Minutes of the meeting held in Quebec City on December 3 and 4, 2019

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-INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION
Alliance des pêcheurs professionnels du Québec (APPQ)	Clovis Poirier Frank Dubé	X	X
Fédération des pêcheurs semi-hauturiers du Québec (FPSHQ)	Réginald Cotton		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 Mario Dupuis	X	X
Association des capitaines-propriétaires de la Gaspésie (ACPG)	Vincent Dupuis	X
Association des morutiers traditionnels de la Gaspésie	Michel Syvrais Marc Diotte		X X
Association des crabiers gaspésiens	Daniel Desbois	X
Association des pêcheurs de crabe de la zone 17 (APCZ17)	René Landry	X
Magdalen Islands Area
Association des pêcheurs propriétaires des Îles-de-la-Madeleine (APPIM)	Mario Déraspe Paul Boudreau	X	X
Regroupement des palangriers et pétoncliers uniques madelinots (RPPUM)	Pierre Chevrier		X
Regroupement des pêcheurs professionnels des Îles-de-la-Madeleine (RPPIM)	Marcel Cormier Jocelyn Thériault		X X
Groupe de pêcheurs de la zone F inc. (GPZF)	Bruno-Pierre Bourque		X
Rassemblement des pêcheurs et pêcheuses des côtes des Îles (RPPCÎ)	Charles Poirier	X
North Shore Area
Association des pêcheurs de la Basse Côte-Nord (APBCN)	Paul Nadeau	X
Regroupement des pêcheurs professionnels de la Haute et Moyenne Côte-Nord (RPPHMCN)	Clovis Poirier Frank Dubé	X	X
Comité de cogestion de la zone 16 inc. (CCZ16)	Serge Poirier	X
INDIGENOUS ORGANIZATIONS
Maliseet Community of Viger	Pierre Jenniss	X
Innu Community of Pakua Shipu	Gervais Mallek		X
Community of Ekuanitshit	Guy Vigneault	X
Innu Community of Uashat mak Mani-Utenam	Yan Tremblay	X
Innu Council of Pessamit	Majoric Pinette	X
Community of Gesgapegiag	Christina Burnsed	X
Community of Gespeg	Johanne Basque	X
Community of Nutashquan	Pierre Wapistan	X
Community of Unamen Shipu	Alexi Lalo		X
Listuguj Mi’gmaq First Nation	James Metallic-Sloan Denny Isaac Emmanuel Sandt-Duguay (delegate)	X	X X
Council of the Innu First Nation of Essipit	Pierre Léonard	X
PORT AUTHORITIES
Council of the Innu of Essipit	Pierre Léonard	X
DFO
Standing members
Regional Director General	Patrick Vincent	X
Regional Director, Fisheries Management Branch	Maryse Lemire		X
Regional Policies and Harmonization Manager	Jean Picard	X
Resource Management and Aquaculture Division (Regional Fisheries Management Branch)	Judy Doré	X
Strategic Services	Evelyne Dufault	X
Area Director – Gaspé-Lower St. Lawrence	Érick Saint-Laurent	X
Area Director – North Shore	Andrew Rowsell	X
Area Director – Magdalen Islands	Cédric Arseneau	X
Casual members (as needed, depending on the items discussed)
Regional Director, Small Craft Harbours	Bernard Beaudoin		X
Regional Director, Science	Jean-Yves Savaria		X
Regional Director, Regional Ecosystems Management Branch	Nicole Bouchard		X
Presenters
	Érik Arsenault (December 3)	X
	Élaine Bouchard (December 4)	X
	Antoine Rivierre (December 3)	X
	Bernard Morin (December 4)	X
	Jacinthe Beauchamp (December 4)	X
	Rodolph Balej (MELCC) (December 4)	X
	Maxime Lévesque (SLGO) (December 4)	X
Observers
	Pascale Fortin	X
	Jordan Ouellette-Plante	X
	Josiane Mélançon (December 4)	X
	Natacha Tanguay	X
	Jean-Michel Poulin (December 3)	X
	Valérie Leblanc (December 3)	X
	Mathieu Pellerin	X
MAPAQ
Standing member	Denis Desrosiers	X
Casual member (as needed, depending on the items discussed)	Rabia Sow	X
EXTERNAL OBSERVERS
	Serge Langelier (AMIK)	X
	Curtis Steward (APBCN)	X
	Denis Cormier (RPPCI)	X
	Léona Renaud (RPPCI)	X
	Marie-Josée Gionet (CCZ16)	X
	Paolo Gionet (RPPHMCN)	X
	Kerry-Ann Taylor (AMIK)	X
	Curstis Stubbert (APBCN)	X
	Joel Berthelot (RPPSG)	X

Items

Opening remarks

Patrick Vincent made the opening remarks of the meeting. He said that the Speech from the Throne would take place that coming Thursday and that the new minister’s mandate letter had not yet been received. As a result, DFO’s priorities could not be presented that day.

Patrick Vincent specified that three item categories would remain at the forefront:

Commercial fisheries

• Sustainability (precautionary approaches and developing ecosystem-based approaches);
• Protecting market access (protecting marine mammals, particularly the right whale, remained a priority to protect market access). The minister would be briefed in January on management measures for 2020;
• Implementing the new Fisheries Act (C-68);
• Joint DFO-MAPAQ committee for the Quebec Fisheries Fund (QFF). 26 projects submitted, which was a very small number compared to the available funds;
• Aquaculture and protecting salmon.

Protecting the marine environment

• Marine Protected Areas (MPAs): potential targets of 25% for the marine environment by 2025 and 30% by 2030.
• Applying the Fisheries Act to protect fish habitat

Indigenous relations

• Continuing negotiations to implement (or update) treaties.
• Fostering relationships with First Nations by giving them more autonomy (managing their own harvesting plans and fishing licences).
• Developing communication plans between Indigenous and non-Indigenous fishers.

Patrick Vincent provided an overview of the agenda and asked for comments.

Questions/Comments

• Paul Nadeau (APBCN) asked whether they were talking about a target of 25% by 2025 for MPAs and said that this was the first time that the industry had heard about it. This could raise a number of socio-economic concerns, and the industry would need to be consulted.
• Patrick Vincent said that obviously this was an ambitious goal. The objective was contained in the Liberal election platform, and they would have to wait for the mandate letter to know what the new government’s objectives were.
• O’Neil Cloutier (RPPSG) wanted to add an item to Other business, specifically Indigenous reconciliation and industry-department relations.

Follow-up on action items

Jean Picard gave a quick overview of the action items from the previous meeting and said that they would be forwarded by email to Liaison Committee members:

• Information on the proposed Manicouagan aquatic reserve;
• Reintroducing a fishery in MPAs.

Judy Doré stated that the other action items that had been identified had been carried out during the year.

Liaison subcommittee

Judy Doré introduced herself and said that her role included organizing the Liaison Committee and subcommittee. She said that DFO wanted to review the terms of reference, which had not been updated since the Committee was created.

Liaison subcommittee

• Clarify the role of the liaison subcommittee. There seemed to be an interest in DFO and industry working together to advance various issues through this forum. The subcommittee could identify issues and solutions to present to the liaison committee.
• Format: smaller working group and increased meeting frequency. Industry could be more involved in developing the Committee’s meeting agendas.
• Forum that would allow both DFO and industry to suggest items to be addressed.

Judy Doré encouraged the industry to provide comments to DFO and said that details on the subcommittee would be provided to the Committee at a later date.

Questions/Comments

• Paul Nadeau (APBCN) suggested that subcommittee meetings be held by conference call to limit costs since the various stakeholders all knew each other.
• Some members asked about the makeup of the subcommittee. Judy Doré clarified that subcommittee participants had not yet been identified.
• René Landry (APCZ17) pointed out that participants had been identified 2–3 years earlier and that the Liaison Committee’s mandate should be to help fishers.
• Guy Vigneault (Ekuanitshit) specified that the industry was awaiting several developments that could have positive impacts for the industry (e.g. developing the lobster fishery in the North Shore Area).

Industry item: Regional differences in certain conservation and enforcement measures

Paul Nadeau (AFBCN) made a presentation on some regional/area differences in conservation and enforcement measures:

Crab trap tags (annual vs. permanent)

• In Newfoundland, there are no tags on crab traps.
• Annual tags are less effective in terms of cost and the waste generated.
• Recommendation to be able to use permanent “turbot bell’’ tags instead of annual ones.

Vessel Monitoring System (VMS)

• Inconsistency between measurement frequency in the Quebec (15-min intervals) and Newfoundland (1-hour intervals) regions: significant difference in costs and difficulty controlling Newfoundland vessels engaged in fishing close to area boundaries that sometimes enter Quebec waters;
• To the knowledge of APBCN fishers, the hourly signal did not provide adequate monitoring to protect our crab fishing areas, and fishers from Newfoundland and Labrador had already been apprehended there.
• Recommendation to standardize management measures using a 15-minute signal, especially for adjacent fishing areas.

Dockside weighing

• Limited landed volumes on the Lower North Shore, made it difficult for a dockside monitoring company to be profitable.
• In Newfoundland: random dockside weighing system.
• Recommendation to apply such a system on the Lower North Shore.

Monofilament netting

• In the Gaspé region and Magdalen Islands: exception to allow the use of monofilament nets.
• Using this type of net could help reduce the cost of supplying bait fish to APBCN fishers.
• Recommendation that this exception also be applied to the North Shore.

Following this presentation, some participants also noted discrepancies between the costs of licences for the same species depending on the licensing area (e.g. lobster in the Magdalen Islands).

• Érik Arsenault stated that rates are set through regulations, which complicates making a change. The industry must continue to reiterate its position so that changes can be made.
• Cédric Arseneau indicated that the fee is based on the fishing area as well as on the amount of gear. Regulatory change is complicated because it affects the entire Atlantic (pan-Atlantic consultation would be required).
• Mario Déraspe (APPIM) said that fees were determined based on the gross income of fishers, whereas the industry asked to consider net income. This proposal was not considered at the time.

Érik Arsenault stated that DFO would provide a written response regarding the four items discussed and that the subcommittee could serve as a forum to address these items and identify some potential solutions.

Right whales – Season review, roundtable results and discussion

Antoine Rivierre provided an update on management measures to minimize the risk of interacting with right whales and summarized the events of the 2019 season:

• Monitoring: greater concentrations of whales observed in the southern Gulf, but some variation outside that area. No sightings at certain locations was no guarantee that there were no whales at those locations;
• In 2019: whale sightings in the static area beginning in June;
• 8 deaths (including 5 necropsies) and 3 entanglements in Canadian waters in 2019. No necropsies for 3 whales for logistical reasons. The 5 necropsies showed no obvious signs of mortality due to fishing activities.
• Management measures for 2020 would take into account the high risk of a ban on the import of seafood products from Canada to the United States.
• Innovation for fishing gear was supported by DFO and included two avenues for development, namely avoiding entanglements and reducing their severity.
• Recommendation of right whale management measures to the minister in early 2020.

Patrick Vincent reviewed various possible management measures raised at previous meetings and encouraged the industry to send in their comments.

Avoidance measures

• Using only dynamic closure areas instead and eliminating the static area. The dynamic protocol would be applied to the entire Gulf;
• Opening the Area 12 crab fishery early to ensure that fishing activities take place as much as possible before the right whales arrive. The protocol for opening this fishery was being updated. The Coast Guard was working on a contract with a third party for icebreaking in New Brunswick ports;

Measures to reduce the severity of entanglements

• Possibility of testing beginning this year with gear without ropes and gear with ropes with a maximum diameter of 5/8” and with weak net systems;
• Maintaining the requirement to report lost gear;
• Possibility of requiring leaded ropes for bottom lines in the lobster fishery.

Transport Canada (TC) was also conducting analyses on vessel speed reduction measures.

Questions/Comments

• Mario Déraspe (APPIM) asked if it was possible to say whether the deaths of the 3 whales that had not been necropsied were related to an entanglement.
• Antoine Rivierre said that only a necropsy can definitively determine cause of death or at least eliminate potential causes. DFO’s position with respect to the right whale that had died in U.S. waters as a result of entanglement in Canadian waters was that it was impossible to prove a causal link between the entanglement and the death (no rope attached to the whale).

CANADA–U.S. COMMUNICATIONS

• Several stakeholders asked about communications between the Canadian and American governments. They wondered whether DFO was putting enough effort into conveying the industry’s efforts to help protect the right whale.
• Antoine Rivierre mentioned that DFO was well aware of the industry’s efforts and that this message was conveyed during bilateral meetings (e.g. meeting between the assistant deputy minister and her American counterparts).
• Paul Nadeau (APBCN) asked if documents showing such exchanges could be shared with industry, and suggested that an industry representative could participate in discussions with the U.S. He also asked whether the list of U.S. management measures could be accessed.
• Antoine Rivierre said that all American measures were available online. All their measures were summarized in the take reduction plans of each state concerned.
• Yan Tremblay (Uashat) said that it would be worthwhile to have a comparison of Canadian and American management measures, both for fisheries (DFO) and transportation (TC), because their industry felt unfairly targeted.
• Denis Desrosiers (MAPAQ) asked about the fact that the level of risk was assessed in relation to deaths. Whales can die naturally or in ways unrelated to fishing activities. The risk should not be based on the number of deaths but on the management measures put in place.

Patrick Vincent said that DFO had indeed heard, both that day and at previous meetings, the industry’s recommendation to develop a better communication plan with the Americans. They would certainly inform the new minister of this.

MANAGEMENT MEASURES

• Denis Desrosiers (MAPAQ) said that at a future meeting, it would be worthwhile to have access to a map showing the intensity of the various right whale detection measures in the Gulf of St. Lawrence.
• Patrick Vincent replied that this information was already available and that they would share it with Liaison Committee members, including aerial surveys and hydrophone positions.
• Charles Poirier (RPPCÎ) said that the leaded ropes measure was difficult to apply in the Magdalen Islands lobster fishery because of the rocky bottom (increased risk of gear loss). He added that their ropes were ready for the upcoming season.
• Patrick Vincent replied that measures relating to fishing gear would be applied on a voluntary basis in 2020.
• Pierre Léonard (Essipit) asked whether opening the Area 12 snow crab fishery early would be possible even if the icebreaking operations in New Brunswick harbours were unsuccessful.
• Patrick Vincent replied that yes, that was what had been discussed.
• O’Neil Cloutier (RPPSG) asked that the duration of dynamic closures be flexible based on the animal’s behaviour (travelling whale vs. the herd).

Regional Guidance for ITQ Program Management

Érik Arsenault gave a presentation on Regional Guidance (RG) for ITQ Program Management. He reiterated that Phase 1 of the ITQ Program administrative guidance simplification and harmonization exercise had been completed and that RG would be available on the DFO website.

Following consultations with fishers and DFO staff, seven main topics related to RG were discussed during the presentation of Phase 2 of this exercise.

TOPIC A: Related licences
The industry’s request to be able to untie licences was based on the issue of succession in relation to high licensing costs. Untying licences could make it easier for the next generation of fishers to integrate into the commercial fishery. However, they had to be aware that this went against diversification.
Proposed DFO decision criteria for authorizing licence untying:

1. Streamlining objective achieved,
2. Streamlining carried out at an acceptable revenue level.

TOPIC B: Residency criteria
The different areas had differing views on residency requirements. There was a dilemma between promoting transactions (especially for small groups) and preserving the wealth of licences in the respective maritime sectors. DFO suggested that the topic be addressed in a working subcommittee of the Liaison Committee. The subcommittee would not make decisions but rather recommendations to the Committee on industry requests for residency requirements.

• Johanne Basque (Gespeg) asked whether First Nations were affected by residency criteria. DFO would follow up on this matter.
• Paul Nadeau (APBCN) asked whether any new licences issued would be associated with a residency requirement.
• Patrick Vincent replied that issuing new licences would be a departmental decision based on several criteria such as proximity, history and the place of the recreational fishery.

TOPIC C: Obligation to not have held a certain type of licence to add a fleet
DFO suggested removing clauses from programs that require new participants to not hold, or have held, a snow crab or shrimp licence.

TOPIC D: Increasing the temporary transfer limit
DFO’s position: set the temporary transfer limit for all programs at 50%.

• René Landry (APCZ17) stated that for their fleet, fishers could not hold more than 10% of the overall TAC. Many fishers had reached this limit and therefore could not receive temporary transfers. Their fleet was unanimous about keeping their temporary transfer limit at 25%. They found 50% to be too high, and the crab that was not caught remained available to other fishers.
• Patrick Vincent asked the industry to confirm with their fleet members whether the 50% transfer limit would work for them.

TOPIC E: Changes to RG
The RG document was intended to be a living document that would be updated annually. Érik Arsenault presented an overview of the terms and conditions for change requests and the timelines for approval.

• Paul Nadeau (APBCN) asked if, for example, requests were only for an appendix for a specific program, whether all members of the Liaison Committee should be involved.
• Érik Arsenault replied that if a request was for only one program, it would be processed with the members participating in that program. There could, however, be details that should be reported to the Committee.
• Emmanuel Sandt-Duguay (Listuguj delegate) asked whether the proposed process would be the same for First Nations.
• Érik Arsenault said that requests would be treated on a case-by-case basis, but that they could get back to them with more details.

TOPIC F: Merging of fleets

• One of the main issues in a merger would be harmonizing the max and min ITQs of the two fleets involved.
• DFO confirmed that temporary inter-fleet transfers might be considered, provided that the primary objective would be to fully merge eventually.

TOPIC G: Integration of new fleets into RG

	Request type	Initiator	Consultation process	Approval
1	Integration of an ITQ program DA with few or no new clauses	Fleet representative with the Marine sector director	Informal consultation with the fleet by the representative	Letter from the fleet representative confirming the consultation and agreement if its members. DGR approval
2	Intermediate cases
3	Integration of a fisheries management approach with DFO’s assistance* (without an administrative list or equivalent)	Fleet representative with the Marine sector director	Information session* with DFO attending a fleet meeting (quorum required)	Fleet recommendation vote administer by DFO. RDG or minister approval

Following the presentation, René Landry (APCZ17) raised two points that he wanted to discuss further:

1. Transactions between owners of boats over and under 45 feet;
2. ITQ programs for turbot and halibut.

Patrick Vincent said that there were several projects for implementing ITQ programs, especially for groundfish. (The information was reported the next day.)

Regulations Amending Certain Regulations Made Under the Fisheries Act

Érik Arsenault gave a presentation on the draft regulations aimed at preserving and promoting the independence of the inshore fisheries sector.

A summary of the consultations was provided. Proposed regulations had been published in Gazette 1 on July 6, 2019. The comments received were being analyzed to ensure that they were integrated, and follow-up would be provided to the industry in this regard. The proposed regulations would then either be published in Gazette 2 or returned to Gazette 1 if the comments received raised too many discrepancies between the new regulations and the original version. Next industry consultation in January.

Questions/Comments

• Paul Nadeau (APBCN) asked what exactly was meant by a family company.
• Érik Arsenault said that it referred to a fisher whose fishing income was distributed within the family business.

Professionalization of fishers – update

Érik Arsenault gave a presentation on the professionalization of fishers.

He stated that DFO was committed to amending its regulations to recognize provincial fishers’ certificates. The proposed changes had been published in Gazette 1 on February 16, 2019, and the comments received were being addressed. Provincial regulatory changes were also required.

DFO would issue a Notice to Fishers announcing an extension of the transitional measures pending regulations from the Bureau d’accréditation des pêcheurs et des aides-pêcheurs du Québec (BAPAP).

Questions/Comments

• O’Neil Cloutier (RPPSG) said that he was opposed to the principle of a fishers’ registration card, which he found unnecessary.
• Érik Arsenault said that DFO Quebec Region did not intend to favour this option.
• Paul Nadeau (APBCN) said that the industry should be aware of the progress of the new BAPAP regulations and should have the opportunity to be consulted.
• O’Neil Cloutier (RPPSG) added that they could share the draft regulations with Committee members.
• Charles Poirier (RPPCÎ) requested clarification on the current eligibility criteria for fishing.
• Érik Arsenault: 1) Having fished commercially for two consecutive years during the period of time prescribed for his or her area of residence or 2) Having obtained accreditation through BAPAP.

Paul Nadeau (APBCN) said that training was still a problematic aspect on the Lower North Shore (decentralization of services). The École des pêches et de l’aquaculture du Québec (ÉPAQ) would, however, be able to provide training in remote areas.

End of the day

Patrick Vincent gave the closing remarks and indicated that the meeting would continue the next day at 8:30 a.m. EST.

Meeting adjourned at 4:48 p.m. EST.

Opening remarks

Patrick Vincent made the opening remarks for the second day of the Liaison Committee meeting. He provided an overview of the meeting agenda. He reiterated that a point had been added to Other business concerning Indigenous reconciliation.

Modernized Fisheries Act (Bill C-68)

Élaine Bouchard gave a presentation on Bill C-68. She mentioned that at the national level, 25 stocks in the first batch had been selected out of a possible 179 (selected following the 2018 sustainability study). More stocks would be added later. Three stocks had been identified in the first batch for the Quebec Region:

1. 3Pn4RS cod
2. Gulf shrimp
3. Gaspé Area shrimp

Élaine provided an overview of the next steps and said that she represented the Quebec Region on a national committee dealing with potential measures for implementing recovery plans.

Questions/Comments

• O’Neil Cloutier (RPPSG) asked whether modifications could be made to the Conservation Harvesting Plan (CHP), given that there was a precautionary approach in place for lobster in areas 19-20-21.
• Cédric Arseneau replied that the CHP could be modified, but that the precautionary approach would remain the same. Precautionary approaches are systematically developed in collaboration with the industry.
• Emmanuel Sandt-Duguay (delegate for Listuguj) asked whether ecosystem factors (e.g. predation) were included or would be considered in recovery plans for cod and shrimp stocks that were doing less well than lobster.
• Patrick Vincent replied that recovery plans can effectively target management actions involving the relationship between the target species and a predator or habitat quality.

The industry was interested in knowing what the implementation timelines were for the three Quebec Region stocks identified in the first batch. Élaine Bouchard said that a consultation would be held shortly and encouraged fishers to participate.

SLGO products and expertise to meet member and user needs

Maxime Lévesque gave a presentation on products and expertise from the St. Lawrence Global Observatory (SLGO), a non-profit organization that provides integrated and timely access to certain data to contribute to the sustainable management of the St. Lawrence River.

The purpose of the presentation was to inform the industry of the projects that the organization could carry out and encourage fishers to contact the SLGO if they had project ideas related to the challenges they were facing. The application examples described provided information on various marine condition parameters (currents, water level, ice cover, temperature, etc.).

Questions/Comments

• Pierre Jenniss (Viger) asked whether the system for predicting the motion of an object on the surface could be used for bottom currents. He also asked if it would it be possible to create a complete map of oxygenation/salinity conditions to visualize preferred habitats for certain species.
• Maxime Lévesque (SLGO) replied that movements could be predicted using bottom current data. As for a potential map of oxygenation/salinity conditions, such a tool could be developed. That said, the SLGO’s role is that of data disseminator, and a researcher should be associated with the work team to interpret the data.
• Cédric Arseneau asked whether the SLGO had access to satellite image data.
• Maxime Lévesque (SLGO) stated that the SLGO had access to historical satellite image data, but that this was a component that needed to be further developed moving forward.
• Denis Desrosiers (MAPAQ) asked whether the system for predicting the movement of objects on the surface could be applied to a liquid (e.g. oil).
• Maxime Lévesque (SLGO) replied yes, and that this project had been developed to deal with potential oil and gas spills.
• Pierre Jenniss (Viger) said that they had recently purchased a probe to collect data on oxygen and salinity concentrations. He asked whether it would be possible to transmit this data to the SLGO.
• Patrick Vincent replied that data could be sent to the Maurice Lamontagne Institute (MLI) for a compatibility check, and MLI would then forward that data to the SLGO.

Update on the lost gear initiative

Élaine Bouchard provided an update on the lost gear initiative and stated that Canada was a signatory to the Global Ghost Gear Initiative. The Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment Strategy on Zero Plastic Waste included two phases, the first of which was now complete. Élaine Bouchard reiterated that DFO and the Coast Guard had taken part in a process to recover lost gear in the Gulf of St. Lawrence from July 18 to 20, 2019, and as a result some 100 pieces of gear had been recovered.

Élaine Bouchard also mentioned the $8.3M contribution program for 2020–2022 to support lost gear recovery initiatives. She said that the next Gear Innovation Summit would be held on February 11–12, 2020, in Halifax.

Questions/Comments

• René Landry (APCZ17) asked where the DFO/Coast Guard lost gear recovery initiative had been carried out.
• Patrick Vincent replied 4–5 sites in Chaleur Bay.
• Vincent Dupuis asked whether some of the hundred or so traps recovered had been declared lost beforehand.
• Patrick Vincent said that a small proportion of these traps had been reported lost.
• Paul Nadeau (APBCN) reiterated his request to return to permanent rather than annual tags, as this was in line with the national initiative to reduce plastic use.
• Élaine Bouchard stated that a national committee was working on tagging procedures in each region to standardize practices and propose consistent actions.
• Charles Poirier (RPPCÎ) stated that reporting gear lost in the lobster fishery should be mandatory only when complete trap lines were lost (optional for the loss of a single trap, given the low impact).
• Paul Nadeau (APBCN) said that since the contribution program was national, DFO would have to take account of the fact that the lost gear / right whale issue was mainly located in the Gulf of St. Lawrence. The Quebec Region should be prioritized.
• Judy Doré said that it was indeed a national program, but that they did not yet have the terms and conditions for project eligibility. They would promote the program as soon as they had more information. The distribution of funds would be based on the projects submitted, so it would be important for the industry to submit relevant projects since access to funds would be “competitive.”

Monitoring of marine conservation activities

Jacinthe Beauchamp (DFO – Ecosystem Management) and Rodolph Balej (MELCC) presented an update on current marine conservation activities. Éric Lebel from Parks Canada assisted them. Rodolph Balej reiterated that the Canadian and Quebec governments had signed an agreement to develop marine protected areas (MPAs).

Jacinthe Beauchamp presented the two MPA projects under review.

Northern Gulf of St. Lawrence MPA project (converting 8 closed fishing areas into an MPA)

• Aimed at protecting corals and sponges.
• Same management terms and conditions for fishers as those currently in place (current prohibitions maintained), but other human activities, such as oil exploration, could be regulated.

Estuary MPA project

• Primarily aimed at protecting at-risk marine mammal species (e.g. St. Lawrence Estuary beluga whale population);
• Analysis of human activities and anticipated impact to be completed;
• MPA to be divided into several sectors that were selected following analyses to maximize the protection of various species.

Next steps
Hold discussions with Indigenous groups and stakeholders on the preliminary conservation measures that were considered and hold consultations on these two projects.

Questions/Comments

Most stakeholders said that establishing new protected areas limited the fishing area. Marine environment protection targets of 25% by 2025 and 30% by 2030 were concerning to the industry, which was against creating new MPAs because of the anticipated socio-economic impacts. There was a comment that consultation with the industry should take place more in advance of project proposal submissions. The industry criticized DFO for not doing real consultations on this subject, but rather holding information sessions and imposing projects. Ultimately, industry did not feel that its position was being heard with regard to MPA projects. Patrick Vincent said that project proposals were being made to industry for efficiency, but that adjustments would be made if changes to MPA projects were needed.

Jacinthe Beauchamp and Rodolph Balej said that for the Northern Gulf of St. Lawrence MPA, one of the main objectives was precisely to work on areas that had already been closed to fishing to avoid creating additional socio-economic impacts for fishers.

• Paul Nadeau (APBCN) asked what percentage of marine waters was being protected with the addition of the Estuary MPA project. He also asked if this project would place a ban on all fisheries.
• Jacinthe Beauchamp replied that certain fisheries might be authorized in the Estuary MPA. The management measures being considered would focus on conservation priorities and not all fisheries would be impacted.
• Rodolph Balej added that the % of marine environment protection would reach almost 10% for all of Quebec with the addition of the protected areas from the Estuary and Northern Gulf of St. Lawrence MPA projects.
• Paul Nadeau (APBCN) added that studies were no longer representative of the real economic impacts of MPAs. Many issues were frustrating the industry, and they were at their limit for MPAs. In the Lower North Shore Area, all communities depend on the fishing industry. If too many closures were put in place, it would either wipe out the fishing industry or lead to overexploitation of other sectors by concentrating the fishing effort in certain areas.
• Charles Poirier (RPPCÎ) said that it would be worthwhile to know the % of protection by region. He added that they would like a more comprehensive picture of the MPA network.
• O’Neil Cloutier (RPPSG) added that it would also be worthwhile to juxtapose all the areas that could be closed at the same time as the fishing season to visualize the remaining fishing area.

Patrick Vincent stated that DFO understood the industry’s position. He added that they would be in discussions with the Government of Quebec to plan the next steps and that they would agree on the approach selected in light of the comments received that day. He added that they would also share a map of all current protected areas in Canada:

https://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/oceans/maps-cartes/conservation-eng.html 
https://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/oceans/conservation/areas-zones/index-eng.html 

Electronic logbooks

Bernard Morin presented an update on the electronic logbook (ELOG) implementation plan. He specified that Isabel Calderon was the lead on the file and that the industry would be encouraged to contact her with any questions after the meeting.

ELOG would become optional for the following fisheries in 2020:

• Snow crab (Areas 14–15);
• Rock crab (all fleets);
• Mackerel, hand line / mechanical device (Area 16);
• Atlantic halibut, longline (all fleets).

ELOG would become mandatory for the following fisheries in 2020:

• Lobster (Area 17B);
• Snow crab (Areas 12A, 12B, 16 and 17);
• Snow crab, Southern Gulf (Areas 12, 12E and 12F);
• Shrimp, Groups A and B (Areas 6, 8, 9, 10, 12).

Bernard Morin mentioned that an initial industry survey had been conducted that fall to determine the level of satisfaction with ELOG usage. Feedback had generally been positive, and about 60 users had indicated that they were satisfied, although some problems remained to be corrected.

Questions/Comments

• Emmanuel Sandt-Duguay (delegate for Listuguj) asked why ELOG would be mandatory in 2020 in the Area 12 snow crab and shrimp fishery for fishers in the Quebec Region, but not for New Brunswick fishers. Pierre Jenniss (Viger) also agreed that it was not normal for management measures for an inter-regional fishery to not be standardized across regions.
• Patrick Vincent replied that it was indeed not ideal for there to be regional differences.
• Yan Tremblay (Uashat) mentioned that 3 fishers had been identified that year to test ELOG in 2020 in the Area 17B lobster fishery. He suggested that ELOG remain optional for this fleet in 2020 so that these tests could be carried out, and that ELOG possibly be made optional in 2021 if the results were positive. Johanne Basque (Gespeg) supported this recommendation.
• Patrick Vincent replied that this option would be seriously analyzed.
• Jean-René Boucher (RPPNG) said that, despite the available training, some fishers who had taken it were still not comfortable using ELOG. He recommended that for older fishers nearing retirement, paper logbooks be allowed to continue to be used to overcome the technological barrier (grandfather clause). Paul Nadeau (APBCN) agreed with this point.

Comments were also made regarding improving communication and certain specific features of the North Shore area.

Other business

At the request of O’Neil Cloutier (RPPSG), an item was added to Other business regarding reconciliation and negotiations with First Nations.

O’Neil Cloutier (RPPSG) said that reconciliation with First Nations must not go against conservation objectives. Dialogue must be constructive to avoid tensions so that conflicts do not escalate. The RPPSG believed that DFO’s actions since 2017 had clashed with constructive dialogue and contributed to increased conflict. As part of the reconciliation process, the RPPSG believed that DFO was showing contempt for non-Indigenous fishers, who in turn now had an extremely low level of trust. O’Neil Cloutier (RPPSG) stated that DFO had committed a faux-pas the previous summer in discussions with the Listuguj First Nation. He said that this was the position that the RPPSG would adopt from that point forward.

Patrick Vincent responded that in discussions with the Listuguj First Nation, it was agreed that 10-year transition plans would be implemented for fisheries resource management. This was the result of agreements on regulating and managing various fisheries to give more autonomy to First Nations. Bilateral discussions were therefore necessary between Canada and First Nations, as was the case with the Listuguj community. When they felt that things needed to be shared with non-Indigenous fishers, they did so, but perhaps not always in the right way. DFO would adapt, and they would do their best to communicate as often as they could. When they actively resumed discussions with the Listuguj First Nation, one of the topics would be communication to promote effective practices.

Adjournment of the Liaison Committee meeting

Patrick Vincent made the closing remarks and encouraged stakeholders to submit their comments on how the meeting went.

Meeting adjourned at 12:21 p.m. EST.