Minutes of the meeting of December 6 and 7, 2023

Meeting objectives

Promote consultation and dialogue on developing and implementing policy initiatives concerning marine resource development and establishing guidelines that serve the interests of the Quebec industry.

ORGANIZATIONS	REPRESENTATIVE	In person (Dec. 6)	Virtual (Dec. 6)	In person (Dec. 7)	Virtual (Dec. 7)
INDUSTRY
CROSS-INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION
Alliance des pêcheurs professionnels du Québec (APPQ)	O’Neil Cloutier	X		X
Fédération des pêcheurs semi-hauturiers du Québec (FPSHQ)	Daniel Desbois	X		X
Gaspé-Lower St. Lawrence Area
Regroupement des pécheurs professionnels du Sud de la Gaspésie (RPPSG)	O’Neil Cloutier	X		X
Regroupement des pécheurs professionnels du Sud de la Gaspésie (RPPSG)	Claire Canet	X		X
Office des pêcheurs de crabe des neiges de la zone 16	Jean-René Boucher	X		X
Association des capitaines-propriétaires de la Gaspésie (ACPG)	Claudio Bernatchez	X
Association des capitaines-propriétaires de la Gaspésie (ACPG)	Georges Huard	X		X
Association des capitaines-propriétaires de la Gaspésie (ACPG)	Samantha Bois		X
Fédération des pêcheurs semi-hauturiers du Québec (FPSHQ)	Vincent Dupuis	X		X
Association des morutiers traditionnels de la Gaspésie (AMTG)	Michel Syvrais		X
Association des crabiers gaspésiens	Daniel Desbois	X		X
Association des pêcheurs de crabe de la zone 17 (APCZ17)	Marc Doucet	X		X
Magdalen Islands Area
Association des pêcheurs propriétaires des Îles-de-la-Madeleine (APPIM)	Mario Déraspe	X		X
Groupe de pêcheurs de la zone F inc. (GPZF)	Mérielle Ouellet		X		X
Rassemblement des pêcheurs et pêcheuses des côtes des Îles (RPPCÎ)	Charles Poirier	X		X
Rassemblement des pêcheurs et pêcheuses des côtes des Îles (RPPCÎ)	Léona Renaud	X		X
Association of the Inshore Fishermen of the Magdalen Islands (AIF)	Gil Thériault	X		X
North Shore Area
Association des pêcheurs de la Basse Côte-Nord (APBCN)	Curtis Stubbert		X
Association des pêcheurs de la Basse Côte-Nord (APBCN)	Julie Monger	X		X
Regroupement des pêcheurs professionnels de la Haute et Moyenne Côte-Nord (RPPHMCN)	Line Arsenault		X		X
Regroupement des pêcheurs professionnels de la Haute et Moyenne Côte-Nord (RPPHMCN)	Marilou Vanier	X		X
Regroupement des pêcheurs professionnels de la Haute et Moyenne Côte-Nord (RPPHMCN)	Ilya Klvana	X		X
INDIGENOUS ORGANIZATIONS
Wolastoqiyik (Maliseet) Wahsipekuk First Nation	Guy-Pascal Weiner	X		X
Pakua Shipi Innu Council	Marcel Rancourt	X		X
Pakua Shipi Innu Council	Glenn McKinnon	X
Ekuanitshit Innu Council (Shipek Fisheries)	Guy Vigneault	X		X
Innu Takuaikan Uashat mak Mani-Utenam (Pêcheries Uapan S.E.C.)	Benoit St-Onge	X		X
Pessamit Innu Council	Majoric Pinette	X		X
Micmacs of Gesgapegiag	Christina Burnsed		X		X
Micmacs of Gesgapegiag	Jaime Condo
Gespeg Micmacs Nation	Johanne Basque	X		X
Nutashkuan Innu Council	Pierre Wapistan	X		X
Unamen Shipu Innu Council	Alexi Lalo	X		X
Listuguj Mi’gmaq Government	James Metallic-Sloan		X		X
Listuguj Mi’gmaq Government	Denny Isaac		X		X
Essipit Innu First Nation Council	Donald Bouchard	X		X
Société de développement économique des Nutakuan Innuat	Gérard Ishpatao
Observers
Mi’gmaq Wolastoqey Indigenous Fisheries Management Association (MWIFMA)	Emmanuel Sandt-Duguay	X		X
Agence Mamu Innu Kaikusshet (AMIK)	Benoit Sioui	X		X
Agence Mamu Innu Kaikusshet (AMIK)	Serge Langelier	X		X
Groupe GID	Nancy Lavoie			X
Créneau d’excellence Ressources, sciences et technologies marines Côte-Nord	Alain Grenier	X		X
Listuguj Mi'gmaq Government	Rachel Barnaby		X		X
Association des pêcheurs de crabe de la zone 17	Simon Vallée	X		X
PORT AUTHORITIES (PA)
PA representative	Pierre Léonard		X
DFO
Standing members
Regional Director General	Sylvain Vézina	X		X
Regional Director, Fisheries Management Branch	Maryse Lemire	X		X
Area Director — Gaspé–Lower St. Lawrence	Érick Saint-Laurent	X		X
Area Director – North Shore	Andrew Rowsell	X		X
Area Director – Magdalen Islands	Cédric Arseneau	X		X
Director – Resource Management, Aquaculture and Indigenous Affairs	Jean Picard	X		X
Casual members (as needed, depending on items discussed)
Regional Director, Science	Jean-Yves Savaria		X
MAPAQ
Intergovernmental Coordinator and Policy and Program Advisor	Rabia Sow	X		X
GUEST
Parks Canada	Martin Desrosiers			X

 

DAY 1

Opening remarks

Maryse Lemire welcomed participants. She introduced herself and mentioned that this was the first year for hybrid meetings. She reiterated the importance of discipline and shared a few guidelines. She presented the agenda for the first day and asked participants if they wished to add any items to Other Business.

Sylvain Vézina welcomed participants. He explained that he was grateful for the collaboration with industry players and that the agenda had been prepared based on the feedback received. He added that fewer items would be addressed to leave more room for discussion, which could continue during the 5 à 7 at the end of the day. 

Industry questions and comments

• Requests to add items to Other Business:
  • Dockside weighing and post-season in the snow crab fishery;
  • Co-chairmanship of the Liaison Committee (LC);
  • At-sea observers;
  • Update on the BAPAP [Quebec Fisher and Fisher Helper Accreditation Office] and the tightening of rules in the face of labour shortages. DFO proposed to discuss the BAPAP at the break with O’Neil Cloutier and revisit if necessary.

State of the ecosystem in the Estuary and Gulf of St. Lawrence – Part 1 

Marie-Julie Roux, researcher at the Maurice Lamontagne Institute, acted as coordinator. She outlined the presentations and invited participants to take note of their questions for the discussions that would take place at the end of the two presentation blocks. Peter Galbraith, Marjolaine Blais and Diane Lavoie from the Science Branch presented.

Questions, comments and answers :

• Are the changes described worldwide or specific to Quebec and Canada?  
  • The average global (large-scale) increase in surface water temperature has been 1.1 degrees in 100 years. As far as ice is concerned, we are prone to more change and intense impacts because we are closer to the southern limit. There is great annual variability in ice cover. Deep waters are warming faster than surface waters, and this has an impact on the entire food chain. These changes are more pronounced here than in the rest of the world. Hundred-year records have been set since 2015–2016, meaning the warmest temperatures since 1915.
• The last slide is rather negative. Is there anything positive? 
  • Food at the base of the food chain is present, which in itself is good news, but a lot of changes are happening very quickly indeed. There may be a little more uncertainty about phytoplankton concentrations in the future; a predictive model exists, but the trends are not clear cut.  
• In the past, the ice covered a much larger area year-round. Now, with melting ice and open water, these conditions could lead to a period of bloom, which could favour fishing conditions. There are a lot of changes in the ecosystem, but that does not make the St. Lawrence a dying ecosystem; an ice-covered habitat is not necessarily better than one with less ice.
• How does the cold intermediate layer shrink? Is it the mass of warm water at depth that expands, or the cold intermediate layer that warms up? There are concerns about the impact on the Magdalen Shallows.  
  • There is more movement and mixing in the ice-free water column, but a thick layer of cold water remains. Occasionally, cooling does not reach the entire water column (all depths), but this is rare. A change in thermocline depth is likely and has occurred in the past. Given that the Magdalen Shallows is shallower than the rest of the Gulf, the issue is less important, and there are no concerns; according to Peter Galbraith, that cold water will not reach the shelf.
• What about Climate Change on the recurrence of major storms and their impact on water mixing and the thermocline? We were not talking about this before Hurricane Dorian, but Dorian and Fiona changed the landscape and brought about changes on the Magdalen Shallows.  
  • Fiona had a major impact: in one week, the bottom temperature rose by 6 degrees, while the surface temperature dropped by 6 degrees due to the mixing of the waters. Cooling usually takes 1.5 months to return to normal temperatures. Storms are likely to be more frequent, so we need to take a step back in historical data to see if we have missed the arrival of storms.  
• Assuming an increase in the number of storms, will the length of fishing seasons be affected? 
  • These storms are post-tropical, normally passing further south, but increased storm strength could impact the track. An Intergovernmental Panel Climate Change (IPCC) report on future changes does not necessarily indicate an impact on the number but rather on the magnitude of storms. With changes in currents, notably the northward shift of the Gulf Stream, storm tracks could be altered and move northwards.
• Will melting ice in Canada’s North have an impact on currents here?
  • According to some projections, the strength of the Labrador and Gulf Stream currents is expected to decrease. The Labrador Current may be weaker and flow less far south, diverting it towards the Atlantic.  
• So predicting the impact on currents is difficult? 
  • Modelling suggests that if the situation persists (slowing of currents), this will lead to greater variability/instability of the Gulf Stream, with the current moving farther north, but it will be slower. But do not jump to conclusions: the region is very fluid and it is difficult to predict with any accuracy.

State of the ecosystem in the Estuary and Gulf of St. Lawrence – Part 2

• Marie-Julie Roux gave a presentation on the ecosystem approach and climate change. 
• Benoit Bruneau did a presentation on increasing American lobster productivity.
• Sarah Loboda gave a presentation on snow crab (areas 12A, 12C, 13, 14, 15, 16, 16A and 17). Stock status is unknown; precautionary approach being developed.
• Hugo Bourdages gave a presentation on northern shrimp, whose landings are steadily declining.  
• Jean-Martin Chamberland gave a presentation on Greenland halibut (turbot).
• Mathieu Desgagnés gave a presentation on Atlantic halibut, whose landings are increasing.
• Jordan Ouellette-Plante gave a presentation on Atlantic cod in the northern Gulf of St. Lawrence (3Pn, 4RS), as well as a report on the grey seal situation in the Gulf.

Questions, comments and answers

• The state of snow crab stock status should be described as unknown, not uncertain. The stock status is not necessarily uncertain but rather unknown because the precautionary approach has not yet been developed.  
  • There is no need to debate semantics, but the term “precautionary approach under development” could have been used.
• Which species benefit from changes in pH and O2?  
  • Changes in pH mainly affect shelled species. So far, no effects have been observed in the natural environment. As for oxygen (O2), every species has a lethal threshold, and this has been reached in some places. Depending on where the species is located and its tolerance for change, there are losers, particularly in the deep layer. Still, it is hard to say which species are fleeing the less favourable deeper layers. Not all species have the same sensitivities: cod, for example, is one of the most sensitive species, while shrimp is more tolerant. There are even variations between males and females. Turbot is tolerant, though. As far as we know, oxygen levels in the Estuary are below 10%, and no species can survive at this level over the long term. The impact of acidification is currently being studied to determine the harmful thresholds for different species and how these thresholds are reached over time. Results will be available in 2024. 
• Everyone agreed that we need to know what is going on in the St. Lawrence in order to make informed decisions. However, these are mainly factors over which harvesters have no control, and we should be talking more about factors over which the fish harvesters and DFO can have an influence. The political factor does not seem to be in the ecosystem approach equation. 
  • The national initiative to implement the ecosystem approach has only recently begun. We cannot control species responses, but we can anticipate them and help in fisheries management decision-making. The ecosystem approach is under development, and species interactions will be added to the physical factor. 
• When and how will DFO share this information with the general public? We need to show how fragile it is. This would add value to the products. The industry is aware, but not necessarily the public.
  • Communication tools are needed. Oceanographic conditions have been covered by the media and brought to the public’s attention. The species factor has recently been added to public communications, but there is no ongoing or annual update. The information presented today has been communicated to the public, but there is still a long way to go. In recent years, DFO has been present in the media on regional and national channels. The role of science is to produce analysis that is available to the public. Information in the media is fleeting, and not everyone is necessarily interested. However, there is still a lot of work to be done to raise awareness and make information more widely accessible.  
• The first response of organisms to CC is often migration, but how is this migration studied? How do we obtain data or monitor it? The phenomenon is more evident for lobster because we see landings along the coast, and lobsters are present where they were not before.  
  • We need to change our observation windows. Canada is taking many initiatives to integrate scientific survey data between the various Atlantic regions and the United States. There are also initiatives with the Southern Gulf.  
  • Currents transport lobster larvae. Changes in lobster distribution are not necessarily the result of migration; there is a decrease in production in the south and the opposite in the north. A forthcoming study clearly shows an exponential phenomenon. A slight rise in temperature that was not favourable to larval growth can suddenly exceed a threshold that allows larvae to survive, triggering an exponential event. So it is not a migration but a question of productivity: faster growth speeds up maturity.
• As far as communications are concerned, there seems to be a missing link. Scientific research and popularization are two different things. The LC would benefit from more popularization to save time and make information easier for the public to understand.  
  • The industry requested a complete overview of the situation, and it was felt that all those present were able to understand the broad strokes of the presentations. 

Address by the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans

The Minister, the Honourable Diane Lebouthillier, delivered her address.

We are facing many issues and challenges, and we will be in uncharted waters for the next few years. We need to be creative and resilient and work together to overcome these challenges. We need to innovate in our fisheries management and monitoring practices. Tomorrow, the Deputy Minister will be at the LC meeting, as will the Communications Advisor and the Advisor for the Quebec Region.

Three priorities: 

1. Harbours and small crafts
2. Aquaculture
3. Seals 

The Minister noted that she expects significant leadership from Indigenous communities.  

Questions, comments and answers

The North Shore also deserves a mention but is often overlooked in speeches. The Minister indicated that the North Shore is indeed part of Quebec and that she will be travelling there in 2024.  

• Proposal to add a fourth priority: Greater flexibility to adapt to CC. 
  • Scientists have an important role to play, but everyone needs to pitch in, including harvesters, who are the boots on the ground.  
• It would be essential to issue lobster fishing licences on the North Shore. The ecosystem is changing fast, so we have to be careful, but there is a need.  
  • We know the impact of groundfish moratoria. Without a resource, there is no fishing, and no fishing means no economy. The next generation of fish harvesters is also an issue; the accessibility of licences for young people and the associated costs pose a serious problem and create a sense of desperation to gain access to the resource. We need teamwork and dialogue if we want our fisheries to succeed. 
• Clarification was sought on the continuity of projects for next year, such as the Quebec Fisheries Fund. 
  • It was suggested to present the projects, without giving any additional information. 
• What about the resilience of fishing enterprises and the economic aspect? 
  • The economic aspect is very important. Not just harvesting, but all related trades, even infrastructure construction. A lot of people are behind the scenes, and discussions will take place.

Maryse Lemire thanked the Minister for attending this year’s LC meeting. 

SWOT analysis (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats) of the harvesting sector – Presentation and discussion

Emmanuel Sandt-Duguay acted as moderator. He thanked Minister Lebouthillier and made a presentation to set the stage for the discussion to follow. 

• Landings in 2022 reached a record high in terms of value ($463 million) for lobster, crab and shrimp, with turbot in fourth place. Several fleets are in trouble, and questions are being asked about the future of the fisheries.  
• Before participation in subgroups began, items were displayed on screen to spark discussion. A document for recording notes on strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats, as well as issues and perspectives, was shared. Each team was asked to identify a spokesperson for the plenary and to pass on to DFO the notes taken during the subgroup discussions.

Plenary

Team 1 

• Strengths: 
  • Fish harvesters’ local knowledge and territorial expertise lead to high-performance, adaptable fleets. Good knowledge and technological capacity
  • Product quality
  • DFO’s ability to provide agile management at the local level, such as rapid decision-making at the species level, including lobster, but this is also a weakness for other species, such as mackerel, a migratory species
• Weaknesses: 
  • The system is cumbersome and slow, making decision-making difficult; centralized decision-making 
  • A lack of collaboration; species are managed in silos
  • Unpredictability makes management difficult, and we have not found an effective way to protect against/prepare for this unpredictability
• Threats: 
  • The presence of the North Atlantic right whale (NARW) in fishing waters  
• Opportunities: 
  • A growing local market (Quebec and Ontario) 
  • A potential market for new species
  • More flexible management at DFO
  • The availability of new technologies to leverage

Team 2 

• Strengths:
  • Good local knowledge
  • Product quality
  • Experience of people at sea 
  • Good communication and proximity to stakeholders
  • Ecosystem biodiversity
  • Mobility in the Gulf 
  • The ability to work together as a team
• Weaknesses: 
  • Working in silos 
  • Lack of cohesion in the industry, even if the capabilities are there 
  • Processors’ dependence on the U.S. 
  • Relationship with processors 
  • Poor perception of the resource, contrary to marine mammals, for example  
  • The disparity between the Marshall vs. Sparrow decisions, the latter a distinct decision that dictates management decisions
  • Labour shortage and lack of succession 
  • Flexibility and stability of the Quebec Fisheries Fund 
• Threats: 
  • Licence costs for the next generation 
  • Climate change 
  • Lack of DFO agility (slow system)
  • A culture of catch quantity and persistent greed
• Opportunities: 
  • Emerging species 
  • Extended boating season
  • Fleet renewal, a good time for cultural renewal in fish harvester-processor relations, integration of First Nations, who could take over non-FN businesses

Team 3 

• Strengths: 
  • Fleet independence 
  • The number of provincial and federal programs 
  • Good collaboration between Indigenous and non-Indigenous fish harvesters 
  • An educated, specialized workforce 
  • A conservative management approach, a strength in the international marketplace 
  • Environmentally responsible practices 
  • Collaboration and consultation in the industry, an economic driver in the province
• Weaknesses: 
  • Disparity in the application of acts and regulations
  • Increasingly complex regulations 
  • Disengagement of DFO from certain duties such as data collection, fisheries monitoring and poaching by C&P 
  • Political management of the fishery, not the resource 
  • An industry highly dependent on a few species, monopolized by processors
  • Lack of data and information dissemination 
  • Under-utilization of fish harvesters’ knowledge 
  • An aging fleet, labour shortage and succession
  • Seasonality of the fishery, sometimes limited to a few weeks 
  • Fragmentation of harvester associations and inequality between types of fishing: non-Indigenous vs. Indigenous, groundfish vs. shellfish  
• Threats: 
  • Inflation and international interference 
  • Invasive species 
  • Speed of CC
  • Rising fuel costs
• Opportunities: 
  • Diversification of the local market 
  • Diversification of bait
  • Development of a brand identity
  • Development of offshore tourist sport fishing 
  • Opportunity to add value to products, including marine ecoproducts 
  • Development of clean technologies 
  • Marine biotechnology
  • Stronger partnership between fish harvesters and Science
  • A partnership between fish harvesters and aquaculturists; aquaculture innovations 

Team 4 

• Strengths:
  • Vertical integration and fleet consolidation 
  • Nordicity; less polluted environment; the St. Lawrence has been cleaned up 
  • First Nations youth (workforce)
  • Indigenous–non-Indigenous relations
  • The expertise of the professionalized structure, which is trained and kept up to date with the latest developments 
  • Perception of the occupation: the fishing occupation is well perceived  
• Weaknesses: 
  • Aging fleet 
  • Market upheaval
  • Fish harvesters’ credibility in scientific matters 
• Threats: 
  • Dependence on the U.S. market
  • Aging fish harvesters
  • Port obsolescence 
  • A destructive public view of the industry 
  • Loss of expertise due to an aging workforce 
  • High operating costs  
• Opportunities: 
  • North Shore location with potential from a CC perspective

The way MAPAQ grants processing licences should be discussed. Lack of competition on the North Shore is a problem. 

Fisheries monitoring: Innovation and integration of artificial intelligence into operations

Cédric Arseneau began the presentation, the aim of which was to initiate discussion about the fisheries monitoring program with new technologies.  

Questions, comments and answers 

• In 2019, camera monitoring was discussed in Boston at the NOAA seminar. Google had developed the catch recognition system. With the advent of artificial intelligence (AI) that analyzes images, there has been a giant leap forward in technological possibilities. On the other hand, data management needs to be carefully controlled to ensure, among other things, acceptability and compliance with the legislative framework, including the Privacy Act. The issue of data governance has already been raised with electronic logbooks and interactive maps. 
  • The data collected is very valuable, and giving access to it is dangerous. A business model needs to be developed, but DFO has no experience with this kind of data. 
• In 2021, there were camera trials for lobster traps. Satellite coverage is an obstacle, and there is not always an Internet connection to collect the data. This new system requires solid technology and people capable of managing the data. As for funding, the question is whether DFO or the industry will be involved. The system is likely to take another 10–20 years.

Vincent Rémillard, Innovation Coordinator, gave a presentation. 

• The Quebec Region is aiming to install cameras for the snow crab industry next season, but also for volunteers from other fleets. It has purchased equipment for two boats for the coming season (volunteer crew wanted). A minimum of 10 fishing expeditions is planned. 

Questions, comments and answers

• AI is a must, but information management is another matter.
  •  The question of data access is very important.  
• We have to be careful because technology can fail. What impact will system failure have on fish harvesters? Does this mean that they will not be able to work? 
• Some representatives are not very optimistic. The program’s objectives will have to be clear and not just collect data for the sake of data. There is some debate as to whether the camera is the best solution.  
• AIFish’s data in Hawaii is stored on Amazon’s server and is accessible to Americans. A technical committee should be set up to involve the harvesting industry.  
  • The data would not be hosted by AIFish, but by DFO, so Americans would not have access to it. DFO already has a partnership, but there is no Canadian supplier at the moment. The project is still in the initial phase, and the business model is still under development.  
• There is a big concern that if the technology is not in Canada, maybe we are not there yet, and we should wait to test it and not depend on the United States.
• One concern is that the system puts smaller players at a disadvantage. For example, the black box costs the same, regardless of business size; it is not pro rated (like at-sea observers [ASOs]). Big technology players will reap some of the rewards, rather than ASOs, who are in our communities. 
  • The aim is not to support Google in the development, but DFO is trying to develop monitoring tools that we do not yet have.
• Technology is evolving very quickly. Data sources are lacking, but AI can also be used for sorting and to meet other needs at sea, especially in light of the labour shortage. We need to know how to use it. 
• The Association des Capitaines-Propriétaires de la Gaspésie has already started thinking about this and has already collected data that is available to the DFO, but at a cost. 
  • We need to clarify who should have the data and how it should be used (e.g., in the event of a lawsuit).
• Some people wonder how fish harvesters feel about having cameras on their boats. It is said to be for scientific purposes, but DFO is invited to come and see the reality of the fish harvesters on the boats. As for compliance, fish harvesters are not outlaws; there is a need for trust. Companies are already on the hook financially, so if the fees are still paid by DFO, that is fine; some are not closed to the idea.  
• AI is unavoidable, but we anticipate reluctance on the part of fish harvesters, especially if they have yet to accept electronic logbooks.  
• Créneau SRTM’s project committee is ready to share the information gathered in 2019. 
  • DFO has access to it. 
• Data interference is an underlying consideration for all things. There exist technologies for weighing and dockside monitoring (DMP), and hail-outs. But we should look at simpler technologies that have already been developed. For the last six years, there have been attempts to streamline, and they have been met with a big “no.” There are less costly solutions for fish harvesters to implement before going with technologies that raise serious questions. It was suggested that Valentine Goddart, a data governance specialist, be contacted. A white paper was published in Quebec following work done in the fisheries industry.  
  • We need to find solutions to the issues at stake. There is a need for group reflection, an opportunity to take steps and make better-informed decisions.  

DFO will form a working group with industry. The subject may be discussed at the Liaison Sub-Committee.

Other business and conclusion of Day 1

Maryse Lemire revisited the items raised at the start of the meeting for Other business.

• There is an interest in the LC being a joint committee with a solid chairmanship from DFO. Fish harvesters were asked if DFO–Industry co-chairs would be desirable, but that comes with responsibilities and requires good collaboration.
  • The terms of reference (ToR) when the LC was set up initially provided for alternating DFO–Industry chairs. Due to a lack of desire on the part of Industry, the alternating chairmanship was removed when the ToR were revised. The LC has changed considerably since then, with more and more industry participation. A revision of the ToR, not just the chairmanship, is possible. DFO could come back with proposals by next year. However, this will require Industry cooperation and involvement.  
• A request for the terms of reference
  • DFO will send the terms of reference (ToR) and pointed out that there is an LC page on the Quebec Region website. A link had been sent out to give access to the presentations, but it was not working. A new link will be sent out next week.  
• Two issues:
  • Post-season snow crab in area 17
    • The post-season now seems much more important for Science than it used to be, but fishers now bear 100% of the costs. DFO is being asked to help with sampling and data analysis. It is not so much the financial side causing problems, but the sampling and data compilation side is problematic. Fish harvesters lack the expertise to take the data and have it recognized by Science. DFO samplers were invited to come and work with fish harvesters.  
      • DFO is taking note and will follow up on the biologist’s departure. 
  • Weighing and dockside monitoring (DMP)
    • As for the bill (ResMar) for dockside weighing, there used to be a lot of dockside landings, but now with few landings (down in turbot and shrimp), crab and halibut harvesters will receive the full invoice to keep ResMar running. This is a precarious financial situation. The question is whether the DMP should be eliminated or imposed on all fisheries. The Quebec Fisheries Fund could be used to develop scales or to develop technology, such as dockside cameras.  
      • DFO said there are opportunities. There are fundamental unanswered questions, and we need to continue discussing the issues.
• One situation that merits attention concerns at-sea observers (ASOs), including the billing system and cost management. One fisher had 25% coverage and a large bill; the ASO stayed on the boat for a month, and the fisher had to house and feed him during that time.  
  • DFO said someone would follow up on the situation to find out what happened.  

Maryse Lemire concluded the first day’s discussions.

DAY 2

Maryse Lemire welcomed participants. She highlighted the success of the previous day’s 5 à 7 and indicated that this initiative should be repeated in future years. The Deputy Minister was in Quebec City, and she and Sylvain Vézina would be joining the LC at the end of the morning.  

Maryse Lemire reviewed the agenda items for the second day.

Update on implementation  of MMPA (Marine Mammal Protection Act)/Protection measures on NARW (North Atlantic right whale)/National implementation of lower breaking-strength gear modification requirements

Andrea Morden provided 2023 fisheries management updates on the protection and recovery of the North Atlantic right whale (NARW).

Todd Williams presented on the import provisions of the U.S. Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA). He was accompanied by his colleague Olga Kiseliova, also an expert on this issue.

Questions, comments and answers

• Is it possible to determine which fisheries are exempted by the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)?
  • Such information sharing would be premature because the NOAA process in the U.S. is not finalized, and decisions could be reviewed and the exemption raised. Efforts are being made to bring non-exempt fisheries into compliance with MMPA standards.  
• Are gear modifications still being considered in how we want to represent our measures for our fisheries? The question was asked whether the closure protocol measure is sufficient or whether we are aiming for impact-free fisheries. What information will the NOAA consider?   
  • When the fisheries were included in the comparability study in November 2021, each fishery was submitted independently, and all the mitigation measures in place were described for each fishery (fishing season, equipment, etc.).  
  • The management measures already in place are relatively safe. The extension of the NOAA’s deadline will not necessarily affect the measures in place in Canada. Existing and future measures are comparable to those in place for the U.S. fishery. A study by the Canadian Wildlife Federation showed that in the snow crab fishery, the risk of entanglement was reduced by 65% just with the closure protocol, and by 82% when ghost gear programs were considered. The requirements are already in place, and no significant changes are expected following the NOAA’s analysis.
• Many members still report lost gear by telephone, and using ELOGS is more complicated. The possibility of a new system or adapting the present system to make it more straightforward is being considered. Fish harvesters sometimes report lost gear directly to ghost gear recovery companies without going through the system. 
  • Existing tools and measures should be more effective and easier to use. DFO took note of the comment and will try to improve the system, keep fish harvesters informed and have discussions. The message will be passed on to Headquarters. 
• Even if the MMPA is delayed until December 2025, that is only two fishing seasons away. Inconclusive tests were carried out on weak rope gear, and the initiatives were abandoned. For trials for the 2024 fishing season, fish harvesters would have to do it themselves, which is unlikely. This leaves just one season for testing and familiarizing themselves with the gear, i.e., in 2025. At the end of one season, fish harvesters are preparing for the next, so time is short. All in all, it is a long process when you consider distribution and installation. Furthermore, tests show that changes are made on a case-by-case basis because fish harvesters have their own gear and boats are all unique, which can put safety at risk. While 2025 may seem a long way off, it is going to happen fast. We are not ready, and we will not make it if we do not take action. DFO must do more, and fish harvesters must be informed in advance. 
  • DFO thanked participants for their comments and acknowledged the leadership of the organization that had done the testing, as well as last year’s presentation to the LC, all of which helped DFO develop gear and measures. There is a need to differentiate between implementation for MMPA and dates for DFO-requested gear, as MMPA and Canadian timelines differ. Comments on the timetables were heard at the symposium, and the complexity of the process is now better understood. The approach presented in the following few days will reflect (take into account) these concerns. Ghost gear has a significant impact on NARW entanglements, and discussions will be held with fish harvesters to avoid negative impacts on them. It is hoped that Magdalen Islands fish harvesters will continue the trials, noting that there are other sources of funding available, as it is understood that trials are difficult without funding.  
• One participant has been involved for a number of years in efforts to test equipment to reduce the risk of NARW entanglement, including the recovery of ghost gear. The programs are appreciated, and he hopes they will continue. It was asked whether there was data on collisions with merchant navy vessels or other vessels. 
  • Transport Canada will be contacted for statistics. It was clarified that DFO does not comment on the causes of mortality unless a necropsy has been performed. The statistics provided reflect confirmed interactions with fishing gear. No new mortalities have been reported in Canadian waters since 2020; recent years’ data are on entanglements. 
• For the past three years, RPPSG has been conducting tests with weak rope gear and sheathing. It is expected that the entire fleet will eventually use such gear, and the question is, once a fishery has the measures in place, will it have to close or can it remain open in the event of entanglement? 
  • No comment could be made on the Minister’s decision, but the introduction of gear would not replace the closure protocol. Close collaboration with the fishery is required to identify possible fishery-specific adaptations of protection measures.  
• Lost gear: it was noted that there should be consultation with fish harvesters on the technical arrangements for declaring ghost gear. The Jobel system has a new type of declaration with aberrations. A test was carried out by declaring 17,000 unicorn-shaped buoys in Russian waters. There should be a safety standard for reporting lost gear and ensuring the reliability of the data provided on the DFO site.  
  • Participants will have the opportunity to have a discussion under item 12 of the agenda, so they are invited to take note of any questions they may have. 

Marine conservation: Together towards 2030

Alain Guitard gave a presentation. He began by outlining DFO’s vision for marine conservation and its responsibilities, which remain unchanged.

DFO is a collaborator with Parks Canada on marine parks. Martin Desrosiers from Parks Canada gave a presentation.

Three marine park projects piloted by Parks Canada and the MELCCFP [Quebec Department of the Environment, the Fight Against Climate Change, Wildlife and Parks]:

• Saguenay–St. Lawrence Marine Park Expansion (under way)
• Magdalen Islands Marine Park Project (under way)
• Anticosti–Mingan Marine Park Project (getting started)

Alain Guitard continued his presentation on the update on conservation in the St. Lawrence Estuary, as well as an update on the Northern Gulf project.

Florence Boucher-Boisclair gave a presentation, including a review of what had been achieved in 2023 and the resulting findings.

Questions, comments and answers

• The day before, there were discussions on climate change and its harmful impact on the ecosystem, which is being turned on its head. A plan to protect the seabed and species at risk in a marine park was presented without mentioning that the greenhouse effect has an impact on climate change. Questions were raised about DFO’s impact on climate change, such as the production of greenhouse gases during overflights.  
• In Magdalen Islands, the name “marine park” was not accepted and should be “Magdalen Islands Marine Fishing Park” to protect the fishery. Fish harvesters must make an effort to protect the seabed, but everything should be protected, including the fishery.  
• The marine park contains migratory species, so efforts should be made outside the park. There is already a closure protocol. One species present in the park, such as seals, can harm another, such as herring or halibut. Predators would have to be controlled, so there was a question as to whether hunting could take place in the park.  
  • DFO is working with Parks Canada on the issue, and industry input is expected on fisheries measures. The measures will not change quickly, so there will be room for adjustment.  
  • Sealing is permitted, but the quantities harvested are far from the allocated quotas, and there is the market issue. Alain Guitard agreed that the distribution of herring in the area extends beyond the park’s borders. Discussions on protecting the species in its distribution area will be held between DFO and the Industry.   
• It was noted that there has been a lot of talk about the NARW, ghost gear and the park at recent meetings, but more discussions on stocks and biodiversity should be taking place, as this is DFO’s primary mandate. These discussions on protecting certain areas would be appropriate if everything were going well in the fishery, but this is far from being the case at present, and no work seems to be being done, only added protection. 
• There are several visions for the park. The Intra-Quebec Sealers Association (IQSA) has withdrawn from the process and will probably oppose the marine park project. The most common points of contention are 1) the loss of local control: DFO will always have the last word, and no control over international issues; and 2) the slowness of response and process. Biodiversity changes fast, but DFO is slow and even adds a layer of bureaucracy. There is a loss of confidence in managers due to irrational and inconsistent political decisions. One example is the seal hunt on Brion Island, which was banned despite the population explosion and its adverse impact. It is difficult to convince fish harvesters if their questions and requests are not addressed.  
  • DFO does not see fishing and protection as incompatible but as complementary. Marine protected areas help to make the marine environment productive. They consist of fisheries conservation measures, and habitat and resource protection, and provide greater abundance and availability of resources for fish harvesters in nearby areas.
• Will the questionnaires sent to the Indigenous fish harvesters be sent to other fish harvesters? 
  • All materials will be distributed next week in preparation for the workshops, including the questionnaires. 
• Spatial management measures include the entire Gulf; there are fishing areas by species, conservation areas, etc. It should all be standardized internationally. Have we not already reached our coverage target? We need to draw lines; there are already measures in place without having a defined, shifting space.  
  • The exercise that DFO wants to do is to see if we can recognize what is already being done according to international criteria. What measures are already in place to meet the requirements, and what further measures are needed? The workshops scheduled for January are designed to do just that. 
• It was pointed out that at a meeting last year, it was said that no further measures would be taken towards the 2030 target after the Saguenay Park. The current presentation shows new measures to be implemented. 
  • Areas in green are existing measures. The RPPSG said it was awaiting news on a scallop licence initiative in Chandler.  
• A reminder to consult Pessamit, which is affected by a large part of the marine park expansion.  
  • A follow-up will be done.  
• The park would have fixed spatial boundaries even though species’ preferred habitats are shifting with climate change, and it was asked whether a mobile protection plan would be accepted internationally.
  • The issue has been discussed internationally, but no formal approach has yet been developed. However, climate change has been taken into account in discussions and approaches, including in the January workshops.  
  • The fisheries can be managed with more flexible tools than marine protected areas, including the licensing system.  
  • A case in point is the initial measures for the NARW, namely fixed closure areas for the entire season. Now the closures are temporary and seasonal. 
• Could the NARW dynamic closure protocol be part of the internationally recognized 30%, even if it is a temporary measure?  
  • We have a unique dynamic system to protect species and fish harvesters. Discussions are under way internally to see how we can bridge the gap between the dynamic management approach and the internationally accepted recognition of spatial areas. At the moment, the criteria are rigid and apply to fixed areas year-round. We are asking ourselves the same questions to get our various measures recognized in the 30%. 

Discussion on existing initiatives to which the fishing industry must adapt: What are the opportunities, solutions and obstacles?

Gil Thériault of the Association of Inshore Fishermen of Magdalen Islands moderated the discussion.

• To kick off the discussion, he talked about seal meat baits already used in several Scandinavian fisheries, which, according to one study, are effective. With the moratorium on mackerel and herring, seal meat can be seen as a solution. Seals can be both a threat and an opportunity, given their widespread availability.  
• A market problem is sometimes feared, but we know of one case of a butcher in the Magdalen Islands who cannot even keep up with demand. In addition to the meat, the skin and oil are in demand. There is potential, but better organization, including facilities and workforce training, is needed, and this will take years. There are no longer any sealers, but people are asking to be involved in the hunt, such as new licence holders who are in debt and struggling with the problem of seal predation. According to the MMPA, if seals are used as bait, the product cannot be sold in the U.S., but there are solutions: products bound for U.S. markets would not be baited with seal meat. Gil then opened up the discussion on this opportunity. 

Questions, comments and answers

• We need to convince the U.S. that the grey seal is not endangered. Gil Thériault indicated that there is pressure on the government to protect the seal. There was a lack of awareness of the product at the Boston Seafood Show, but there is interest. MMPA relevance is questioned if it puts seals and whales on the same footing. 
• Millions of dollars are lost through the failure to harvest seals or the negative impacts they cause, such as loss of income due to the disappearance of resources like cod. The fishing industry is not well defended, the benefits of seal hunting should be marketed internationally by the government, not by fish harvesters.  
  • The European seal ban is motivated by moral considerations. The ban does not affect Indigenous harvesters, and the hunt can be seen to be for conservation reasons. We need to use these levers. 
• What is the market situation in Newfoundland and Labrador (NL)?  
  • Seals are considered and regulated as meat in Quebec, but as fish in NL, and can be sold dockside. This is not the same in all countries. NL is a better-equipped province in terms of labour, expertise and sealing facilities. Sealing plays an important role there.  
• One publication pointed the finger at hunters as being responsible for the disappearance of the seal, even though the population is known to be large. Before thinking about a business plan, we should deal with the misconceptions about seal hunting. 
  • Yes, but the best way forward is to bring quality products to people. Get people to taste them so they are ready to listen. 
  • How do we promote the market? The hunt has to be expanded before the processing plants can be put into operation.   
  • Grey seals are more difficult to hunt than harp seals, partly because of the regulations. Updating the regulations with grey seals would be a good start. 
• It is surprising that NL is better organized, when it is said that the experts are in the MI. 
  • Quebec is ahead in terms of product quality and diversity, while NL works faster and handles large volumes, especially for pelts.  
• Considering that NL hunts in larger numbers, there are fewer problems with population control. However, harp seals are found seasonally in NL, while in Quebec it is the grey seal over which we have almost lost control in the Southern Gulf. The grey seal is an intelligent animal, adapting to new dangers. We must be prepared to control the grey seal predation that seems to be coming to the Northern Gulf. 

Economical review of fisheries over the last 10 years

Simon Desrochers made the presentation, which covered the previous 10 years (2014–2023). Note that 2023 data are considered preliminary.

Questions, comments and answers

• On a positive note, we can see that the average age has increased by only two years in a decade, perhaps a sign of succession. Is the real income displayed the gross or net income of the company?  
  • For the first question, the median age is 56, which means that the top half of 56 is 10 years away from retirement at 65. For the income question, this is gross income. 
• Does the quota data include all licences, i.e., communal commercial and commercial? 
  • Yes, it is the quota for the entire fleet, including communal commercial licences.
• A question was asked about how landings are attributed to a region – for example, lobster landings in Anticosti area 17B. Are landings compiled for the North Shore area?  
  • The landing location is used – the data are not linked to the residence of the fish harvesters making the landings.  
• Are there any crab price predictions?  
  • Crab in summer was US$5; now it is around $6. 

Simon is responsible for snow crab and shrimp at Strategic Services. 

National policy consultations: What we heard

Jean-Michel Poulin gave the presentation.

Denis Madore and Jonathan Postnikoff from Headquarters were also on hand to answer participants’ questions. 

Jean-Michel Poulin also took the opportunity to mention again the development of a regional licensing policy. This year, DFO hopes to move this priority forward and there will be industry consultations on the broad strokes of this policy, probably via the Liaison Sub Committee, but also extended consultations with the entire industry in Quebec.

Questions, comments and answers

• Is the licensing policy the same for the whole of Quebec, or will each region have its own policy?  
  • This is a Quebec-wide policy, not a national one. Other regions (NL, Gulf and Maritimes) have their own regional policies, which are based on the national policy. The starting point will be the regulations and policies already in place, and it will be adapted if there are regional specificities to respond to more particular issues. The national policy remains the starting point. Regional policies are complementary, taking into account specificities not found elsewhere. The national policy will continue to take precedence. Last year’s presentation will be provided and discussed at the LSC. DFO will seek input from the entire industry for the content of this regional policy.

Presentation on lobster predation

O’Neil Cloutier gave a presentation on predation by striped bass, an increasingly abundant fish species. This was the presentation that was postponed the day before.

• With this presentation, Mr. Cloutier wanted to highlight the extent of the striped bass’s presence. He asked DFO to study striped bass predation on lobster. A 2016 study showed that striped bass has no impact, even though it is a major lobster predator. A science advisory report is needed. Although DFO does not manage striped bass, it is listed as a species at risk. The results of the advisory report would perhaps make it possible to remove it from the list. The question was asked whether this situation had occurred outside Quebec.   

Questions, comments and answers

• Large numbers of striped bass are present in Anse-au-Griffon and can swim up to 2 km upstream. This phenomenon is not new, having been observed two or three years ago.  
• Striped bass have returned to Natashquan in a salmon river. Striped bass have often been encountered during scientific lobster fishing over the past two years. The situation has been reported to Quebec’s Ministère de la Faune [Wildlife Department]. Steps were taken to conduct studies with the provincial government, but no response was received. DFO has been informed that there is a request to launch a scientific fishing project for the North Shore, but funding remains uncertain. The problem is not yet recognized but must be addressed, as striped bass are present on the North Shore and causing damage.
• Striped bass are present in Les Escoumins, Anse-aux-Basques, the Saguenay River, Sainte-Marguerite Bay and in freshwater. We straddle two subpopulations of striped bass; there is confusion between the two subpopulations and a lack of scientific knowledge.  
• One participant with 40 years’ experience in the field pointed out that stocks are assessed by species and that predation is not taken into account. This predation should be taken into account in natural mortality. Grey seal predation should have been taken into account several years ago on pelagic stocks, but nothing was done. The same mistake should not be repeated with striped bass.  
• Environmental changes occur faster than decisions made within the system. This is an important issue for MWIFMA, which sees it as an excellent joint project between DFO and Industry. Discussions could be held with biologists on current and future studies.  
• DFO pointed out that the Miramichi striped bass population is not considered threatened, but the St. Lawrence population has been declared extirpated by COSEWIC. Striped bass have been reintroduced into the St. Lawrence from the Miramichi population. The striped bass is a species that migrates long distances and returns to its place of origin. The question of the origin of striped bass on the North Shore is unknown, as the genetics of bass in the St. Lawrence are the same as those in Miramichi. In Quebec, the management of the striped bass fishery is the responsibility of the provincial government, as is the case for freshwater species or those that migrate between fresh and salt water. We must therefore continue to work with the provincial government. DFO Quebec Region could be a liaison between the Gulf Region, which manages the Miramichi population, and the provincial government. A joint project is a good idea. The Essipit Innu FN Council said it could help with DFO-provincial relations.
• Currently, the Miramichi striped bass population is managed by DFO Gulf Region. The MELCCFP mentioned that there is a pilot project for an Indigenous communal commercial fishery on the Gulf side. In this region, there will be no commercial fishing licences until there is a study of the stock and the viability of the fishery for this species.  
• Is there a study of the impact of striped bass on other commercial species?  
  • The question should be put to the MELCCFP.  
• DFO has the authority to manage bycatch and could allow striped bass bycatch to be kept. 
  • DFO noted the proposal. 
• DFO should identify the people who handle striped bass on the website to facilitate and support discussions with the province.  
  • Maryse Lemire suggested contacting her team, who can share the information.

What does the future hold for the Quebec fishery? Part 1 

Claudio Bernatchez and Judy Doré moderated the discussions.

• The workshop was a follow-up to a discussion held at the December 2022 LC meeting on the future of the fisheries. Several LSC meetings have taken place in the past year, culminating in presentations for this LC meeting on the future of the fisheries.

Panel members: Gil Thériault, Jean-René Boucher, Emmanuel Sand-Duguay and Julie Monger.

Last year’s topics:

• Prevention and solutions, innovation, defining a vision, decision-making flexibility and resilience
• Focus on niche product quality, not volume. Offer variety, enhance the value of bycatch
• Improve collaboration within the industry; a strong alliance of fish harvesters; sharing fishery resources
• Promoting fishery products in international forums, eco-certification and food self-sufficiency  

Answers and comments from the panel of fish harvesters’ representatives

• Is there an interest in working together to develop a common strategic plan?
  • Jean-René Boucher thinks there is; work is already under way, even if it is not official. A lot of collaborative efforts are being made between DFO and Industry, which is willing to work together and has the communication skills to stay ahead of Advisory Committees.  
• What is Quebec’s relative weight in Canada’s fisheries?
  • Emmanuel Sandt-Duguay seconded that it is a good idea to come together: a period of crisis is approaching, and crisis calls for innovation. We need to find solutions collectively, and the discussions at the LC meetings were excellent. In the political arena of Atlantic fisheries, Quebec is small, and it is in our interest to unite, both First Nations and the rest of the industry. As mentioned yesterday, we are in an unpredictable situation, and we must make choices together to prepare for this unpredictability.    
• What is the purpose of industry players working together?
  • Julie Monger agreed: it is not a question of will but of necessity. The North Shore is often a forgotten region, but efforts have been made by the Coalition maritime de la Côte-Nord and the same can be done throughout Quebec.  
• How is collaborative work going in the Magdalen Islands?
  • Gil Thériault asked why there was not just one association for the MI, bringing together several fisheries. There is a willingness to work together, but things are disorganized. It would be easier for everyone to work together, which would reduce facility and administration costs. Language is not a barrier. Right now we are splitting our influence, which is unproductive.  

Comments from participants

• Perhaps it would be wise to coordinate with other provinces. These are the same conditions, issues that affect everyone. Get together with associations from other provinces to have more influence in Ottawa.
• There is a need to work together; to pool our resources in order to be stronger. We need to get together to take collaborative, constructive action, and gain greater access to human resources and funding. The Canadian Independent Fish Harvesters Federation is doing an excellent job with interprovincial discussions, and the network exists and is active. Human resource needs and funding are a central topic at the weekly meetings, but they take up a lot of time.
• What is in store for the coming year? Last year’s issues have been addressed, but what can we do next year to move faster?  
  • Emmanuel Sandt-Duguay thought of a PPP program: prévisibilité [predictability]; Premières nations [First Nations], with whom dialogue is important; and phoque [seal], which is a common problem for everyone, Industry and government alike. Seals are an uncontrolled fishing fleet in themselves. We need to tackle the bait issue and launch an initiative for next year with the involvement of stakeholders.
• So what would it take between now and December 2024 to develop and implement a common vision and strategy? How does that translate into everyday life
  • Jean-René Boucher replied that the process would require streamlining administrative mechanisms and directives. The desire is there, but there are management obstacles that slow down the process, such as waiting for answers. Even with human and monetary resources, political will is also required.  
• And at the organizational level? 
  • One participant pointed out that it takes an initial project that is mutually beneficial. If we are talking about sharing resources, there are going to be conflicts. An initial project would enable us to work together without bickering.  
• Who will talk about the project and to whom? What is the first step? 
  • Setting up an alliance of professional fish harvesters? Offshore fish harvesters? A Canadian federation? Many requests come from all over, so a request from a single group would carry more weight.
  • One participant indicated that there should be action right out of the LC and not wait for the government. The industry needs to take care of itself and get together. 
  • Gil Thériault agreed; there is a need for a mandate and a timetable. No matter how well-intentioned, it will not go anywhere otherwise. 

What does the future hold for the Quebec fishery? Part 2

• What should be the objective of the industry’s common reflection on the future of the fisheries?
  • Gil Thériault argued that the fish harvesters’ image needs to be revamped. People have a negative view of fish harvesters and sealers. He agreed that there is a need for improvement, but we must make people realize that fishing is perhaps the best way to feed the planet. One of the biggest problems in the decline of biodiversity is humans. Fishing takes resources without encroaching on nature’s space like tilled fields.

Comments from participants

• The aim is to represent ourselves properly, but the structure has yet to be determined. 
• It would be worthwhile for the next LC meeting to be co-chaired by Industry and DFO, a goal that could be discussed with the LSC.  
• Although coordination already exists, there is a lack of dialogue between the various levels of government. In response to a merger, each of the groups or associations must retain their voice, as there are many different opinions and realities. Yes, associations need to talk to each other, but they cannot be reduced to one single voice. It is a big mandate in terms of infrastructure and organization. A single body would make the work easier for DFO but would be a big burden on the organization.  
• The Coalition Maritime de la Côte-Nord is not at the expense of the other associations that continue to exist. Their realities and issues are different, but there are many common projects and issues for which the associations are weaker individually. The crux of the matter is finding funding.
• Associations are necessary for local representation, including First Nations. It is possible to join forces to tackle common problems and issues, without altering the nature of individual groupings. The question is how to do this while integrating FN.  
• We need to rethink restructuring because we cannot create associations for all the fisheries in each area.   
• The fear is not that the associations will disappear but that the message will be brought to DFO by a single body.  
• The example of the Coalition de la Côte-Nord is feasible; each association could have a representative. A large entity could serve to improve the image of fish harvesters, promote the sale of products and boost the occupation with the next generation of fish harvesters.  
• Despite the tensions and differences, the LC has improved considerably. For the past two years, there have been discussions and a fundamental movement to come together.  
• We can work on the industry’s image, as the Quebec dairy and pork industries have done, which, through advertising, have moved towards a common identity, even if there were differences. We need to restore the industry’s image, show that we are protecting the seabed, that there is a new generation and that there is non-Indigenous/Indigenous partnership.  
• As far as MAPAQ [Quebec Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food] is concerned, the fisheries budget accounts for only 5%. An association could carry more weight with MAPAQ.  
• Commercialization and marketing are mainly done by AQIP, but we do not even have a product available. The blame is put on the fish harvesters, but the consumer population needs to get on board and consume. We need to work on the local market, and fish harvesters must take back what is currently in the hands of processors.  
• There is a noticeable trend among the public to consume more responsibly. We must make people understand that local seafood and fish are better than tofu from elsewhere. Sometimes things have to go wrong to move forward.  
• What has become of the Alliance des Pêcheurs Professionnels du Québec (APPQ)? 
  • The APPQ still exists, but it lacks the capacity to take on the mandate of setting up a federal organization. The challenge is too great; it requires a structure and funding.  
• It takes time and commitment to get there, and we would like to see initiatives and commitments in the very short term.  
• Everyone is different, but we must realize that we are all in the same boat, since there are many common issues. Discussions are a good first step, but we need to keep the dialogue going and ensure that our traditions continue.
• For MAPAQ, coordination is important: fish harvesters must share their issues to find solutions. There are general and fleet-specific issues. An association of several players would be good, without taking over from the other associations.
• There are two situations: there are no more turbot or shrimp, but the good news is that there are redfish and lobster. The North Shore is ready to get lobster licences. Having a minister from Quebec involved is a great opportunity. We have a solution to help our industry, and DFO has always said there is nothing like an industry-led solution that everyone agrees on. So here we are agreeing to share the redfish for the fish harvesters who are having the hardest time, and to issue lobster licences on the North Shore.  
• We need to provide survival mechanisms for fleets in trouble, even if it is temporary. Be flexible.
• It would be useful to share the contacts of those present. DFO has contact information for LC members that can be shared. Members could confirm their agreement individually by raising their hands so DFO could share the information. Some hands were raised, and it was explained that if anyone felt uncomfortable raising their hand, they should contact Judy directly.    

Claudio Bernatchez ended the panel.

Closing remarks

Maryse Lemire concluded the meeting by emphasizing that it had been two days of very fruitful dialogue. The information shared in the afternoon set the stage for a fine discussion, which we hope will continue after the meeting.  

• She recognized a willingness to come together and a desire to identify common projects and collective issues that speak to everyone. There are many things we need to think about, such as succession planning, the skyrocketing cost of licences, a review of all the management aspects that sometimes make our interactions more difficult, and greater consistency between fleets in DFO’s administrative guidelines.  
• We are fortunate to be able to count on the support of Patrick Vincent (present in the room) until the end of March 2024. He is not here to do the industry’s thinking for us, but he can help prepare the meetings, stimulate thinking and summarize what is heard at the meetings. DFO makes Patrick’s support available, but it has to come from the Industry.   
• Maryse outlined a series of questions to prompt further reflection: 
  • What are the main challenges facing the Quebec fishing industry as a whole?
  • What are your short-, medium- and long-term priorities?
  • What are the main obstacles limiting our ability to tackle the future?
  • What are the main opportunities?
  • Other points: support mechanism when a fleet is in difficulty.  
• A number of participants commented on the good relations within the LC. She thanked the participants for their participation and Judy for organizing the meeting. She noted that it makes a difference to the LC when Industry is successfully engaged in the preparations.  
• DFO would return the link to access the various presentations. DFO would also communicate by email for personalized follow-ups. The minutes would be shared and discussions within the LCS would continue.  

Maryse wished all participants a safe journey home and a happy holiday season.