territory, it was difficult to consult all the stakeholders in one meeting. Instead, it had been determined that a working committee of fishers should be established (DFO would act as a facilitator) to provide a position before the start of the fishing season. Consultations with First Nations were also to be planned, but they were also waiting to know if the residency criterion applied to the commercial communal licences.
• DFO-MI: As for the Magdalen Islands, a one-size-fits all criterion would not be satisfactory, nor was the current freeze. Fishers did not consider that the residency criterion should apply to stocks harvested in the whole Gulf, such as tuna or Atlantic halibut. For more local catches like area 22 lobster, fishers would continue to contribute to the Islands’ economy, in spite of the lifting of the intersectoral freeze. Magdalen Islands fishers were therefore more inclined to an open market, but with reciprocity agreements between certain fleets.
• The GLSL and Magdalen Islands area positions were similar. Would it be possible to have criteria in one region but not in the others? Why wait for several more months with a intersectoral freeze before making a decision?

Fisheries Monitoring Policy: Policy presentation

Magalie Hardy made the presentation.

Industry questions and comments

• It was a complex policy, not to be confused with fishery monitoring by the Conservation and Protection Division or other DFO programs.
• Was the precautionary approach to be applied in all fisheries? Would it replace current management/monitoring measures?
• It would be helpful if the fishery monitoring costs were not all industry fees.
• With the accumulation of conservation measures and unrealistic schedules, small associations were running out of steam. They were aware that there was a need for oversight but wanted less red tape.
• A table presenting the various monitoring, protection, conservation and follow-up measures for the fleets would be useful. It would also be important to know who was responsible for implementing the DFO Fisheries Monitoring Policy.

The precautionary approach was a commitment made by the Canadian government and would apply to all the main stock (including snow crab). LRP and USR proposals would come in 2022–2023 and would eventually replace the costing methodologies of the current removal levels.

Review of at-sea observer coverage for the 2021 season

Sébastien Beauchamp made the presentation.

Industry questions and comments:

• There were no questions or comments.

Update on ongoing projects on fishing gear modification to reduce the risk of entanglement

Edward Trippel and Catherine Merriman made their presentations.

Industry questions and comments:

• What was the deadline for submitting projects to the Whalesafe Gear Adoption Fund? It was unfortunate that so much funding had already been set aside after only a short round of calls for proposals.
• There were concerns about the timing of the Fund in 2022. With the holiday period, the industry would have a short turnaround time to submit proposals.

The deadline for the Fund’s second round was January 2022. A significant part of the second round envelope has already been reserved for first-round proposals spread over two years. As a result, less than $10M was available for this Fund.

• It would be important that tests be conducted in all kinds of areas and hydrological conditions to represent the different fishery areas.
• The longevity of the ropes with weak links would have to be studied, because the replacement cost would be significant if they had to be replaced frequently.
• It was important to present a portrait of all the measures for the North Atlantic right whale.
• It seemed unrealistic that the gear would be ready to be integrated into the industry in 2023. There were too many uncertainties and the fishers would not agree to use these technologies if there was any risk of not recovering the fishing gear.
• The fishing season in Canada period is very short compared with the US and capacity must not be lost because of lost gear.
• More attention must be given to fishers and an extension of the current 2023 deadline should be requested, since they are very concerned about this timetable, which was deemed unacceptable.
• Further information on the trials conducted was required (what conditions, what type of seabeds, with what vessels, how much gear was lost, etc.).
• The current size of the ropes for lobster in the Magdalen Islands was already limited. Weaker ropes would result in further losses just through regular fishing.
• Other environmental aspects of applying these measures should be considered (e.g. impact on biodiversity, GHG emissions).
• Tests to date had been inconclusive, except perhaps for those on the submersible buoys. The current equipment was not suitable.
• A “double-threshold” system that had worked well in the laboratory should be tested.
• It should be evaluated whether fishing even earlier in spring would help avoid the North Atlantic right whales. Opening the snow crab fishery as soon as the ice has melted in the Gulf and no longer be at the mercy of the Gulf Region.
• There was a need to lobby or validate this with US restaurant owners and distributors as these changes would have a significant and detrimental impact on their supplies. It was necessary to develop the Canadian market to reduce the dependency on the US market.
• It was necessary to look at the big picture and evaluate the impact of traffic in the Gulf on the behaviour of North Atlantic right whales. Do they end up in the fishing areas trying to avoid the traffic corridor of large vessels crossing the St. Lawrence?

Quebec Fisheries Fund – Summary of results

Julie Lavallée made the presentation.

Industry questions and comments:

• How many projects had been presented to the Quebec Fisheries Fund (QFF) since the program had been established?

Approximately 130 proposals had been submitted since the QFF’s inception.

Electronic logbook: Implementation update

Mark Ledwell made the presentation.

Industry questions and comments

• Would dockside monitoring be included in the electronic logbook (ELOG)? Would this include an automatic departure system?
• What about the security of metadata generated by the application? Since DFO was working with private companies for the applications, would the data be on private servers? Would it be possible to establish a working group with fishers and jurists to discuss this important point?
• It also seemed that a consultation step between fishers and the developers was missing at the second phase of the iterative development cycle. A consultation should be held, especially to harmonize the declarations nationally. It would be important to have the contact information for the leads in each region.
• It was difficult to know who to talk to at DFO when there were issues with JOBEL, for example, the loss of some travel data.
• Would the ELOG be mandatory for shrimp during the next fishing season? Shrimpers were having problems with the ELOG.
• Would commercial fishing data be published for April 2022? What would the requirements be for the commercial fisheries in spring 2022?

The dockside monitoring aspect was being considered, but it was not a priority for the application currently being developed.

The technical forms would be published in the spring of 2022 to help the developers create applications. 

The harvests for which the ELOG was currently mandatory remained. It is a progressive approach. The goal was 2024 for all fisheries.

Other business

Status of implementation of marine protected areas (MPAs)

• DFO: Work was still under way; conservation measures were being developed with the Government of Quebec. Fishers would be informed when there was new information on the topic.
• Industry: It was concerning that there was still no update on this subject. Going from 10% to 25% was a big step. Fishers should be consulted sooner rather than later in this work.
• Since the St. Lawrence estuary was considered a potential MPA, it would be important to have news from the Bilateral Group on Marine Protected Areas (BGMPA). The provincial and federal governments would also have to work less in silos.

Summary of action items

Bernard Morin read the summary of action items from the 2021 Liaison Committee meeting.

Industry questions and comments

• The industry wished to be consulted regarding the data fields in the modules for each species. A follow-up with the Director General of Fisheries about the ELOG problems had been requested.

Vision of the Fishing industry in Canada

• It would be important that the Government of Canada invest in the image of fisheries in Canada, in demonstrating the efforts that had been made since the groundfish moratorium to show Canadians and the rest of the world that the industry was ecoresponsible.

Closing remarks

Sylvain Vézina and Maryse Lemire thanked participants and wished them happy holidays and hoped that the 2022 meeting would be in person and not virtual.