Evidence of meeting #5 for Fisheries and Oceans in the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was fishers.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Patrick Weiler
Your time is up, Mr. Cormier.
That will finish our first panel.
I want to thank our witnesses for their testimony and for being here in person and by video conference. This will be very, very helpful for the report we'll be doing on the testimony we have received.
We will suspend briefly while we get our next panel set up.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Patrick Weiler
I call this meeting back to order.
Before we get started with our second panel, I want to make a few comments for the benefit of the new witnesses.
Please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. For those participating by video conference, please click on the microphone icon to activate your mic, and please mute yourself when you are not speaking.
For interpretation for those on Zoom, you have the choice, at the bottom of your screen, of floor, English or French. For those in the room, you can use the earpiece and select the desired channel.
I remind you that all comments should be addressed through the chair.
With that, I would like to welcome our witnesses.
We have Mr. Emmanuel Sandt‑Duguay, fisherman.
By video conference, we have Ian MacPherson, executive director of the Prince Edward Island Fishermen's Association.
Online, from the Regroupement des pêcheurs professionnels du sud de la Gaspésie, we have O'neil Cloutier, director, and Claire Canet, project manager.
You will each have five minutes to deliver your opening remarks.
We will start with you, Mr. Sandt‑Duguay. You have five minutes.
Emmanuel Sandt-Duguay Fisherman, As an Individual
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I would like to thank the members of the committee for their invitation. My name is Emmanuel Sandt‑Duguay. I am a fisher and a resident of the municipality of Rimouski, Quebec.
Unfortunately, there have been a lot of inconsistencies and irregularities in the mechanisms and criteria that were used in awarding exploratory lobster fishing licences in the Lower St. Lawrence region in 2025. There have been far too many for me to list here. I only have five minutes of speaking time. I would be happy to answer any questions afterwards.
I would nevertheless like to point out that the commercial fishing licensing policy for eastern Canada clearly states that proximity to the resource is a recognized factor of precedence for issuing new exploratory licences. This priority factor was recognized in the Quebec region in 2018 by the use of a residence criterion when lobster fishing licences were issued in Gaspésie, between Rivière-à-Claude and the Tartigou River. You had to be a resident of the area. The intent is to promote a local fishery with local fishers and local economic benefits. However, in its last allocation session, in 2025, the department used new mechanisms and reserved licences in my community of Rimouski to award them to fishers, most of whom were from outside the region and some of whom live more than 400 kilometres from us.
The knowledge and development plan project is as follows: issue 24 of the 35 planned licences in area 19 directly in my area between Matane and Rimouski. I fish for whelk. That is my main fishery. I do not have a snow crab licence, a snow crab allocation, a shrimp licence or a turbot quota, and I do not fish pelagic fish either. I was not selected for the application of the allocation plan.
However, the whelk fishery is locally important and has been increasingly precarious in recent years. We are experiencing major changes in the St. Lawrence estuary ecosystem. In February, Fisheries and Oceans Canada biologists from the Maurice Lamontagne Institute presented a study during the scientific review indicating that lobsters prey on whelks. Lobsters, which have just arrived en masse in the estuary sector, eat whelks. While the total allowable catch in my area had been stable for over 20 years at 491 tonnes, it was reduced by 66% in 2025, or two thirds of the quota. In addition, the fishery was closed from May 15 to July 15 to protect the resource during the spawning season.
I agree that we need to protect the resource. However, I do not have anything else to fish in that time, other than maybe a little bit of Atlantic halibut. I have not been able to guarantee my crew a job, and my wages cannot compete with the wages offered by those who have obtained lobster licences. One of my employees went fishing with another fisherman who had a lobster fishing licence. I did not, and I am wondering why. Why were local fishers, who are negatively affected by the new lobster resource in the territory, not considered in this plan? I was never consulted by DFO; there were no meetings organized. Things were rushed in the awarding of these licences, and I was not invited to any draws.
On the one hand, I was asked last spring to stop fishing my main species, the whelk, in order to protect the resource. Whelks are eaten by lobsters. On the other hand, I see other fishers coming from outside to my home port to benefit from this new resource. In addition, we now learn that some licensed fishers caught up to 150,000 pounds of lobster in 2025 with these new allocated licences. At an average price of $8 a pound, that is about $1 million or $1.2 million, quite a bit more than the salary of the Prime Minister of Canada. Yet, lobsters are a public resource.
I am wondering about the future of the fisheries. Is DFO's proposal to make a handful of individuals millionaires and make it so that no one else can benefit? Is it to move people more than 400 kilometres from their place of residence and deprive local fishers of access in a limited dock space in the context of a housing shortage? Does that make sense from an economic or social standpoint or from a regional development standpoint?
The allocation plan introduced in 2025 is a plan that divides the various fleets, sometimes creates division within the same fleet, creates division in villages, creates division in the wharves and divides the fishers. This is a missed opportunity, in my opinion, to propose a better future for all. However, it is really a beautiful gift to have this new lobster resource in abundance in our waters. The year 2025 was a record year for lobster landings in Quebec. Could we do a better job of distributing the effort? Can we be fair and share this resource collectively?
Why not impose catch limits or a quota system for these new licences? Most other species have quota systems. Why not favour as many fishers as possible? Why not allow all stakeholders in Quebec's coastal community to benefit?
I would like to conclude my remarks by mentioning that the decision-making framework for granting new access, which the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans recommended and approved in November 2002, is based on three principles, which I will present in order of priority.
One is conservation. Next is the recognition of aboriginal and treaty rights. Then there is fairness. There are two parts to it, procedural and distributive. In terms of procedure, access criteria must be used fairly and consistently in an open, transparent and accountable decision-making process that ensures fair treatment for all. As for distributive fairness, fishing is a resource—
Fisherman, As an Individual
I only need a few seconds.
As for distributive fairness, the fishery is a common public resource that should be managed without creating or exacerbating excessive disparities between individuals or regions.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Patrick Weiler
Thank you very much.
Next we'll go to Mr. MacPherson.
You have the floor for five minutes or less.
Ian MacPherson Executive Director, Prince Edward Island Fishermen's Association
Thanks very much, Chair.
On behalf of the over 1,260 captains who make up the Prince Edward Island Fishermen's Association membership, I would like to thank the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans for the opportunity to present on these divergent but important items.
The recent increase in redfish resources created unique and challenging circumstances. For reasons of expediency, I would like to list some of the key situations and comments that are related to the recent allocation of redfish quota and exploratory licences.
On the attribution of redfish, the points on the redfish are based on the current two-year trial program announced by former federal fisheries minister Diane Lebouthillier in 2023. It's uncommon to have a species bounce back after 20-plus years of moratorium. It created a chicken-and-egg scenario. Market development was limited, as quota was not assigned due to a high percentage of small fish. It's a classic case of each jurisdiction feeling that they should be in line for most of the quota based on catch history.
There was much debate over when the fishery should commence. The fish have stopped growing, as mentioned earlier, and are under preferred market length for fillets. It is mostly a bait fishery to date, which equals a low harvester return. There was a lack of a comprehensive allocation plan despite having five-plus years of notice that a large cohort of fish was developing.
Industry knew that historic quota allocations would not apply and opened the door for new arrangements. The Prince Edward Island bid was made jointly with the Abegweit and Lennox Island first nations. The first nations would direct their quotas if allocated. Unfortunately, there was no allocation to the PEIFA or Island first nations. Small allocations made to 210 licence-holders were for approximately 13,000 pounds per fisher.
Diversification is critical in some areas, but infrastructure is needed. We need viable quota amounts for individual harvesters. Associations could assist if plans were requested and presented for fair and equitable distribution of quota to the members. Associations could also assist in coordinating the sale of the product on behalf of the individual harvesters.
Exploratory licences can lead to economic diversification for an area or region if they meet the criteria below. As noted in the previous redfish dialogue, economic diversification and equivalency should be a key component for any exploratory fisheries. On the issue of exploratory licences, there are some key concerns that must be addressed.
We must ensure that the principle of one licence in, one licence out is maintained. We must ensure that specific and sufficient scientific assessment programs are in place. Additional assessment may be required, depending on the species and existing programs.
On lobster, there must be geographic limitations if catches decrease. This could disrupt the balance of areas where one in, one out has achieved a healthy stock balance. The duration of licences must be reviewed annually and have very limited terms. The history is that most pilots become permanent. More access and volume are not always better. We are seeing marginal returns. I'm referring to lobster in some fisheries related to price in the marketplace. Once again, the economic viability of area harvesters must be more of a consideration.
The topics of increased redfish volumes and potentially more exploratory fisheries are indications of changing ocean conditions. It is incumbent on the Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada not only to work closely with harvesters and fishing organizations but to understand that existing programs and policies may not meet the needs of our current fisheries.
Our margin of error is very thin, and opportunities for expanded or new fisheries must not be squandered away. These opportunities require proper planning, oversight and the singular focus of protecting the resource under consideration.
This concludes the opening remarks of the PEIFA. We welcome any questions from the committee members.
Thank you.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Patrick Weiler
Thank you very much, Mr. MacPherson.
We now move on to Mr. Cloutier and Ms. Canet, who will share five minutes of speaking time.
O'neil Cloutier Director, Regroupement des pêcheurs professionnels du sud de la Gaspésie
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I have been a fisherman since 1977, and I have been the executive director and founder of the Regroupement des pêcheurs professionnels du sud de la Gaspésie, or RPPSG, since 1991.
My colleague here has been leading a number of RPPSG files since 2017. We represent the 146 individual lobster and commercial licence holders in areas 19, 20 and 21. So it is the entire southern part of the Gaspé Peninsula and part of the northern part of the Gaspé, all the way to Mont-Louis.
Our mission is to ensure the sustainable development of the lobster fishery, which supports the socio-economic needs of current fishers without compromising the ability of future generations to continue fishing, through a sustainable and prudent management of the resource based on science.
The increased fishing effort by DFO is concerning. Since 2022, the RPPSG has funded 100% of a postseason lobster survey by a fisher in commercial area 19B. All lobsters caught are released after being characterized.
We also conduct in-season data harvesting with experimental traps in commercial subzones 19C and 19B. The two participating fishers retain the commercial-sized lobsters from the two traps made available to them, representing approximately 0.4% of the fishing effort in area 19.
However, as part of phase 1 of the implementation of DFO's knowledge and development plan, with exploratory licences, the fishing effort increased by 113% for area 19 as a whole and 37.5% for commercial sub-areas 19A2 and 19C2.
In 2024, DFO verbally confirmed to us that there was no objective scientific evidence to support the significant increase in the 7,750 exploratory traps for the planned data harvesting. Several answers need to be provided regarding recruitment, the available biomass and the additional fishing effort it could potentially support, including in commercial sub-areas 19A2 and 19C2.
It will take several years of additional data collection to develop sufficient knowledge. Some answers regarding a few sub-areas in area 19A1 were provided by the Wolastoqey after years of experimental and then exploratory fisheries. However, a number of sub-areas have never been studied, particularly west of Matane. Scientific data on commercial sub-areas 19A2 to 19C2 is still very incomplete. Increasing suddenly a fishing effort without any conclusive scientific data can endanger the resource and the current fishers who depend on it. We do not want lobster to be a victim, like cod, of management based on an apparent abundance.
Claire Canet
The resource is a common public good that does not belong to DFO, yet DFO uses it to fund its data harvesting. The principle is that, if the harvested resources are marketed by those who perform the data capture, the project must be done under a co-operation agreement with the fishers who depend on the resource. Otherwise, DFO or a third party must fund 100% of the data harvesting operations, and the catch has to be released. However, that is not the case for the implementation of this data harvesting plan.
Management of access to the resource has been based on the principle of adjacency for over 50 years. That way, access is granted to those closest to the resource, since they seem more likely to rely heavily on that access for the economic health of their village. That is what we heard, by the way, from Mr. Sandt‑Duguay.
However, it appears that this principle has not been consistently applied to exploratory fishing licences in area 19. Fishers in the southern part of the Gaspé have obtained individual or community exploratory licences, while others, in difficulty, have been excluded in the name of this principle.
In closing, DFO has not assessed the economic risks to lobster fishers posed by this new exploratory effort, which is in fact similar to a commercial fishery. The value of a fishing business is based on the health of the stock in its sub-area, the potential catch per licence, the number of participants and the landed value, which depends on the volumes landed and the market's ability to absorb them.
In 2025, there was a lack of processing capacity. Thousands of lobsters caught under an exploratory licence could not be processed and sold. The resource is being wasted. Fishers have sometimes had to keep their boats at the dock.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Patrick Weiler
Thank you very much, Ms. Canet and Mr. Cloutier.
With that, we're going to get into our first round of questioning. It will be a six-minute round.
I'll turn the floor over to you, Mr. d'Entremont, for six minutes or less.
Conservative
Chris d'Entremont Conservative Acadie—Annapolis, NS
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Sandt‑Duguay, you said that fishers living 400 km away came to fish for lobster in your region. Where did they come from? Did they come from Montreal or someplace else?
Fisherman, As an Individual
Yes. Some came from Rivière-au-Renard, near Gaspé. That's 400 kilometres away.
Conservative
Chris d'Entremont Conservative Acadie—Annapolis, NS
What makes you think they had exploratory fishing licences?
Fisherman, As an Individual
I sympathize with the other fishers. The shrimp fishery is going through some tough times right now. I think this committee has addressed the topic before. We're having problems with turbot too. However, I don't think that was the right solution.
The same thing can be said of redfish allocations. Shrimpers are suitable for catching redfish. If they'd been allowed to catch more, they might have caught nothing but redfish. But since they couldn't catch a lot, they would have needed something else. Maybe they could have caught snow crab. With a shrimper, it's easier to catch and process snow crab than it is to catch lobster. For the lobster solution, they would have had to buy another boat to go and fish offshore. It was as if some fishers won the lottery, with really good permits in really good areas, but the outcome for others wasn't the best.
Some collateral damage was done to residents in the area, however. No one at DFO checked to verify dockside capacity. There were socio-economic implications on the ground too.
People make decisions in their offices, but on the ground, fishers coexist on the docks, and some collateral damage was caused.
Conservative
Chris d'Entremont Conservative Acadie—Annapolis, NS
I don't think that the department consulted with local fishers. This is a problem that we've seen multiple times. Otherwise, it might have gained a better understanding of the adjacency issue. It could have allocated quotas to fishers who reside closer to the resource.
However, as often happens, there doesn't seem to have been much meaningful consultation with the fishers. Someone far off in Ottawa decided who needed a license.
Fisherman, As an Individual
I couldn't agree with you more. It's a top-down and bottom-up approach, where you make decisions somewhere in the middle.
There was no consultation at my level.
Conservative
Chris d'Entremont Conservative Acadie—Annapolis, NS
I'll switch over to Mr. MacPherson. Thanks for joining us today, as well.
My question revolves around the issue of exploratory or experimental licences. As industries or fishermen or fishers identify different kinds of species to fish, how should the department treat some of these things?
It's really hard to figure out sometimes who different fishers are supposed to go to, to actually talk about these things. We see in this particular case, in the Gaspésie, that they came up with an exploratory licence.
How do you think that should be happening in and around Prince Edward Island?
Executive Director, Prince Edward Island Fishermen's Association
It's always good to dialogue with associations. The associations are the best to redirect specific things to either their various committees, a board of directors or individual harvesters. There has been a kind of a common theme here regarding a lack of communication with the previous minister. All of a sudden, we just heard about things through a colleague who's on the call right now.
These are big things. I allude back to my question: What kind of market impacts does this have in terms of these fisheries? Many of them are emerging, but in the case of the Gaspésie, there's quite a bit of product that is now in the marketplace.
Conservative
Chris d'Entremont Conservative Acadie—Annapolis, NS
That brings me to my second question. When it revolves around, you know.... Fishermen are always chasing the best price, depending on the time of year and depending on the markets that are actually available to them. What is the effect of...? Mr. Sandt-Duguay said they were catching somewhere near 150,000 pounds in a season. Multiply that by the number of licences that have been brought forward, and how does that affect the total price of lobsters in the area?
Executive Director, Prince Edward Island Fishermen's Association
I agree. That volume at that price seems like a pretty good return, but there are other areas that aren't seeing those kinds of returns. We've had various conditions this year that contributed to not a huge amount of lobster in inventory, but that's not always the case every year.
Conservative
Chris d'Entremont Conservative Acadie—Annapolis, NS
I know I had a bunch of other questions. I know I'm running out of time quickly.
Just quickly to Ian, how do we better consult with fishing groups, when it comes to bigger decisions like this?
Executive Director, Prince Edward Island Fishermen's Association
You need the dialogue. Certainly, we needed to understand what DFO's plans were and how it was going about it. We need sufficient time, so that associations can have real input into it, not just be advised at the last minute. As associations and members, we've got some really good ideas we can bring to the table on how a launch could go smoothly or badly.