Source: The Lake Winnipeg Research Consortium, Report to the Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries:  The Health of the Lake Winnipeg Ecosystem and the Role of the Lake Winnipeg Research Consortium, April 2001.

To address the pressing need for research, the Lake Winnipeg Research Consortium (LWRC) was formed in August 1998 (and incorporated in August 2001).  On 10 May 2000, in Gimli, Committee members met with representatives of the Consortium, who described the activities they undertake to:  facilitate multi-disciplinary scientific research; encourage the sharing of information among stakeholders; and assist in the coordination of specific research ventures involving universities, governments and private interests.  The 24 agencies that belong to the LWRC include a diverse group:  university researchers, Aboriginal groups, commercial fishers, federal and provincial government agencies, crown corporations, industry, community organizations, recreational interests, and others.  

The LWRC’s program is centered around the vessel Namao – a DFO Canadian Coast Guard (CCG) ship that became surplus to CGG needs in 1997 when the Aids to Navigation program was contracted out to private interests.  Instead of disposing of the vessel, the CCG agreed to crew the Namao and make it available on a cost-recovery basis as a research platform – a task it performed in 1994 and 1996.  The LWRC was able to raise funds to conduct an inaugural three-week research cruise of Lake Winnipeg in August 1999, with water samples being taken from a number of sites over the entire lake.  This was said to have been the most extensive survey undertaken in 30 years.  While the Namao was not available in 2000 and 2001 because of maintenance needed to meet Transport Canada safety requirements, a limited amount of research was carried out from smaller vessels during those years.  On 21 September 2001, the Consortium received $326,000 under the Canada-Manitoba Economic Development Partnership Agreement.  It was explained to us that:  the funding would cover the costs of maintaining the Namao; and the LWRC was completing a plan to fund and operate the Namao for a minimum of ten weeks per year for each of the next three years.

Research on Lake Winnipeg is critically important because of a number of worrying trends.  Among some of the LWRC’s findings to date:  Lake Winnipeg is approaching a state of deterioration that may affect ecosystem sustainability; significant changes have occurred in water transparency, biological species composition, productivity and sediment chemistry; the lake is on a path of progressive eutrophication (degradation through nutrient enrichment) not unlike that seen in the lower Great Lakes during the late 1960s; the discovery of an exotic species of zooplankton (Eubosmina coregoni) is an indication that environmental conditions are changing; and the recent invasion by rainbow smelt could change the structure of the lake’s food web.  We were told:  there is a pressing need for research on the ecosystem effects of agricultural and urban expansion and hydroelectric development; and Lake Winnipeg is in need of a remediation program.

Another recent development was the federal and Prairies fisheries ministers’ announcement on 21 September 2001 of a revised Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) on the prioritizing of fisheries science activities in the Prairie provinces, and on improving collaboration and cooperation.([21])  Faced with funding pressures for freshwater research, the Ministers agreed that science priorities should be coordinated, where possible, to ensure the most effective science programs are delivered in each jurisdiction.  Also announced was a Federal-Prairie Provinces Fisheries Science Team that would identify common fisheries science needs and priorities on such topics as habitat productivity, physical habitat alteration and destruction and remediation, chemical contaminants in the environment, exotic species, stock assessment, fishery management issues, species at risk, aquaculture and fish health.

B.  Transboundary Environmental Issues in the Canadian Arctic  

Your question was whether Canada is doing enough international science.  All I can tell you is that we get more phone calls from our international partners about doing joint work with them than we can handle. – Martin Bergmann, Director, Arctic Science Program Development, DFO, Committee Proceedings, 30 October 2001

How much research is enough?  Sometimes, when we visit communities in the North and tell them that we have found contaminants that originate in banana plantations somewhere in South America, they are not happy with us passing on that sort of information.  However, looking at research in the Arctic overall in terms of contaminants, we are getting a good overall picture of what is happening with some of the important contaminants such as mercury, for example. – Michael Papst, Division Manager, Arctic Research, DFO, Committee Proceedings, 30 October 2001  
 

We are on the cusp of a set of very major problems in the North relating to climate change. – Arthur J. Hanson, Oceans Ambassador, International Institute for Sustainable Development, Committee Proceedings, 20 November 2001  

In Canada’s Arctic, the impact of global warming on ecosystems, wildlife and animal migrations was repeatedly raised in the communities we visited.  Participants in our review drew our attention time and time again on the fact that:  climate change is well under way; future changes will likely be more rapid than in the past; and the long-term consequences of global warming on cultures and economies would be greatest in the Arctic.  We heard that animals and fish were appearing in areas they had not been previously seen in, and that the coastlines were changing due to the melting of ice.  Considering its very sparse population and comparative lack of development, it would be an understatement to suggest that the Arctic is disproportionately affected by this global phenomenon.  With its unique and sensitive environment, the Arctic was likened to a canary in a mine shaft – an early warning system of sorts for the rest of the planet – and, because of this fact, international interest in the region was said to be growing.

Another major worry was the contamination of food obtained through hunting, trapping and fishing.  Understandably, this is a major health concern of Aboriginal people because “country food” (e.g., fish and marine mammals) is a major part of their diet.  Although not believed to pose an immediate threat to human health, the risks associated with the accumulation of contaminants increase over a person’s lifetime.  Persistent organic pollutants (POPs) have been linked to cancer, birth defects, and various genetic abnormalities; and high levels of these substances have been found in mothers’ breast milk.  However, the effects of not consuming traditional foods, which are vital from both a nutritional and cultural standpoint, were deemed to be just as serious.  

Over the past 25 years, studies confirm the presence of organochlorine pesticides (e.g., DDT, toxaphene and chlordane) and industrial compounds (e.g., PCBs – polychlorinated biphenyls) in marine mammals (e.g., seals, beluga and walrus – animals that are at the top of the food chain).  Some toxins were said to originate from former military installations (former DEW line sites), but the majority of these compounds are transported to the Arctic by atmospheric and oceanic currents and originate from industrial and agricultural sources in Asia, Europe and North America.  Heavy metals present in northern food chains were said to include lead, cadmium and mercury (a toxic substance that has both man-made and natural sources).  In the Northwest Territories, it was pointed out that the data on contaminants provide reasonably good coverage for beluga and ringed seal, but less is known about freshwater and anadromous fish, and even less about marine species.([22])  Throughout the Arctic, there were calls for more research to more fully understand the potential harmful impacts of contaminants on ecosystems and human health.

An important source of information on contaminants is the Canadian Arctic Contaminants Assessment Report – a 400-page document that summarizes the results of research conducted by Northern Contaminants Program (NCP) during the period between the 1970s and 1997.([23])  Established in 1991 and administered by Department of Indian and Northern Affairs, the NCP brings together the three territorial governments, northern Aboriginal organizations, university researchers, and other federal departments.  The DFO’s primary role was said to be in detection; the Arctic Research Division collects data on contaminants from community-harvested animals and fish, and passes information on possible risks to human health to Health Canada, northern health boards, and co-management boards.  The NCP’s goal is to reduce, and wherever possible, eliminate contaminants in traditionally harvested foods, and assist individuals and communities in making informed decisions about their food consumption.  Phase I of the NCP focused on establishing the location and levels of contaminants in the Arctic, and confirming their regional source.  Phase II (1999/2000 to 2002/2003) now places more emphasis on community dialogue and participation (providing advice to communities and reducing their intake of contaminants), and working towards international agreements; and the NCP provides some $5.4 million in annual funding for research.

In the past decade, a number of Canadian initiatives have focused on environmental issues in the North.  The Canadian Polar Commission, for example, was established in 1991, and a Circumpolar Ambassador was appointed in 1993.  More recently in June 2000, the federal government adopted The Northern Dimension of Canada’s Foreign Policy, the objectives of which include:  the preservation of Canada’s sovereignty in the North; the promotion of the human security of northerners and the sustainable development of the Arctic; and a renewed commitment to protect the Arctic environment from environmental degradation and transboundary environmental threats such as persistent organic pollutants, climate change and nuclear waste.  In August 2000, the federal Minister of the Environment also announced the establishment of a $20 million fund, to be administered by the World Bank, to help developing countries reduce their production of POPs.

Because changes in the Arctic environment and ecosystems affect other parts of the world, and reciprocally, there have been an increasing number of international agreements and instruments to protect the Arctic, which Canada has either signed or endorsed.([24])  Implementation of these commitments is a priority for northerners.  Canada and the other circumpolar nations have also collaborated in scientific research and monitoring.  As part of the circumpolar region and in cooperation with other circumpolar countries, Canada (mainly the Departments of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, and Indian and Northern Affairs) has been an active participant on the Arctic Council.  Established in 1996, the Council is a ministerial-level, intergovernmental forum which addresses the common concerns and challenges faced by governments and northern peoples in the Arctic.([25])  Members of the Council include the United States, the United Kingdom, Norway, Finland, Sweden, Russia and Denmark.  On our visits, several people pointed out that Inuit had long recognized the benefits of multilateral cooperation and information-sharing.([26])  

C.  Co-Management Under Comprehensive Land Claims

Co-management is a joint process that brings together local resource users and government agencies to share management responsibility for local or regional resources.  It is important to note that in making management decisions, we incorporate “traditional ecological knowledge” from Canada’s Aboriginal communities. – John Cooley, Regional Director of Science, DFO, Committee Proceedings, 30 October 2001  

Our marine environment in Nunavut is what farmland is to many other parts of Canada – the source of our food and our income.  It has shaped who and what we are in Canada. – The Honourable Olayuk Akesuk, Minister of Sustainable Development, Government of Nunavut, Committee Proceedings, 8 May 2001

Beginning in 1975, Canadian land claims agreements have incorporated systems of sharing power and responsibilities between government and local users of resources, including fish.  The DFO’s fisheries programs in the North are now conducted mainly in conjunction with co-management boards established under land claims settlements (e.g., the Gwich’in Renewable Resources Board, the Fisheries Joint Management Committee, the Nunavut Wildlife Management Board), which the Department considers to be “primary clients” or “partners.”([27])  However, co-management arrangements – a much-discussed subject during our northern visit – range from large-scale, multi-stakeholder projects between government authorities and Aboriginal organizations, to small-scale, community-based, cooperative projects in which government officials work closely with local user groups.  Community-based co-management, in turn, recognizes local-level management systems and traditional local knowledge, which can often yield many benefits.

For example, in the Northwest Territories, Committee members learned that Rat River char (known as “Dolly Varden charr”)  – an important subsistence food for Gwich’in of Aklavik and Fort McPherson – was in decline due to suspected overfishing.  In cooperation with the DFO, a research project was initiated which saw Gwich’in elders and fishers assist biologists by providing them with basic information on the fish’s seasonal movements, preferred habitat, and spawning areas.  Local fishers were hired to sample fish and collect much biological data on the fish.  With this information, biologists worked with the community to design a suitable and acceptable management strategy.  In 1997, community members voluntarily reduced their catch by half.

In the North, community-based data collection and monitoring is an essential component of fisheries.  As described to us, it usually involves hiring members of local communities as fish monitors who: count, measure and weigh fish; take otoliths (pieces of bone found in the inner ear that reveal a fish’s age); and record the place and date of capture, and fishing effort.  Besides generating valuable information on fish stocks, this type of activity also provides valuable training and employment.  We were advised that community monitoring is especially effective if the data collection methods employed can be readily used by fishers, if accurate and reliable data is collected over a long time period.  Aboriginal people were said to be increasingly becoming aware of the career opportunities that wildlife and fisheries co-management can bring in their communities, and are seeking appropriate training.  In the Inuvialuit Settlement Region, we heard about a student mentoring program, run by the Fisheries Joint Management Committee in co-operation with the DFO, that encourages Inuvialuit youth to pursue their studies so they can one day become the region’s future scientists and resource managers.

Significantly, the co-management systems in place attempt to bridge the cultural differences between local users and fisheries managers.  This is accomplished largely through commitments to consensus decision-making, and by combining the local, traditional ecological knowledge (TEK) of Aboriginal people with western scientific research and management techniques for the purpose of improving resource management.  In the Northwest Territories, witnesses stressed the fact that the territorial government’s policy officially recognizes TEK as a valid and indispensable source of information in management.([28])  In essence, co-management in the North is founded on the notion that government shares decision-making power with local fishers in a given geographical area in exchange for their knowledge, cooperation and assistance in resource management.  By devolving authority to local levels of administration, government authorities not only increase compliance with rules, they also improve data-gathering and knowledge of fish stocks.

Sometimes referred to as “joint” or “shared stewardship,” “partnerships,” or “joint management” in the literature, co-management is a consensus-based approach and, as such, it requires:  a substantial commitment and investment of time in order to take into account different worldviews; and much consultation, so that it often takes a longer time to reach decisions.  In the North, several people pointed out that the vastness of the region also makes effective communication difficult and increases research costs.  In both the eastern and western Arctic, some commented that the DFO was critically understaffed, making it difficult for the Department to live up to its responsibility as a co-management partner.  For example, we learned that there was only one enforcement officer for the entire Gwich’in Settlement Area.  In Nunavut, a lack of administrative capacity in the Territory was attributed to the fact that most activities related to fisheries are coordinated either from the Central and Arctic Region in Winnipeg, or the DFO’s regional office in St. John’s, Newfoundland and Labrador, making it difficult for decisions to be made in the best interest of the Territory. 

In the South, a key element of the DFO’s strategic plan for the Atlantic and Pacific regions has also been to decrease its involvement in the management of commercial fisheries in favour of co-management.  Interest in co-management has increased; it is seen as an alternative to property-based fishing rights (i.e., individual quota licences, known as IQs) in the much-larger marine commercial fisheries.([29])  Now spreading rapidly, this concept was endorsed by this Committee throughout the 1990s.  However, many are wary of the DFO’s intentions; they fear that the co-management approach is a convenient means by which the Department can shift the costs of management to resource users.([30])

It is noteworthy that, in May 1999, the DFO launched an Atlantic Fisheries Policy Review (AFPR), the first such review in two decades.  In early 2001, a round of public consultations was conducted with industry stakeholders (in the Atlantic provinces, Quebec and Nunavut) on the objectives and principles outlined in a DFO discussion paper (The Management of Fisheries on Canada’s Atlantic Coast:  A Discussion Document on Policy Direction and Principles).  In the not-so-distant future, the DFO plans to issue a new policy framework that will define objectives and principles to guide the management of the Atlantic fisheries in the long term.  Among other things, the AFPR discussion paper states that:  the DFO does not have the resources to regulate and monitor every fishing activity; and the elaboration of structures for effective co-management at the local and regional levels is an obvious priority.  An expanded co-management system is suggested.  Co-management is defined as “the sharing of authority and responsibility for fisheries management, and of accountability for results, between DFO and resource users.”

From what we heard in Canada’s North, co-management and community-based fisheries and wildlife management is widely accepted and supported.  Although the setting and circumstances are unique to the Northwest Territories and Nunavut, as practised in small-scale fisheries within land claims settlements, co-management appears to be working well in responding to the needs and priorities of local communities, and as a means of sharing decision-making.

D.  Sustainable Development in the North  

We are in serious need.  If we are to emerge out of what The Globe and Mail and the Ottawa Citizen always perceive us to be – a serious welfare state supported by the rest of Canada which is not a true picture by the way – we need an EDA (economic development agreement). – Peter Ittinuar, Assistant Deputy Minister, Department of Sustainable Development, Government of Nunavut, Committee Proceedings, 8 May 2001  
 

Our presence in the North is deficient.  I am the first one to say that. ... At this time, there is an initiative involving northern science and technology.  There are northern oil and gas initiatives.  We are part of those because we know we need a better presence in the North.  We are conscious of that.  All the economic development activities happening in the North require that presence.  It is not there.  We are dealing with it at this time. – Paul Cuillerier, Director General, Habitat Management and Environmental Science, DFO, Committee Proceedings, 16 October 2001

The (char) project is specific to our community at the moment, although it may have other implications across the North later. ... Are other communities interested?  Yes. – Allen Gordon, President, Nayumivik Landholding Corporation (Nunavik), Committee Proceedings, 23 October 2001

Demographically, the most startling feature of the Aboriginal population in the North is its youth – about half of the population is under 25 years of age, which sets the stage for an increasing need to create jobs in a region where unemployment is much, much higher than in the rest of the country.  Unemployment exacerbates social problems, including high rates of youth suicide.

There are many challenges, not the least of which will be a growing number of people dependent on the renewable resource base.  In Nunavut, for example, those whom we met stressed the fact that the population is expected to double within the next two decades.  Throughout the North, there was much interest in developing the renewable resource economy, including fisheries, while at the same time preserving subsistence harvesting.  Wildlife-based tourism and fisheries were considered to:  be compatible with northern Aboriginal cultures and lifestyles; have an immense and largely untapped potential; and represent a major economic opportunity for the future.  In the North, the fisheries mean jobs.

By national standards, northern communities possess very modest physical infrastructures.  An important feature of the economy is its mix of traditional subsistence activities (wildlife harvesting), wage employment (with direct employment in government and in government support services accounting for the largest percentage of wage income), private enterprise (the mining and oil and gas sectors), and transfer payments.  Generally speaking, sustainable development faces many unique challenges:  uneven distribution of economic opportunities; high transportation, energy and communication costs; isolation from potential markets; and a small population with few industrial skills or little formal education.  Insufficient transportation infrastructure is another problem.  For example, in Nunavut, where there are no deep port facilities or small craft harbours and only one processing facility (located in Pangnirtung), the people there talked a great deal about the need for improved infrastructure, particularly port and wharf facilities.  

Lack of capital was a recurring theme.  In July 2000, Committee members toured a packing facility on the shore of Great Slave Lake at Wool Bay, Northwest Territories.  There, the concern was the high costs of entry into the fishery that make it difficult for young people to get into the industry.  Generally speaking, stakeholders held that financial support and specific policy initiatives were needed to stimulate development and realize the fisheries’ potential.

Canada’s North has undergone enormous change over the years.  Several participants spoke of the international campaigns against hunting, trapping, and the marketing of wildlife products which had:  unfairly created market barriers to traditional northern wildlife products; and a disruptive and devastating economic effect on northerners and Aboriginal people who had depended heavily on sealing and fur trapping for their livelihoods.  The future will likely see even greater change.  There will be difficult decisions to make on how to balance emerging economic opportunities (e.g., in oil and gas exploration, mining, tourism), with the need to maintain traditional values and lifestyles.  Because of the Arctic’s sensitive and fragile ecosystem, and because it is relatively slow to recover from the impacts of industrial or human activity, the concept of “sustainable development” becomes more than a nice concept or convenient buzz phrase in the North.  For Inuit, sustainable development is very much a matter of economic and social survival.

Northern waters are considered to be especially vulnerable to pollution because the cold climate slows chemical and biological processes that affect their ability to recover.  On the DFO’s Fish Habitat Management Program in the region, the Department agreed that its presence in the North is limited, but indicated that this would soon change:

In the next few months there will be Northern oil and gas issues, because energy security in the States and in Canada must be dealt with.  We will need to talk about the Beaufort Sea, the Mackenzie Valley and the Foothills Lines.  We are not sure which line people will take, but we know that industry will ultimately make those decisions, and it will have an impact on the North. ... We must ensure that we protect those resources in the North.  We are now preparing ourselves specifically for that.  I mentioned earlier that we have approximately 128 people in the three prairie provinces.  We have advised our people in the regions to move people from the provinces to the North because of that increased demand, which is growing as we speak. – Paul Cuillerier, Director General, Habitat Management and Environmental Science, DFO, Committee Proceedings, 16 October 2001.

In May 2001, Nunavut’s Minister of Sustainable Development appeared before the Committee, and pointed out that federal policies were far from helpful in assisting the Territory attain its fisheries objectives.  He stated that:  Nunavut was not receiving its rightful share of the adjacent groundfish resource; the DFO had determined that Nunavut did not qualify for the Aboriginal Fisheries Strategy’s Allocation Transfer Program([31]) (even though the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement specifically states that nothing in the agreement shall affect the ability of Inuit to participate in and benefit from government programs for Inuit or Aboriginal people); and the Territory had not benefited from the DFO’s small craft harbours program or programs administered by the Department of Human Resources Development that support Atlantic fishers in capacity building and skills training.  According to the Minister:  Nunavut fishers were quite possibly the only group in Canada’s marine fishery to have been “completely excluded” from the public expenditures that had benefited other Atlantic regions; investments in infrastructure were needed to set the foundation of the northern economy and to catch up with the rest of Canada; and the three northern territories were the only jurisdictions in Canada that do not have economic development agreements (EDAs) with the federal government.([32])

On a community scale, Committee members were made aware of relatively small projects that show good potential for development in the North, as the following illustrates.

In June 2001, a small group of Committee members travelled to Nunavik (northern Quebec), and visited Canada’s first fish ladder (or “fish way”) in the Arctic.  There, we learned about:  a phenomenon called “post glacial rebound”([33]) which in some cases has created barriers or physical obstacles (e.g., waterfalls, low water flows) that impede the migrations of anadromous fish that migrate to the sea in summer and over winter and spawn in freshwater.([34])  On the Nepihjee River near the town of Kuujjuaq, a fish way was built in 1999, involving a series of small drops that allow fish to swim up to freshwater.  Explosives were used to blast a channel around two previously insurmountable waterfalls – one nine feet high, the other six feet – that flow into Ungava Bay.  Prior to work on the site, studies had shown lake trout (a major food fish in the area) to be unfit for human consumption because of mercury contamination – a problem, we were told, that had never been associated with anadromous Arctic char in the region.  It is also noteworthy that anadromous Arctic char([35]) usually return to their (natal) home streams every year, but sometimes find their way to different ones.([36])  In this regard, the fish’s behaviour differs somewhat from that of Atlantic salmon – its salmonid cousin.  Arctic char also grow more slowly; it may take a few years before they are old enough to spawn or large enough to catch, so that the benefits of the hatchery’s production may not be seen for some time (the fish reaches sexual maturity at age seven or eight).

The objective of the fish way project was to establish Arctic char in an area where they were no resident stocks, and increase the traditional food available to the growing population of Kuujjuaq.  To boost the increase in the stock, juvenile fish are also reared in a hatchery operating in the community’s former water treatment plant.  The eggs are brought in from Finger Lakes (an area about 85 miles from Kuujjuaq), near the village of Tasiujaq, with the authorization of that community and on the condition that the eggs or fry will not be sent elsewhere.([37])  Female fish are not selected for any particular characteristic or trait, and project managers hope to be eventually self-sufficient in egg production.  

Witnesses testified that:  Arctic char (and other species, such as brook trout and whitefish) had started using the fish way in a matter of hours after it was built; the Nephijee River could probably support a very large run of Arctic char because of the large surface of its lakes; and, once subsistence needs are met, the run could one day support a sport or commercial fishery.  For the people of Kuujjuaq, other benefits were said to include:  reduced exposure to mercury poisoning; and the opportunity to practise traditional harvesting techniques.  We were told that:  other lakes and rivers could be similarly reconnected to the sea; and, with expanded hatchery facilities, fish populations could be similarly enhanced.  The potential for enhancing Atlantic salmon was also said to be good; this is because as much as half of the potential spawning and rearing habitat for salmon could be increased by constructing another fish ladder (over Limestone Falls).  Put simply, there are opportunities for enhancing anadromous fish to meet the subsistence needs of Nunavik’s growing population.  Other communities in Nunavik were said to be interested in undertaking similar projects.

E.  Scientific Research in the North  

Canadians have learned in recent years the difficult lessons associated with inadequate science and over harvesting.  We do not want to repeat these mistakes with our adjacent stocks as their extent is still largely unknown. ... Canadians expect us to harvest our resources in a sustainable manner. – The Honourable Olayuk Akesuk, Minister of Sustainable Development, Government of Nunavut, Committee Proceedings, 8 May 2001

Working in the Arctic presents many challenges to our researchers.  Often, study sites are difficult and expensive to access because of their remoteness and the lack of infrastructure, such as roads and airports.  It requires that our staff be in the field and away from families for extensive periods, often under less than ideal working conditions.  The work is hard, long and, at times, both dangerous and stressful, but we have a committed staff of professionals who are dedicated to the challenge. – John Cooley, Regional Director of Science, DFO, Committee Proceedings, 30 October 2001

The Arctic has a fragile, low-productivity environment, which nonetheless supports varied freshwater and marine species.  The DFO faces a number of science and research challenges in the region, not the least of which are program costs.  Work in the Arctic is very expensive; staffing costs alone were said to be more than double those in the South.

In July 2000, a number of concerns about the state of Canada’s research were brought to our attention.  Later that year, in September, a Joint Task Force on Northern Research established by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (NSERC) and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC) reported that Canadian research in the region was in a state of crisis, and warned that, if action were not taken, Canada would be unable to meet its international science and research obligations, or contribute to issues of global importance, or even meet basic national obligations to monitor, manage and safeguard the northern environment or respond to emerging social issues.([38])

In October 2001, we learned of the DFO’s Arctic Science program’s effort to secure an icebreaker which had been declared surplus to the needs of the Canadian Coast Guard.([39])  There were many reasons given for acquiring a vessel dedicated to serving the research needs of the Arctic science research community, including:  the increasing demands for Arctic science in Canada and among other polar nations; the valuable information it could provide Canada in advancing its resource conservation efforts; the huge international demand for research platforms capable of working safely in the Arctic; and the many partners (e.g., northern agencies, universities, and other governments) that are ready to sign on.

The research effort in Canada’s North takes many forms.  For example, a major focus of the DFO’s research has been the development and application of new stock assessment methods using DNA profiles to distinguish individual populations of animals, and the use of satellite tags to record the movements of marine animals, such as whales.  Much of its activities are driven directly by the needs of co-management boards.  Much of the research is directly funded by these boards, and research is no longer done strictly by southern scientists; the input of Aboriginal people, through their knowledge and experience, is a fundamental part of the research process.

A number of people in the North spoke of the benefits of traditional ecological knowledge (TEK).  They said that TEK had:  improved our understanding of various species; been useful in guiding modern scientific research; and resulted in better compliance with management plans.  These are important and welcome benefits in many areas of the North.  The beluga harvest in Nunavik – where the hunt is regulated by a combination of controlled seasons and closures, and village quotas – is one example.  There, compliance is critically important; of the three stocks harvested, one stock (the Ungava Bay stock) was classified as endangered in 1988, while a second population (the eastern Hudson Bay stock) was identified as threatened.  In the Beaufort Sea – where beluga whales are not endangered – we learned that the DFO, with the support of Aboriginal organizations (e.g., the Inuvialuit Fisheries Joint Management Committee), had been undertaking research and consultations to create a Marine Protected Area (MPA) in support of the management plan.  Throughout the North, Committee members were reminded that the Oceans Act, 1997 was the first federal legislation to explicitly mandate a federal department or agency to consider and use TEK.([40])

In Nunavut, the Wildlife Management Board has two research funding programs:  the Nunavut Wildlife Research Trust Fund,([41]) which provides funding for wildlife research projects undertaken by government agencies; and a funding program for non-government organizations, such as hunters and trappers organizations.  There, Committee members were provided with an informative briefing on the Board’s Nunavut Wildlife Harvest Study, which began collecting data in 1996.  Community field workers collect monthly information on wildlife harvested by Inuit across the Territory; a final database resulting from this exercise will establish a basic needs level for Inuit, and will be used as a tool to assist in decision-making.  Another Board-managed similar (five-year) study – the Inuit Bowhead Knowledge Study, which was released a few weeks prior to our visit – documents the knowledge, observations and historical experience of Inuit hunters.  With regard to bowhead, we were told that:  the population was increasing after having been decimated by commercial whaling in the past century; and an ongoing, limited hunt for bowhead was necessary to ensure that Inuit knowledge and hunting skills are passed on to future generations.

In Inuvik, which is situated in the Inuvialuit Settlement Region, the various projects funded by the Fisheries Joint Management Committee (FJMC) also impressed us.  They include: studies on the reproduction of Beaufort Sea beluga; studies on the status and movement of ringed seal; and programs that monitor Arctic char and Mackenzie River whitefish.  A Harvest Study, in which field workers collect data and information from harvesters in the six Inuvialuit communities, was described to us as important in helping to:  assist the establishment of the fish and wildlife needs of Inuvialuit; make informed wildlife management decisions so that wildlife can be protected and preserved for future generations; and provide information to justify compensation for loss of harvesting opportunities and income as a result of development.

In the Gwich’in Settlement Area, the Renewable Resource Board also allocates research funds from its Wildlife Studies Fund.  Among many things, we learned that:  the Land Claim Agreement required a five-year Harvest Study to help determine minimum annual needs in feeding Gwich’in households; the potential for sport fishing lodges on inland lakes (for trout, northern pike) was good; every research project and management plan incorporates traditional ecological knowledge; and a Gwich’in traditional knowledge project had resulted in the publication of a book (Gwich’in Words About the Land).  At the time of our visit, work on a second book was said to be nearly completed.

In the western Arctic, industrial development on the Mackenzie River watershed was a subject of much discussion.  The Mackenzie is the world’s twelfth-largest drainage area and extends into the more populated provinces of Alberta and British Columbia, flowing northward into the Beaufort Sea in the western Arctic.  In this shared waterway, important fish species:  feed in the ocean and migrate into the river systems to spawn; are vulnerable to overfishing at any point along their migration routes; and are managed cooperatively amongst the land claim beneficiaries in the region.  On the Mackenzie, the following points were made:  the cumulative impacts of upstream developments in the south are felt downstream where fewer people reside, many of whom are Aboriginal; large-scale development activities and projects (e.g., those linked to the exploitation of hydrocarbon reserves, mineral deposits and hydroelectric potential) are likely to affect the fishery resource; conservation depends on various interests working together; and the Mackenzie Valley Environmental Impact Review Board (MVEIRB) undertakes environmental reviews and assessments and in the region.

From the standpoint of new commercial fisheries, the marine waters off Baffin Island appear to offer the best potential for development, yet Committee members were told that:  scientific knowledge on species such as snow crab, sea urchins, clams, turbot, shrimp and marine plants is very limited; and the vast area lacks experimental and exploratory activity, even though an MoU between Nunavut and the federal Fisheries Minister on new emerging fisheries was signed in August 2000.([42])  In the western Arctic, we heard that there was interest in the commercial exploitation of herring, but that people were wary of this because not much is known about their abundance and because the fish are a food source for beluga whales.

The management of Arctic char – a vitally important staple in the subsistence diet of Aboriginal people and a species that has supported limited commercial and sport fishing operations – was another popular subject in our northern discussions.  In some areas, its contribution to the Aboriginal diet was said to be second only to caribou.  By and large, individuals and groups warned that the subsistence needs of a growing population and the demands for commercial and sport fishing would increase fishing pressures on Arctic char, a fish that is vulnerable to overfishing because of its slow growth rate.  In Nunavik, Arctic char may be declining, but very little research has so far been conducted.  Some called for more study to determine the potential for enhancing stocks through stream rehabilitation or hatchery production.

In sum, participants in our discussions:  emphasized the importance of having a sound information base in order to ensure conservation and avoid the risk of overharvesting; urged that more scientific work be conducted on northern species (e.g., to determine the distribution, abundance and age structure of northern fish stocks and marine mammals); pointed out that scientific information on fish and marine mammal stocks is often limited, or even non-existent; argued that research is all the more important because of the relatively low biological productivity of northern ecosystems; and stated that more research will be required if the impacts of development are to be minimized and the sustainable development of fisheries assured.

F.  Nunavut’s Adjacent Turbot Resource  

I would like to respond in part to the senator’s question to us on the matter of allies, I am not going to name any jurisdiction.  We have no allies.  In fact, it is the opposite, for obvious reasons. ... – Peter Ittinuar, Assistant Deputy Minister, Department of Sustainable Development, Government of Nunavut, Committee Proceedings, 8 May 2001

One of the areas in which there is actually a potential for real growth in opportunities is the fishery.  It is not something of which I had thought, even though ... I had some experience with Northern Affairs a long time ago. – Arthur Kroeger, Chair of the Independent Panel on Access Criteria, Atlantic Fisheries Policy Review, Committee Proceedings, 6 November 2001

Our territory has only been in existence for two years.  Decisions in the past may not always have been made in our best interests.  We came in a step behind.  With the collapse of the Northern cod fishery, there is much movement to the North.  That movement took place before we got a chance to get in there and decisions were often made without our involvement and awareness of them. — Carey Bonnell, Director, Fisheries and Sealing, Department of Sustainable Development, Government of Nunavut, Committee Proceedings, 8 May 2001

A major issue in Nunavut was the territory’s disproportionately small share of the overall quota for turbot (also known as Greenland halibut) in the Davis Strait fishery when compared to the amount of fish allocated by the DFO to southern fishing interests.([43])  The history of Inuit fishing for turbot in Davis Strait is relatively short; commercial fishing first began there in 1986.

The discussion centred largely around the concept of “adjacency,” a policy in fish allocation that is generally understood in Canada to mean that those who reside next to the resource should have priority access to it.([44])  Adjacency is also a politically-charged concept:  the uproar in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador concerning the allocation of 1,500 tonnes of shrimp to Prince Edward Island fishing interests in the summer of 2000 illustrates this point.  At the time, Newfoundland and Labrador claimed the benefit of the federal government’s adjacency policy that supports the concept that fishers adjacent to a particular fishing ground should catch that fish, or at least have the first opportunity to do so. 

For fisheries administration purposes, the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization (NAFO) divides the Atlantic Ocean immediately off Canada’s East Coast into several Subareas.  Subarea 0, located in the Davis Strait off the coast of Baffin Island, is administered by Canada (Subarea 1, the area along the western coast of Greenland, is administered by that country).  The Nunavut Land Claims Agreement, in turn, divides Subarea 0 into two parts.  The first part, the Nunavut Settlement Area (NSA), takes in the area of the 12‑mile territorial sea adjacent to the Nunavut coastline (east of Baffin and Ellesmere Islands).  Here, the Nunavut Wildlife Management Board (NWMB) is the main instrument of wildlife management.  The other part, Zone 1, is the area within Canada’s 200-mile limit (Subarea 0) less the 12-mile NSA.([45])  In Zone 1, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans is responsible for fisheries management; however, the Minister must seek and consider the advice of the NWMB with respect to fisheries management decisions that affect the substance and value of Inuit harvesting rights and opportunities within the marine areas of the NSA.([46])    The 1993 Land Claims Agreement between the Inuit of Nunavut and the Government of Canada provides that in cases where the Agreement and any federal law conflict, the Agreement is paramount.  The Agreement recognizes the principle of adjacency in Article 15.3.7, which stipulates as follows:

Government recognizes the importance of the principles of adjacency and economic dependence of communities in the Nunavut Settlement Area on marine resources, and shall give special consideration to these factors when allocating commercial fishing licences within Zones I and II.  Adjacency means adjacent to or within a reasonable geographic distance of the zone in question.  The principles will be applied in such a way as to promote a fair distribution of licences between the residents of the Nunavut Settlement Area and the other residents of Canada and in a manner consistent with Canada’s interjurisdictional obligations.([47])  

In April 1997, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans announced an increase in Canada’s Total Allowable Catch (TAC) of turbot by 1,100 tonnes.([48])  Of this amount, Nunavut received 100 tonnes of the offshore, reducing its share of the TAC from 27% to 24%, and increasing the allocation of fish to interests based in Labrador and Northern Quebec from 27% to 32%.([49])  The Fisheries Minister’s decision subsequently went before the Federal Court of Canada (Nunavut Tunngavik Inc. v. Canada (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans)),([50]) which found that the facts of the case raised a reasonable inference that the Minister did not give special consideration to the principles of adjacency and economic dependence of the Nunavut Inuit.  The Court therefore referred the matter back to the Minister for reconsideration.  The same day, the Minister appealed the decision to the Federal Court of Appeal.  After having reconsidered, the Minister applied the same allocations for 1997 that had applied for the 1996 fishing season.  In September 1997, Nunavut Tunngavik Inc. brought another judicial review application in the Federal Court, challenging the Minister’s redetermination of the quota.  This time it was ruled that the Minister had kept in mind the special considerations required under the Nunavut Final Agreement, and that the turbot allocation was not unfair.  In June 1998, the Minister extended the 1997 fish allocation for the period 1998 to 2002, but granted the Nunavut Inuit half of any future increase in the TAC (above the level set for 1998).  There were unsuccessful appeals by Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated in Federal Court in 1999 (an application for judicial review) and in 2000 (an appeal on the 1999 decision).  In 2001, the Supreme Court dismissed an application of leave to appeal the Federal Court of Appeal’s ruling.

With respect to the northern shrimp fishery, it was pointed out to us that Nunavut’s participation was limited to approximately 14% of the fishery.

Under the DFO’s Atlantic Fisheries Policy Review currently underway, the DFO plans to issue a new policy framework that will define a set of objectives and principles to guide the long-term management of the Atlantic fisheries.  On the principles governing access to the fishery and criteria for allocating fish stocks, the federal Fisheries Minister created an Independent Panel on Access Criteria (IPAC).  In February 2001, the Fisheries Minister released a discussion paper intended to form the basis of public consultations within the context of its ongoing Atlantic Fisheries Policy Review.  Among many things, the discussion paper states that:  over time, the DFO wants to remove itself from decision-making concerning commercial allocations of the resource because of criticism that such decision-making is “political”; a condition for removing itself from allocation arrangements will be the establishment of appropriate rules and documentation of the shares held by individuals and fleets; current sharing arrangements could be recognized; and “with some exceptions,” fleet shares could be “fixed” and set for longer terms.  On the foregoing, Nunavut’s position was made quite:

(T)he principle of adjacency has not been applied in Nunavut and nor is it being recognized.  We recognize the principle of adjacency as it is described.  It means priority consideration.  It does not mean exclusivity; it means priority consideration.  It means that the majority of the resource goes to the adjacent user.  In terms of Nunavut, right now in our southern division, 0B, we have 27% of our adjacent resource. ... The policy review states that there might be exception under special circumstances.  I think that we would certainly want to look at Nunavut as a special circumstance.  We were not involved in the development, and in many cases were excluded from the development of the fishery there.  Twenty-seven per cent of our adjacent resources certainly is not something that we would want to look at fixing for the long term. – Carey Bonnell, Director, Fisheries and Sealing, Department of Sustainable Development, Government of Nunavut, Committee Proceedings, 8 May 2001.