Mr. Chair and members of the committee, this study aims to shed light on the process of allocating exploratory lobster fishing licences in order to improve things for the future. Although some aspects need to be reviewed, we believe it is important to provide some context and highlight what has been done well in this process, specifically for zone 19.
Turbot fishers have witnessed the collapse of their stocks in recent years. The total allowable catch, which remained stable at 4,500 tonnes for several years, is now set at 290 tonnes for the 2025-26 season for zones 4RST in the Gulf of St. Lawrence. The value of turbot landings in the Gaspésie fell from nearly $10 million in 2017-18 to $3.7 million in 2021-22, before collapsing completely to $18,721 in 2024-25. With the collapse of the turbot fishery, these exploratory lobster licences are a timely lifeline for this fleet. The increase in lobster abundance since 2018, thanks to an experimental project that became exploratory between the Tartigou River and Rivière-à-Claude, has been confirmed with the exploitation of new licences in 2025. Indeed, landing data show a more than interesting abundance of the resource.
To determine the eligibility of fishers for these licences, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, or DFO, used various criteria, including residency as well as the fishing efforts of fishers in so-called struggling fleets in previous years.
Residency is one of the oldest criteria used by DFO to determine fishers’ eligibility for fishing licences, both when new licences are issued and when licences are reassigned. For example, fishers brought to my attention that when lobster licences were issued in southern Gaspésie in the 1990s, fishers from northern Gaspésie were not eligible because they did not reside in that territory.
The criterion related to fishing effort is not perfect. It might have been appropriate to establish a minimum landing threshold for eligibility, to ensure that fishers were not only active in appearance. Furthermore, although the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans at the time mentioned wanting to help the next generation with these licences, DFO could have made an additional effort in this regard without excluding experienced fishers from the process.
Although the process was carried out quickly, it must be acknowledged that departmental managers and the minister’s office listened to our comments and suggestions. For example, the idea of issuing 100-pot licences rather than 250-pot licences to non-indigenous fishers in zone 19 came from the industry. This is ultimately what was done, even though initially several people at the department did not view this proposal favourably. The rollout of these licences in three phases rather than two, as originally planned, was a suggestion from other industry players that the department listened to and implemented. It would also be wrong to claim that unrecognized associations were completely ignored, as suggestions made by individual fishers were taken on board by DFO in the implementation of this project.
With the challenges facing the fishing industry continuing to mount, it is important that these licences continue to support the future of struggling fleet fishers and new entrants to the industry. It is therefore important to consider the transferability of these licences, whether they are exploratory or commercial.
In conclusion, I would like to raise the following question: Should the fact that certain groups or individuals were unable to obtain exploratory lobster licences completely discredit the process, as well as the criteria used to grant these fishing licences?
Thank you for your attention, and I will be happy to answer any questions you may have.