Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Fisheries and Oceans
Issue 10 - Evidence
OTTAWA, Wednesday, September 17, 2003
The Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans met this day at 6:17 p.m. to examine and report upon the matters relating to quota allocations and benefits to Nunavut and Nunavik fishermen.
Senator Charlie Watt (Acting Chairman) in the Chair.
The Acting Chairman: Honourable senators, I will say a few words in Inuktitut before we begin conducting business.
[Senator Watt spoke in his native language.]
Let me quickly summarize the situation. The person who was supposed to be here has now shown up. We will attempt to conduct our business solely in Inuktitut but, because the interpreter is not here, we will do our own interpretation from time to time. We will speak in Inuktitut and in English.
First, I would like to welcome honourable senators, witnesses and members of the public who are with us today and who are watching us on the television or who are listening to us through the sound feed.
On June 16, 2003, the Senate authorized the Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans to examine and report upon the matters relating to the quota allocations and the benefits to Nunavut and Nunavik fishermen.
This is the committee's first meeting in the study. Over the next several weeks, we will hear from a wide range of witnesses on this issue, and we will then prepare a report to the Senate with our conclusions and recommendations.
Our first witnesses are Ms. Papatsie, the owner of Jencor Fisheries Limited and Mr. Decker, President, Tri-Nav. I understand, Mr. Decker, that you are in partnership with Ms. Papatsie.
Mr. Trevor Decker, President, Tri-Nav: That is correct.
The Acting Chairman: Please proceed.
Ms. Leesee Papatsie, Owner, Jencor Fisheries: Honourable senators, thank you for the chance to make this presentation to you this evening. I will give you an overview of what I want to do and what I want to accomplish, and I will summarize the situation at the end.
In the beginning, I worked for the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. It was then that I realized that Nunavut, somehow, needed to take part in the offshore fishery. That is when the idea of owning a fishery company came to me.
I often heard in the communities that Nunavut should have its own vessels to be actively involved in the fishery.
I resigned from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans about 10 months ago, and I started my company. Mr. Trevor Decker, who is with me this evening, is from Newfoundland.
Mr. Decker: Tri-Nav has been involved in the fishing industry in Atlantic Canada for the past 10 years. We participated on a scale last year in the 0A turbot fishery, after which Ms. Papatsie and I made acquaintance and then decided to join forces on a joint venture in a fishing proposition with respect to the northern fisheries.
Ms. Papatsie: My vision statement for Jencor Fisheries is to show, by example, to Nunavumiut that it is viable to own and operate a fishing enterprise with the resulting generated benefit going directly into the Nunavut economy rather than to the southern fishing organizations.
I believe that is a really good vision statement. I think Nunavumiut need to see someone take a step forward. I believe that Nunavut will step forward into the fishery once they see somebody doing it and see that it is viable. I deeply believe that Nunavut will do it.
Jencor Fisheries is a 100 per cent Inuit enterprise. We realize that Nunavut must move forward now while Nunavut has an opportunity to be meaningfully involved in the offshore fishery.
Our objectives are to build a viable fishing enterprise through a joint venture that will eventually be owned entirely by Nunavumiut. That is one of the main goals of the company, as well as having Nunavumiut staff in all areas and at all levels in the enterprise, including vessel management, marketing and administration.
I strongly believe in training Nunavumiut. I strongly believe in Inuit who want to learn in the company. I am willing to teach them whatever I can and, if they want to further their education, I encourage that quite a bit.
Other goals are as follows: to be at the forefront in the Nunavut effort to receive higher and more equitable quotas in both turbot and shrimp from its adjacent waters; to encourage Nunavumiut to take a larger role in the offshore fishery; and to create a profitable Inuit enterprise model that encourages DFO to allocate sufficient turbot and shrimp quotas to sustain an independent Inuit fishery in the long term for everyone.
I took certain steps that brought me to where I am today. One of the first things I did was write letters of intent to different organizations in Nunavut. Letters were sent out to the Nunavut Wildlife Management Board, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated, the Department of Sustainable Development, Senator Adams and Member of Parliament Nancy Karetak-Lindell. These letters indicated my vision of what I believe and what I wanted to startup.
Letters were sent out first. The second thing I did was request a turbot quota from NWMB. After that, I contacted many southern enterprises, business owners and boat owners. When I first started, I asked: What is viable in Nunavut? What is viable in terms of fishing? What quotas are needed to run the company, and what is needed in general?
Then I met with people to whom I had written. I eventually met all of them. I gave them a vision statement and an outline of the steps that I had taken so far.
I then sent a request letter to DFO asking for some turbot quota, and I wrote to NWMB requesting the new shrimp quota they had. After that, I sent out an expression of interest to southern companies, and then I issued a press release. I put forward a proposal to Baffin Fisheries Coalition to fish their turbot quota. I then met with Baffin Fisheries board members. When it came down to it, what I sent out was a request for a joint interest or a joint venture to 14 companies in southern Canada.
Concerning the progress to date, as I said earlier, I sent out 14 requests for proposal for a joint venture. Most of those were returned with questions such as: Do you have access to turbot quota? Can you get access to quota?
I planned to do a business plan, but I thought that would have to wait because I did not have enough expertise in that area. I do not have the expertise in fishing itself. I need some help, and that is why the joint venture was created.
As to the crab quota, I received an experimental crab licence with BFC's assistance. After meeting with BFC, they wrote a constructive and informative letter. As a result, I learned where my strengths lay and where I needed to develop.
Once the joint venture and business plans are in place, we will apply for financing.
I wrote down certain observations, that is, some of the things I experienced as I was creating this enterprise. Quota allocation for Inuit must be in the forefront, before southern interests, meaning quota allocations for Inuit should be given to Nunavut first.
The Nunavut quota time frame, which is a three-year time frame from Nunavut Wildlife Management Board, is not enough time to finance a vessel. That is, if someone wants to come in and start a new fishery or a new enterprise, three years is not enough time to finance a vessel.
Northern and southern monopolies in northern water leave no room for new northern enterprises. If someone were to go in and try to start up a new enterprise in Nunavut, there is no room for development in zoned area 0A. It is allocated to one coalition, and most of 0B is allocated to southern interests. There is no room, I believe, to start new fisheries.
There is limited commercial fishing expertise in Nunavut. I believe that, to start a fishing enterprise at this moment, Nunavut will need southern help. They are the ones who are expert in that area, and do not depend on organizations and government alone with regard to the quota issue as a new enterprise. I have come to believe that my company will not rely on organizations or government on the quota issue.
When meeting with boards, be well prepared, do your homework, set realistic goals and take your time. This is not something that someone can do in six months. It takes quite a while.
Inuit sole ownership is not possible without expertise in the fishery. It probably will require an Inuit/southern company joint venture.
On the last page of my presentation I have made some recommendations that I believe will work, such as to allocate quotas to sustain any new developing enterprise. One of my suggestions is that, if someone in Nunavut wants to start a new fishery, a certain amount of quota should be put allocated to support that new development in the fishery.
Quota should be allocated for longer than three years to fully support any new fishery in Nunavut. As I mentioned earlier, three years is not enough to finance a vessel.
There should be support for any developing Inuit enterprise fishery instead of monopolization. As I already mentioned, 0A is completely monopolized by one organization, while southern interests monopolize 0B.
An Inuit business advisory board should be created for those who are interested in obtaining vessels. If a group of people from Nunavut wanted to buy a vessel, some sort of board or some sort of organization should be created so that they could support each other. If there were ground support out there for people who wanted to buy a vessel or lease a vessel or go into the fishery, that would be very beneficial.
Models that have worked should be used in the northern region for developing any new enterprise. I suggest the northern region because southern region models generally do not work in the North. I suggest looking at different models that have been used around the world and see what works and what does not work for northern regions.
A sustainable turbot and shrimp management plan should be developed that ensures the survival of the fishery. The board should include wildlife organizations and boards, plus people from the industry.
One of my stronger points is that I have created my company and I want my daughter's grandchildren to be fishing for this company that I have started. I do not want the industry to collapse. I want there to be stock for my grandchildren to fish.
If everyone, the government organizations, wildlife management boards and people from the industry work together, I believe something great can be set up.
Mr. Decker: Ms. Papatsie has summed up most of the ideas with respect to what is there. It is a Nunavut resource; it is a people's resource. The benefits of this industry should be passed to the people of the region. The fishery is adjacent to Nunavut. In the past three or four years, it has been an exploratory fishery. Mainly one company has been taking the 0A allocation.
In order for a Nunavut-owned company, a Jencor Fisheries, to get involved in the fishery, as you have seen in the south, there must be access to the resource. Without access to resources, you will not see any Nunavut-owned company acquire vessels and develop an industry that will spread throughout the isolated regions of Nunavut.
In Atlantic Canada, the fishery has been the backbone of the smaller communities. I believe that can be the case in Nunavut. However, a new fishery would require the development of a fishing company, as Jencor Fisheries, so that people know that it can work. I know it can work. It worked in the south. It can work in the North. Again, without access to the industry, there is no way that you can prove to the people of the region that the fishery can provide a viable living for all involved.
Senator Adams: I, too, wish to say a few words in Inuktitut.
[Senator Adams spoke in his native language.]
I would apologize to our witnesses on behalf of those members of our committee who could not be here this evening. Normally more members are in attendance, but some, including our chairman, had other commitments. I am disappointed that only four of us are here in this large room, which is our Aboriginal Committee room, to hear our witnesses from the North. In fact, I feel somewhat ashamed. I do apologize to our witnesses.
These proceedings are being recorded and they will be televised or broadcast on CBC in Nunuvut in the next week or so. We will have Inuktitut interpretation for some of our witnesses so that the broadcast will be understood in the communities. People in every community can listen to the witnesses who are concerned about the future of fishing in Nunavut.
[Senator Adams spoke in his native language.]
I would just like to congratulate the witnesses, especially Ms. Papatsie and Mr. Decker. I am sure they will be very successful in the fishing industry in Nunavut. This is just the beginning. I know it takes a long time to start a business like that, especially when a boat can cost a few million dollars. I know that starting a new business is not easy, especially when you have to deal with bankers or financial organizations. I do not know how some businesses have been financially successful in the North.
[Senator Adams spoke in his native language.]
As I understand it, there is a policy in place, a land claims agreement, that specifies that Inuit should have a 50 per cent interest in any enterprise. I know that Inuit involvement in some companies is as high as 75 per cent. My question is: What do you see happening in the future? Is it your intention to create employment for local people?
Since the creation of Nunavut and the Government of Nunavut, we have had very little information about how many Inuit people are employed in the private sector and how many work for the government. I hope that your intention is to employ local people in your new business.
Do you have some ideas in that regard? I recognize that you sometimes need government funding to provide education for people to become qualified to work in your industry.
Ms. Papatsie: One of the main things about financing, is that once you have access to quota, it is much easier to get financing through banks. That is one of the main problems that any Inuit fisheries development will face. I hope that anyone who wants to start a fishery in Nunavut in the future will not have to go through what I am going through to get access to quota. I want to make it easier for them. Once we have Nunavut-owned vessels, I do not see how Nunavumiut will not be hired. Nunavumiut will be hired, and they will be trained.
Down the road, I could see Nunavut Arctic College offering a course in Inuktitut. Most of these people might be unilingual or do not speak English. I will get a fishing vessel and I will train and hire Inuit. I do not see a company in Nunavut that is not hiring Inuit.
[Senator Adams spoke in his native language.]
Senator Adams: My next question deals with quotas. Ms. Papatsie and Mr. Decker are not happy with the way the quotas are set up. Even some people in the communities do not have access to the quota. How should the quota be allocated in the future?
The BFC allocates the quotas and currently they are only allocating the quotas in the 0B area. Up to 4,000 metric tonnes of the 0A quota is not even allocated to Nunavut enterprises.
[Senator Adams spoke in his native language.]
Ms. Papatsie: I believe that a certain quota of turbot or shrimp should be put aside for any new fishery enterprises that are emerging. As well, I would just say that some of the quota that they do allocate is not large enough for them to do something with it. Those communities give their quota to southern companies to fish for them. First, the quota is not large enough for the communities to start any sort of development. Second, I think that some of the quota that is given to Nunavut should be allocated to new companies. Within Nunavut there should be some sort of memorandum of understanding between enterprises so that new fisheries will start.
The way it is going now, everyone will be discouraged from starting a new enterprise. Now we have a chance to get part of this emerging fishery, and I think it will grow. As it does, Nunavut needs to step forward and people who want to own it should be supported.
I hope I answered your question.
Mr. Decker: With respect to the quota allocation, 0A and 0B — especially 0A, the 4,000 tonnes that have been allotted this year — in order for the people of Nunavut to be able to move forward and fishing companies such as Jencor Fisheries to move forward, they must have the ability, first, to get access to the quota, and second, to have knowledge of when this quota will be allocated. That is very important. For the 2003 fishing season, Jencor Fisheries was apparently not aware of the closing date for proposals for submission until after it had expired.
The allocation in 0B is, in part, very political, due to the participants and due to the nonground fish licences available to the Nunavut people.
In order for Jencor Fisheries to participate in the ground fish fishery, they require a ground fish licence. To go in without a licence and fish for a quota that does not exist in 0B becomes very political. However, I believe that that can come with the acquisition of other licences in time for that region.
With respect to the quota allowances in 0A, I believe there will be enough quota left at the end of the season, as was demonstrated last year, for Jencor Fisheries to gain experience and knowledge within the industry. The knowledge of this company within the industry can only benefit the people of Nunavut. In the development of a new industry, everyone always errs on the side of caution. The people of Nunavut have not been participants in the fishery as people in the south have. It will take time for this to grow and become an economic benefit for the communities and the people of the communities.
Ms. Papatsie has demonstrated a determination to move forward, but the proper allocation of quotas and set rules are very important in order for the people of the area to have the opportunity to participate.
Senator Adams: There was a problem initially with respect to quotas in that some requests were turned down. Do you think that next season you will be able to get quotas for the company?
Ms. Papatsie: Yes.
Senator Cochrane: I wish to begin by congratulating you, Ms. Papatsie, on establishing Jencor and for having the courage to go where others have failed. It sounds like an enterprise that has a great deal of promise, especially for your own people. I praise you for that as well because I see that you really do have an interest in developing an economic development plan for your territory. That is wonderful.
Mr. Decker, what role do you play within Jencor? You have already established Jencor, have you not?
Mr. Decker: Jencor Fisheries is 100 per cent owned by Ms. Papatsie. We are looking at a joint venture whereby we would be involved in the fishing operation with Jencor Fisheries and the percentage of allocation between the two companies will be determined in the specific fishing operation.
What I bring to the table and to Ms. Papatsie is the knowledge and experience of a group of individuals. One individual has been involved in the fishery for 30 years. He has been involved in the 0B fishery with freezing on board, albeit in a smaller vessel. However, it is still fishing for turbot and dealing with the various markets into which turbot is sold.
Management goes along with marketing and most of the experience of our group is on the marketing side. However, through businesses that I have in the south we have been involved with the fishery in various sectors. I am from a fishing family myself, have training as a naval architect, and have a fully operational naval architecture company in St. John's and Halifax.
Vessel knowledge is very important in any operation with respect to the things you will be faced with in day-to-day activities. No matter how much fish is in the water, you will not get the fish out unless you have a capable, operating vessel and people who understand its operation.
Combining Ms. Papatsie's keen interest in the fishing industry, the 30 years of experience of one of our individuals on long line vessels and draggers, our experience with the vessels as naval architects and our experience in fishing, I believe that we can venture forward and benefit the people of the North.
In addition, my company has been involved in the development of the native fisheries. For example, Conn River in Newfoundland has gained access to the industry in the last three years. That access has been in cooperation with our company. These people are now doing quite well and we have seen them expand over the past number of years. As well, the Labrador Inuit are involved in a transaction where these people have gained more access to the industry.
With the combination of all of these and the determination of Ms. Papatsie to carry forward with this fishing company, we feel that we can overcome any obstacles.
Senator Cochrane: Do you have a vessel on the waters in Nunavut, and do you have a quota?
Mr. Decker: Last year we participated in the fishery in Nunavut under a separate contract with BFC. That is something that is ongoing. BFC has vessels there. We were involved with a vessel of a foreign flag that long-line fished, and we gained knowledge of the area by means of that vessel.
In the future this must be a a people's resource.
I feel that without Ms. Papatsie and her company gaining more and more access, you will see more of what has happened in the past, that is, companies from the south will come in and propose to fish this area, the proposal will be accepted, and vessels will be brought in to do the job.
Senator Cochrane: You mentioned fishing under a foreign flag; is that correct?
Mr. Decker: Yes. Canada has almost no vessels capable of long-line fishing in northern waters for any length of time. Long-line vessels are capable of fishing in the 0A region. It takes time to catch the product, and the vessel must travel a long distance to offload the product.
Currently, in Atlantic Canada, the biggest freezer long-line vessel is approximately 100 or 110 feet, with a carrying capacity of upwards of 150,000 pounds — 150 tons at the most. It is labour intensive to move to and from the fishing grounds. This is why foreign bottoms were chartered to come in to determine the viability of fishing open line in northern waters.
Senator Cochrane: In that same frame of mind, Ms. Papatsie has just said that there is no room to start a new fishery. Did you not say that, Ms. Papatsie?
Ms. Papatsie: Yes, I did.
Senator Cochrane: If there is no room to start a new fishery, how will Ms. Papatsie get an allocation of quota? What will that do to the vessels that are out there now? Will their quotas be relinquished?
Mr. Decker: There is no quota allocated to Canadian bottoms for long-line right now. This is the last year that the minister gave an allowance to allow foreign long-liners in to fish. In order for Ms. Papatsie to gain access to the industry, she requires an allocation of quota to be able to finance a vessel that is capable of fishing with this particular gear type.
A varying number of draggers are available in Canada that can actually participate in the fishery in the North.
With respect to hook and line, the only vessel that has had success to date on fishing in this particular region, 0A especially, is the foreign bottom because that is a larger vessel. You are looking at 50-metre-plus vessels that are capable of staying there, transporting out their 350 to 400 tons, and then returning to the fishing grounds.
Ms. Papatsie: I will tell you just how I will make it work. First, I will keep asking for quota. If I have to keep writing letters, I will keep writing letters. If I have to keep making presentations, I will do that. I will find a way to get quota.
Second, I will propose to fish for quota. Different organizations have access to quota. I will put a proposal out to fish for quota.
Third, if I have to buy quota, as my last resort, then I will find a way to buy some quota.
Senator Cochrane: To buy a licence to get a quota; is that it?
Ms. Papatsie: Yes, that is correct.
Senator Cochrane: Are there licences available now up there that you could buy to get a quota?
Mr. Decker: There are no licences per se available because you have to have a licence to get access. However, access can be given through the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. Presently, in 0A, only an experimental licence is given, not a permanent licence. It is important to understand that this is an experimental fishery in 0A. In order to push it forward and develop it into a full commercial fishery, we need the issuance of a long-term quota to be able to support the financing of a vessel and to be able to employ people within the region. That is a must in order to carry on in this business.
Senator Cochrane: We are treading on new ground here.
In the government's response to questions that were posed in the Senate by Senators Comeau and Adams in May, it was suggested that DFO had made concerted efforts to allow Nunavut access to the major share of the resource allocations in its adjacent waters. This was demonstrated by the granting of 51 per cent of the allocation increases in shrimp fishing area 0Ato Nunavut in 2003. Further, the government said, that this allocation was above that which would have been received under the historical sharing arrangements, which was only 8.8 per cent, or 187 tons. Nunavut also shared in allocations to the offshore licence holders and the scientific quota in areas not adjacent, for a total increase in allocation of 1,601 tons.
I would like to hear your response to the government's interpretation of the quota allocation. Perhaps you could tell us what this quota represents economically to your territory of Nunavut, if you would.
Ms. Papatsie: It is good that DFO gave that quota to Nunavut, but I do not agree with the amount of quota that was given to Nunavut. I think it could have been higher. I think the federal government should have given Nunavut more, because it is adjacent to Nunavut, to support any new development of fisheries in Nunavut. Did I answer your question?
Senator Cochrane: Perhaps I could delve into this further in a second round.
Senator Cook: Will you please help me to understand what it is you are trying to achieve, Ms. Papatsie, especially in regard to barriers to progress. Am I correct in understanding that you would like to enter into a joint venture with Mr. Decker? If you are going fishing, you need a vessel and quotas. You need funding for that from somewhere or another, as well as access to the market to sell your product. It seems to me that those are the main building blocks to success to provide a living for your people so that they can fish on this vessel. Would you help me to understand where you are at the moment?
Ms. Papatsie: What I am trying to achieve is to show Nunavumiut that it can be done. I want to show Nunavumiut that you can take part in the offshore fishery and by doing that there are a lot of benefits that can be generated to Nunavut.
Many of the barriers that I came across are within Nunavut. To be frank, when I first started this enterprise, I thought I would be fighting against southern companies. As sad as it is, some of it is from inside Nunavut.
I started this joint venture because I do not have the expertise to go out and run a fishing company. I need somebody who knows that area. I need somebody who can fish, who has fished in Arctic waters, and who has an understanding of the fishery itself. That is part of the reason for this joint venture process. Eventually, Jencor Fisheries will run this joint venture. It will be Inuit-owned down the road.
Senator Cook: Let us talk about quotas and access to quotas. You say in the area 0A, which is to the northern end of Baffin Island, if I am reading my map correctly, that it is purely an experimental fishery, is it?
Ms. Papatsie: Yes, it is.
Senator Cook: If you had a quota in that area, could you make a viable living? Could you make a profit?
Ms. Papatsie: You need at least 1,500 metric tonnes of product to make it viable to fish in those northern waters. However, it is not viable just to fish in northern waters because the fishing season can be quite short. That is where southern licences would come in handy.
Senator Cook: Would the same climatic conditions apply in area 0B?
Ms. Papatsie: I presume the weather conditions would be better in 0B because that is in southern waters. It is not as high. Some of 0A is way up in the Arctic, whereas 0B is more south.
Senator Cook: When you refer to southern waters, are you talking about 0B?
Ms. Papatsie: Yes, and further south.
Senator Cook: Who currently holds the quota in those areas?
Ms. Papatsie: In 0A, the Baffin Fisheries Coalition has a 4,000 metric ton experimental licence. In 0B, some 46 per cent is competitive quota, 27 per cent is Nunavut-owned and 27 per cent is company owned.
Senator Cook: Am I to understand that the pie is cut up and there is no piece of pie left for you to make a viable living? Therefore, one of the barriers to your enterprise is the lack of quota. That is what I am trying to get at.
Ms. Papatsie: It is very difficult to apply for financing. That is the first barrier. Second, it is difficult to have a business plan when you go to apply for funding or financing because you do not have ways to generate income to show that it will be viable.
Senator Cook: Is there access to any quota for anyone? The quotas are all used up in those areas, is that what you are saying?
Ms. Papatsie: Yes, they are.
Senator Cook: For how long?
Ms. Papatsie: Until the end of 2004 in 0A. NWMB will make new allocations for the 2005 season.
Senator Cook: Who administers the quota, is it the Government of Nunavut or DFO?
Ms. Papatsie: Fisheries and Oceans gives them to the Nunavut Wildlife Management Board. They allocate the quota to the Nunavumiut.
Senator Cook: It is a twostep process, then. It comes from DFO to the Nunavut Wildlife Management Board and then to the people who are applying to the quota.
Ms. Papatsie: That is for turbot and shrimp quota.
Senator Cook: Are there other species? I notice that you have an experimental quota for crab.
Ms. Papatsie: Yes. Recently, I received a 400-metric-tonne quota for crab in 0A and 0B.
Senator Cook: Could you translate that into dollars for me? Is that a viable fishery? That is what I am getting at. Can you break even, make a decent living?
Ms. Papatsie: On this crab licence, no. I will need something to support the vessel, perhaps some turbot quota or another experimental licence of some sort.
Senator Cook: In order for you to access quota between now and 2004-05, someone would have to share an existing quota with you, for instance the Baffin Fisheries Coalition. Are there any quotas there that you can trade on? Is there someone who is not using their quota? I am from Newfoundland. I just heard yesterday that 50 per cent of the shrimp quota in Newfoundland will probably stay in the water because of market and tariff problems. Is there someone not fishing their quota to which you could have access?
Mr. Decker: At the end of the season, when it is too late to go fishing, it will be determined what quota allocated in the early part of the year will be available. However, as you can appreciate, that is the end of the season. Therefore, if you have 2,000 tonnes and you allot that 2,000 tonnes to two vessels, then those two vessels will probably land 1.5 tonnes. That is probably enough to support a venture to start on, as Ms. Papatsie is proposing.
However, in the early part of the season, when the quota has been allotted, it is actually too late because there is no access. Everything has already been given out.
Senator Cook: Are you telling me it is not a viable option to look for quota from a person who has been allocated quota?
Mr. Decker: There is none available. It has already been issued. It has already been licensed and 0A is an experimental licence. Once that 4,000 goes to BFC, BFC re-contracts the vessels they have and there is no available quota for Ms. Papatsie to be engaged in this fishery.
Senator Cook: What comes first, the chicken or the egg? If you had a vessel, Ms. Papatsie, would you be able to move in and fish the Baffin Fisheries Coalition's quota for them and sell it to them? Is that an option?
Ms. Papatsie: First, I will find a way to get a vessel, not ``if.'' Second, I will put a proposal in to Baffin Fisheries Coalition once the joint venture is signed, once I have an idea of a business plan. Once all that is done, I will put a proposal in to Baffin Fisheries Coalition and I will put out a proposal to fish the quota of other Inuit organizations.
Senator Cook: I admire your grit and your enthusiasm.
One final question: How can we help you to achieve your goal?
Ms. Papatsie: You can help by giving more quota to Nunavut and by putting aside quota for any new development of fishery in Nunavut.
I am doing this not just for me; I am doing it for the people of Nunavut. I strongly believe this is doable. You can help by giving Nunavut more quota, or putting some quota on the side, or the having quotas that are longer than three years so that we can finance a vessel.
Senator Cook: I have one final question. I need to take this to a conclusion so that I am clear on it.
With regard to the market, would you process your product in Nunavut or would you sell it out? What will you do with the fish that you eventually catch with this vessel that you will get?
Ms. Papatsie: I would have to come into some sort of agreement with Pangnirtung fish plant, the only fish plant in Nunavut. I want to find a way to bring some fish to the plant. I want to help develop new fish plants in Nunavut. If they can take a certain percentage of fish in Nunavut, I will do my best to support that.
Senator Cook: I wish you well. You are ably represented by Senators Watt and Adams. Thank you for that information.
The Acting Chairman: You mentioned in your presentation that in order to develop the business plan, and for that business plan to succeed, the time allotment of three years is too short. Would you elaborate on that? Perhaps you could forward information to the committee in writing, and specifically asking the committee to help you out in that particular area.
I also need a further description of the quota allotment, that is, how the quota is allotted to Baffin Fisheries Coalition or to other organizations in Nunavut, and how you see your new company fitting into that.
If I understand correctly, you are asking that the quota be increased above and beyond what it is today so that your company can be successful. I would like to have that spelled out so that Fisheries and Oceans clearly understand that there must be some leeway given to encourage any new company to get off the ground.
It would be helpful if you could package all of that information and send it to us. You need not answer now. You can provide an answer in writing.
Senator Cochrane: Ms. Papatsie, tell us about the types of problems that you have encountered in Nunavut. You said you thought you were going to encounter problems outside of Nunavut, but most of the problems that you did encounter were within Nunavut. What types of problems were those?
Ms. Papatsie: Some of the problems that I have encountered are to do with support. I have had a lot of support from different organizations and different people. Part of the problem is in finding support to get a vessel and support in getting some quota. I have approached different Inuit organizations for some sort of support. That is one of the areas where I was not prepared. Trying to get quota from the Nunavut Wildlife Management Board and trying to fish for quota for Baffin Fisheries Coalition are the most difficult issues that I had to deal with.
Senator Cochrane: Where have you got your financing so far?
The Acting Chairman: I thought that was the last question you were going to ask.
Senator Cochrane: The first was ``a''; this is ``b.''
Mr. Decker: A proposal has been put to the Business Development Bank for funding on such a venture.
As honourable senators will appreciate, you have to know what you have to fish before you can get a boat to go fishing. I deal with this every day. You have to have an idea what fish you have available, whether it be 500 tonnes or 1,000 tonnes of turbot, whether you are using mobile gear or long line. It is very difficult, but you must be able to put your numbers in place so that a bank will look at you realistically.
In the case where, as was said earlier, you put a vessel on the water and you get your quota, then the bank will want to see the piece of paper showing the quota before you get the money for the vessel. Nobody will give you the vessel without seeing the money first.
The Acting Chairman: Senator, are you happy with the answers?
Senator Cochrane: Thank you.
The Acting Chairman: Thank you for your presentation.
We have a second panel waiting to come to the table.
Ms. Papatsie: Thank you for having us.
The Acting Chairman: Honourable senators, I believe we are ready to hear from our second panel of witnesses. Ms. Towtongie is President of Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated and Mr. Nirlungayuk is the Director, Wildlife Department.
I believe honourable senators are aware of the mandate of this committee. We will try to stick to the question of quota allocation, and not deal with the business side.
With our first panel I let things go as they did because it was a discussion of the issues to be dealt with by a new company that wants to take advantage of any new business opportunities. That involved the issue of quotas. The two are tied together. One cannot take off without the other.
Ms. Towtongie, please proceed with your presentation.
Ms. Cathy Towtongie, President, Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated:
[Ms. Towtongie spoke in her native language.]
For many people, including the Government of Canada, I want to clarify one thing. Nunavut is two things — the Nunavut land deal, which is for Inuit alone, and the public government, which is the Government of Nunavut. The Government of Nunavut is the only government that has to work within the framework of a land agreement.
On behalf of the Inuit of Nunavut, I thank you for the opportunity to address the Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans. Today I am joined by Mr. Nirlungayuk and Mr. Irngaut, who advise me on all matters of wildlife across Nunavut.
Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated, which I will now call NTI, represents over 21,000 Inuit who are beneficiaries of the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement. That is totally different from the public Government of Nunavut. The NTI executive committee is elected by all adult Inuit in Nunavut, and we take pride in our broad-based legitimacy.
NTI is the organization that negotiated and signed the agreement in 1993. One of the terms of the agreement was that a new territory would be formed, covering roughly the same land area as the agreement. Our agreement was signed by the Prime Minister of Canada on behalf of the Government of Canada, including the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.
Before I came here, I looked at your individual backgrounds to see what your interests were, and I saw that we have a lot in common. Many of you are from the Atlantic provinces. We are also from the coastal regions. You have very interesting backgrounds. It was nice to see that we do have a lot in common.
The Nunavut Land Claims Agreement is the largest land claim agreement in Canadian history, and it has attracted worldwide attention.
Nunavut plays a prominent role in the Arctic Council and other international organizations, and Inuit have recently become active in the United Nations and Commonwealth institutions.
Under the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement, Inuit surrendered their Aboriginal title to one-fifth of the Canadian landmass in exchange for certain rights and benefits. The most important of these benefits were fee simple title to 18 per cent of the Nunavut settlement area and a cash settlement of $1.14 billion.
This act of surrender extinguished forever the uncertainty that the Supreme Court of Canada, in Calder, the Baker Lake case and others, placed on Canadian title to the land. That is a benefit to Canada of enormous value, and I would ask you to keep that in mind as I speak to you.
Canada's promises to Inuit, which were made in return for the benefits it received, are protected in the Constitution of Canada. I remember being at the constitutional talks with Senator Watt, when we were both very young, and talking about section 35. Those were the most solemn promises. The Supreme Court of Canada has noted that the honour of the Crown is at stake in matters respecting how Aboriginal rights are dealt with.
One of those solemn promises is contained in article 15.3.7 of the agreement, which states:
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 inter-jurisdictional obligations.
In every maritime jurisdiction in Canada, the principle of adjacency is the first principle applied in allocating fish stocks. It gives to every one of those jurisdictions between 80 per cent and 95 per cent of the total allowable catch — every one but the Nunavut territory.
You asked about the economic cost to Nunavut with respect to the quota. At this time Nunavut gets only 25 per cent of the shrimp quota. The remainder, which has a landed value of a $33 million and $55 million, for a total of $88 million, goes to southern fishermen. Nunavut is losing $88 million a year on shrimp alone.
Let me tell you how the Government of Canada keeps the promise made in article 15.3.7. In 1997, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans unilaterally increased Canada's share of the total allowable catch of turbot in waters adjacent to Baffin Island. Of the new quota, Nunavut Inuit received only 24 per cent of the total allowable catch. In addition, the minister refused to grant Nunavut Inuit a ground fish licence, which prevented them from harvesting turbot in areas off of Labrador and Newfoundland. The minister offered no explanation for either decision. The rest of Nunavut's entitlement was allocated to Newfoundland and the Maritime provinces.
This decision not only broke the promise of article 15.3.7 by ignoring the principle of adjacency in making the allocation to Nunavut, but the minister also ignored the recommendations of the Nunavut Wildlife Management Board, the Fisheries Resource Conservation Council and the minister's own fisheries officials, all without explanation.
Since the minister will not explain his refusal to apply the principle of adjacency to Nunavut, we can only speculate about the Government of Canada's motives. There is no doubt that Nunavut, with the smallest population, is economically the weakest jurisdiction in Canada. It has many fewer voters and Members of Parliament than Newfoundland and the Maritime provinces. Unlike those regions, its offshore fishery has not been fished out.
I want to leave my script for a moment to illustrate what happened. In 1990, the Government of Canada established a groundfish development program. The intent of this program was to encourage the exportation of groundfish in Atlantic Canada, and thus provide opportunities to the underused vessels and processing plants in that region. The criteria favoured groundfish licence holders, fishers with onshore processing facilities and existing unused fleets. This made it virtually impossible for Nunavut fishers to participate.
In short, this program was designed to develop the Baffin offshore fishery, but only by southern fishers. That left Inuit out in the cold.
I am reluctant to believe that, in Canada, the meagre advantages available to one of the weakest and most inhospitable regions of the nation can be torn away to appease the appetites of the south. I want to believe that, in Canada, the principles of fairness and natural justice still apply and that the Government of Canada, after gaining so much from its bargain with Inuit, would not renege on its obligations.
In 1990, when the Inuit were left out in the cold, Newfoundland fishers started to fish in 0A and 0B. As a result, they claimed historical use of the resource.
When Inuit surrendered their Aboriginal title and extinguished forever the uncertainty of Canada's title to one-fifth of its landmass, Canada made two other important gains.
During the 1970s, in James Bay, Quebec, and in the Mackenzie Valley, Northwest Territories, it was clear to many that the lack of certainty in its title to the land was not Canada's only problem. Another problem was the potential for endless political and legal conflict which were likely to arise from building massive projects in a land occupied by a people who were feeling disenfranchised.
Each land claims agreement, including the Nunavut agreement, has enabled the Government of Canada to put in place a process for obtaining the consent of local people to development where none existed before. There is no question that the ability to obtain the consent of the people and to legitimize encroachments on the land is an important gain for the state. These locally responsible public boards established across the Arctic have enabled Canada to win local commitment to the kind of responsible resource management and protection of the environment taken for granted in southern Canada. Harnessing this commitment of the local people is an important gain for the state.
Members of the committee, I would like to emphasize that Inuit are proud Canadians who pay taxes. We are proud that, through the agreement, we have played a significant role in building the Canadian federation. We want to believe that Canada is a country that does not quickly forget the great benefits of certainty and legitimacy given to it by one of its smallest populations.
We want to believe that Canada is a country that honours its most solemn promises to its Aboriginal peoples, particularly as the benefits won through these promises are of such lasting value to Canada.
Nunavut may be Canada's newest territory, but it has been our home for over 10,000 years.
Inuit are a maritime culture. We have an intimate relationship with the fish and mammals that live in the sea, just as you do in the Atlantic provinces. However, we are in it now for economic survival.
There are 27 communities in Nunavut, 26 of which are on the coast.
In 2001, the Conference Board of Canada reported on the Nunavut economy. They saw that fishing was one of the sectors with the greatest long-term potential.
Our commercial fishery has created hundreds of jobs and added tens of millions of dollars to our economy, in a region where sustainable jobs and viable business opportunities are rare and difficult to create. It is no surprise, then, that in the past 20 years commercial fishing has become an important element of our economy.
I have already given you one illustration of the way the Government of Canada deals with its obligation under article 15.3.7 of the agreement. Let me give you a more recent one, one that has provoked this presentation.
In May of this year, DFO announced that Nunavut's allocation of the shrimp fishery adjacent to our shores would be reduced to 19 per cent. Again, there was no explanation. Again, the bulk of the allocation has been given to southern interests. We cannot believe that the Government of Canada would make such an offensive offer to any other province or territory, except for its newest and weakest.
Inuit are not alone in our unhappiness with the Government of Canada's treatment of Nunavut. In 1997, the federal-provincial Atlantic Fisheries Committee Working Group was asked by DFO to review the historical resource access to the Atlantic fishery by fishermen and fishing enterprises from the five eastern provinces and the N.W.T. The working group specifically identified Nunavut as being the worst exception it had found to the adjacency principle.
In November 2002, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans accepted recommendations put forward by the Independent Panel on Access Criteria, IPAC. The sixth recommendation states that:
...the issue of Aboriginal and Nunavut participation and access to the fishery requires special consideration in the Panel's deliberations...Aboriginal parties in the Provinces and Nunavut require additional support to build capacity for effective participation.
The panel also recommended that:
...no further additional access should be granted to non-Nunavut interests in waters adjacent to the territory until Nunavut had achieved major share of its adjacent fishery resources.
We are gratified by these recommendations, but it is deeply troubling that they must be made, and we are outraged that the minister has so casually ignored them.
DFO will accuse Nunavut of not fishing the quotas it gets, but of selling them to southern and sometimes foreign operators. That is all true. The fishery off Nunavut's shores is one of the few advantages this otherwise struggling new economy has. Until the economy grows sufficiently to permit investment in ocean-going vessels and processing plants, or until the Government of Canada provides the assistance recommended by IPAC to enable Nunavut to do that, the sale of the quota is the only way that Nunavut can obtain revenue from this resource.
To wrench that economic advantage away from Nunavut and hand it to the more powerful region that the minister himself comes from is not only profoundly unfair, but it is also an act of the type of regional selfinterest that Canada has historically fought against. It is an action that will permanently limit Nunavut's economic development. It comes at the same time as Nunavut's other economic building block is collapsing. This month, the last operating mine in Nunavut, the Lupin mine, shut down.
We fear that the minister's action will cast a long shadow over the development of a sustainable and healthy relationship between the government and Inuit. If a federal minister can so easily ignore obligations and responsibilities in the document that defines Inuit rights and Canada's obligations, what assurance can Inuit have that the Government of Canada will live up to its other obligations? For that matter, what assurances do any Aboriginal people have that the Government of Canada's promises can be relied on?
Honourable senators may wonder why Inuit are not seeking to mitigate the damage inflicted by the minister's decision on the Nunavut economy by accessing the support the government has provided for the development of Aboriginal fisheries elsewhere in Canada. I refer to the support available through such programs as the Marshall Response Initiative or the Aboriginal Fishery Strategy and its Allocation Transfer Program. We do not get a cent of that. There is $650 million, and Nunavut Inuit do not get a cent.
Such programs could help us to develop our fishery, increase our allocations, purchase licences, vessels and gear, and create community capacity. However, the Government of Canada has told Inuit that they are excluded from receiving the assistance targeted to First Nations. We are told that this is because the Inuit have a land claims agreement, even though section 2.7.3 of the 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...
Inuit gave up a lot for the claim, but we did not give up our right to access services and programs that should be available to help all Aboriginal people develop their economies and their communities.
Honourable senators, the agreement marked a turning point in the relationship between the Inuit of Nunavut and Canada. We believed that the agreement was negotiated in good faith.
NTI is the custodian of the agreement. That is why we are here today. We are not asking for special favours or additional rights, we ask only that Canada honour its obligations under the agreement by applying the same principles of fair resource management and allocation used elsewhere in Canada.
We realize that the committee is dealing with a number of complex issues. We ask that you consider the following recommendations. First, that the principle of adjacency be applied equitably to Nunavut. Second, that no non- Nunavut fishers shall be awarded quotas until Nunavut quotas are equal to those allocated to other provinces. Third, that the Inuit in Nunavut have equitable access to Aboriginal fisheries development programs or equivalent levels of support and assistance. Fourth, that the Government of Canada be required to honour its side of the bargain entered into when the Prime Minister signed the agreement in 1999.
In closing, I would just like to say — and this is a joke — I would like to see a female Inuk senator.
We will be pleased to entertain questions from the committee.
The Acting Chairman: Thank you, Ms. Towtongie, for your excellent presentation.
Ms. Towtongie: We would like to comment on the previous presentation with regard to the turbot quota allocation.
Mr. Gabriel Nirlungayuk, Director of Wildlife, Wildlife Department, Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated: Honourable senators, this is our interpretation of Nunavut's participation in the Atlantic fishing industry: 27 per cent of adjacent turbot resource is allocated to Nunavut; and, as the president of NTI mentioned, 19 per cent of the shrimp resource. We have no deepwater port facilities near the resources except for the one fishing plant in Pangnirtung.
Apart from the processing facility in Nunavut, currently Nunavut has no infrastructure to handle the potential capacity of the fishing industry. DFO presently manages a small craft harbour program but, to date, it has not extended this program to Nunavut. No communities in Nunavut have harbour facilities capable of docking vessels, even of a modest size. Adjacent fishers cannot benefit from the resource unless they have adequate docks for vessels to land their catch. Docking facilities create an opportunity to invest in processing sectors.
As our president mentioned, a federal fisheries program in 1999, the Marshall Response Initiative, with $160 million in a year to support First Nations, does not go to the Inuit of Nunavut. No money is allocated to Nunavut.
In 1988, the Pacific Fisheries Adjustment and Restructuring Program was funded at $400 million, of which $6.2 million was allocated to Aboriginal groups. Again, none of this money goes to the Inuit of Nunavut.
Senator Cook: Help me understand this. You say that 27 per cent of the turbot quota goes to Nunavut, so where does the remaining quota go? Who is fishing in your waters? Who is fishing the other 63 per cent?
Ms. Towtongie: I have the dollar figures here for turbot. This summer alone, it was $8 million, and we only got 9 per cent of that. We only got about $13,748. The allocation goes to the Baffin Fisheries Coalition. We might have the names here.
Mr. Nirlungayuk: The rest of the allocation goes to southern interests. I do not have the company's name in front of me.
Senator Cook: That, in part, answers my question. Are you saying that DFO issues the quotas for the remaining allocation?
Mr. Nirlungayuk: Yes. Under the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement, article 15.3.7, the NWMB would allocate the quotas. However, the minister, for some reason, does not recognize the role of the NWMB, so the rest goes to the southern interests.
Senator Cook: Is the same true for shrimp?
Mr. Nirlungayuk: Yes.
Ms. Towtongie: At present, Nunavut only controls approximately one-third of these quotas. Much of the quota that Nunavut has is in the 0A turbot fishery. The rest goes to southern interests and the less valuable stripe fishing industry.
In the Atlantic fisheries, during the 1990s, the Inuit were eliminated out of the process because we had no vessels. We are keeping the fishing plants in the Atlantic provinces open with our resources because the principle of adjacency, 85 per cent to 95 per cent, is not being applied to Nunavut.
Senator Cook: Is that because you have no infrastructure?
Ms. Towtongie: At this time, we have no infrastructure. However, I would repeat that our last mine, Lupin mine, has closed down. The fishery creates a viable economy, and we need to have a base in order to start. We have looked at short- and long-term strategies, and we recognize that, in the short-term, we have no infrastructure, but in the long term, if the Government of Canada is serious about making sure that Nunavut becomes a positive experiment between Aboriginal Inuit and the Government of Nunavut and the Government of Canada, we need access to the resources.
Senator Cook: Are any international companies fishing in your waters, or is it Canadians from the south?
Ms. Towtongie: Yes, there are. Last summer alone, 2002, there were 45 ships. The problem is that, in Iqaluit, those vessels are not required to report to the Canadian Coast Guard unless there is an emergency. If those ships go into Greenland waters, they are required to report. There were 45 ships. That is a huge number.
Senator Cook: I apologize for my lack of knowledge about the geography of your region, but what about the 200- mile limit? You are not 200 miles from Greenland, are you?
Ms. Towtongie: We are always competing for hunting rights with Greenland.
Senator Cook: This is our dilemma.
Ms. Towtongie: That 0B area is very difficult to fish. It has a short time-frame of three months, and that is not long enough. In order to sustain our fishing industry, we need to set standards that are different from the southern standards. It could be an exciting opportunity for Canada as a whole to set up that fishing industry.
I was informed by the Canadian Coast Guard in Iqaluit, where they have an office there, that ships are not required to report. That is odd.
Senator Cook: Do you share a turbot fishery with Greenland?
Mr. Nirlungayuk: Greenland does fish in those waters, yes. As a matter of fact, Greenland does a lot of scientific research. They spend a lot of money on that. Unfortunately, in our waters, in Nunavut, DFO spends just a fraction of what it spends in the south. That is also a primary problem in Nunavut.
Senator Cook: You talk about the small craft harbour program that does not apply to you. How many of your northern communities are ice-free for how long? That would be a challenge in itself, I would submit.
Ms. Towtongie: Greenland, because the waters are different, operates year round. For the Canadian Arctic, I would say we are ice-free anywhere from three months to four months. However, we are looking at $100 million this year. Out of that $100 million, we have already lost $88 million to southern fishers.
The Acting Chairman: In order for all of us to fully understand, you mentioned article 15.3.7, which is the commitment of the government, and not only the government but the Crown. You stipulated the nature and the whole question of, if you want to put it this way, the peace made between the Inuit and the Crown as they went through the land claims settlement.
You are telling us that not only do you lack infrastructure, but you also lack the equipment that you need in order to have an economically viable base. You want the minister to fully understand that the Government of Canada has a commitment to respect. You are saying that, whatever allocations they do make, they must keep in mind the commitment that the Crown made regarding adjacency. You are saying that they should give it to the Government of Nunavut and that that government should determine how to allocate that that quota. Is that what you are saying?
Ms. Towtongie: That is one interpretation. Under the Nunavut Land Claims Settlement Agreement, article 15, sets out what is constitutionally protected in marine areas. To date, Inuit are not getting their fair share of the quota. I spoke to them before I came before this committee. If Inuit can get a larger share of the quota, then we can work on our own economic and social problems. We do not want to repeat what has happened with Burnt Church. We are talking about a billion-dollar industry. This is not about race; this is about resource sharing. We are quite committed to working with the Government of Canada and the Government of Nunavut, but we need fair and equal access, and we need the principle of adjacency to be applied.
The Acting Chairman: Are you also saying that you do not want to have the same experience as Newfoundlanders in that they lost their cod stock because that stock was managed by southerners who may not have fully comprehended how important the stock was to the livelihood of the people? Do you want to bring home the message that you know how nature functions in the Arctic and that you want to have control of your future?
Ms. Towtongie: We have looked at what happened to the Newfoundland cod industry. That was based on political conditions, not the management of the stock itself. The decisions that were made were not based on the stock and how it could sustain the economy and the people. The decisions made were based on other factors.
We have in place the Nunavut Wildlife Management Board and Mr. Nirlungayuk is saying that we need scientific research so that we have the relevant data.
The Acting Chairman: I want to remind members of the committee that in a report of this committee in February of 2002 we recommended that the Minister of Fisheries and Ocean adopt a fair and consistent policy with respect to Nunavut access to its adjacency Atlantic fishery resources, including turbot. Quota should be set in accordance with the spirit and the intent of article 15.3.7 of the Nunavut Land Claims Settlement Agreement which stipulates that special consideration be given to the principle of adjacency and economic dependency on resources.
I believe that recommendation has not yet received any response from the government.
Ms. Towtongie: This is how it is being applied to the area we call SFA 026, which is directly adjacent to Nunavut. Four provinces and one territory share 17 licences. Newfoundland gets 8 licences; Quebec, 3.5; Nova Scotia, 2; New Brunswick, 2; and Nunavut 1.5.
Senator Adams:
[Senator Adams spoke in his native language.]
My question is to Ms. Towtongie, President of the NTI. For a few years now, you have been trying to sort out the problems that have resulted from the signing of the 1993 agreement by the then Prime Minister Brian Mulroney in Iqaluit. I believe that article was included so that, in the future, the Government of Canada, in particular the Minister of Indian Affairs, could be shown how Nunavut would be able to operate a commercial fishery. I think at some time the politicians and others need to sit down to tea and discuss the intent of article 15.3.7.
Under the Rules of the Senate, it is very difficult for a senator, myself in particular, to introduce private members' bills concerning an Inuit commercial fishery. However, the elected members of Parliament from Nunavut can introduce money bills.
You have told us that we lose around $80 million per year, which is a lot of money.
Senator Watt made reference to our recommendation concerning article 15.3.7. The minister looked at it and threw up his hands.
We want to help you people out with what is happening. The only way we can do that is by pushing the matter with our politicians. They could draft a bill to address this. In the meantime, perhaps, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and DFO would have no way to transfer quota to foreigners, or others. It is unfortunate that Senator Baker is not here tonight. He was a former Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and he has been a politician for about 30 years. He would know how to set up a policy for the future of commercial fishing in Nunavut.
In the meantime, NTI and the Government of Nunavut can put pressure on MPs to develop regulations.
This month and next we will be hearing many witnesses from Nunavut in an effort to come up with some recommendations regarding the future of the Nunavut economy.
Currently, there is a lot of activity in the mining sector in Nunavut, and we certainly do not want to take anything away from the economy of Nunavut.
People and businesses from the south are getting into businesses, especially now that gold and diamonds are being found in the territory in Nunavut.
[Senator Adams spoke in his native language.]
Ms. Towtongie:
[Ms. Towtongie spoke in her native language.]
Senator, we do miss you in Rankin Inlet.
It is alarming to me, as the president of NTI, when I look at an agreement and then I see the Department of Fisheries and Oceans going in another direction. You have to separate the agreement from the department. As the president of NTI, with a constitutional obligation to the Inuit, it was also alarming to me to know that Inuit cannot have access to the Aboriginal Fishing Strategy and its Allocation Transfer Program in order to buy vessels. We cannot get a cent of it. Ms. Papatsie would like to buy a vessel, but she cannot qualify for the Marshall Response Initiative or the Aboriginal Fishing Strategy and its Allocation Transfer Program. No Inuit can. That is Nunavut Inuit.
The department is not honouring what the Government of Canada has agreed to in the land claims settlement agreement.
I also am alarmed by the fact that the minister, who comes from the Burnt Church area, is being profoundly unfair and he is demonstrating the type of regional self-interest that Canada has historically fought against.
From a broad perspective, you as Senate committee members have an obligation to ensure that Inuit as an indigenous group share in the economic resource of Nunavut. If Inuit are to take a fair share of the resource, we need the principle of adjacency to be applied.
We do have an NTI and Government of Nunavut agreement in place that we have presented to the Government of Canada. Those are my thoughts on it. You must separate the agreement and the department. There is no clear answer.
Senator Adams: At one point my colleague Senator Watt was president of Makivik Corporation which started operating an airline, which is now the third largest scheduled airline in Canada, so northern enterprises can work. As well, Nunasi Corporation has a major interest in Canadian North, one of the main airlines for travel in the North.
Currently, how many private companies do we have?
The Acting Chairman: There are two companies.
Senator Adams: We also have the experience of working with the ships that supply Nunavut, Nunavik and the territories. I think the experience we have gained from our airline and shipping involvement could be applied to any enterprise we undertake in the fishery. With $50 million or $80 million we could create jobs and bolster the economy of Nunavut, and that would lead to future economic benefits.
Could you explain one thing: Are the Inuvialuit represented by the Nunasi Corporation? Does Nunavut own a percentage of the Nunavut Transportation Company Ltd., NTCL?
Ms. Towtongie: Dealing first with the fishing industry, due to a moratorium on new licences, the minister has consistently refused to grant Nunavut fishers an Atlantic groundfish licence. Such a licence would allow Nunavumiut to fish the competitive quota in Davis Strait, between Greenland and Canada. Such licences are held by about 5,000 southern fishers, all of whom have the right to come north to fish, although few do.
With Nunasi and Inuvialuit, that is a different situation. NTI has been developing a policy called NNI policy, whereby any business in Nunavut must, according to article 24 of the agreement, be 51 per cent owned by Inuit. However, there is a loophole in the provision. That loophole has allowed nonInuit to give the licences to their children or wives who are Inuit.
We try to determine if a company is defined as an Inuit business. We look at the management of the company to see if it has Inuit managers. If it does not, then we must find a way to redefine the business.
Senator Cochrane: I want to commend you on your concerns about fisheries management. I wish that things had turned out better in Newfoundland as well. Maybe you are on the right track, because you are taking things into your own hands right away, and that is good.
In the government's response to questions posed in the Senate, it was suggested that DFO had made concerted efforts to allow Nunavut access to the major share of the resource allocation in the adjacent waters you have talked about. This was demonstrated by granting by 51 per cent of the allocation increases in shrimp fishing in the 0A zone in Nunavut in 2003. They also said that this allocation was above that which would have been received under the historical sharing arrangement, which was 8.8 per cent or 187 tonnes. Nunavut also shared in allocations to the offshore licence holders and the scientific quota in areas not adjacent, which is 518 tonnes, for a total increase in allocation of 1,601 tonnes. I would like to hear your response to government's interpretation of this quota allocation.
Ms. Towtongie: It is a matter of access and allocation. Yes, we do have access, but the minister has allocated to the southern fishers who already have access to the allocation. It will be totally different from the way it is being managed now. Yes, he is saying that Nunavut has access to that tonnage, but the only allocation that he has given Nunavut, the only allocation that he can give, is to those southern fishers that already have the licences, not new access.
Senator Cochrane: An article that I read said that Inuit development corporations have made no real long-term investments in the shrimp fishery. From your perspective, is that statement accurate? If so, can you explain why groups have been hesitant to make those long-term investments?
Ms. Towtongie: First, if we are going to make long-term investments, we have to have the principle of adjacency applied and 85 to 90 per cent of that resource allocated to Nunavut. The quota will not sustain anyone with a vessel. A long liner vessel in the Canadian Arctic that is winterized for Canada has to be up to Arctic standards. It is costly. We have looked at the costs and examined the costs from a vessel in Iceland, which is closest to our resource. It would be in the range of $15 million to $28 million. In order to get that vessel for the Inuit, we need access to the resource, and we do not have that access.
I am looking at it from the short term and long term. Within 10 or 20 years, can the Government of Canada state to the Inuit that, yes, they are willing to give us 85 per cent or 90 per cent access, just as the Atlantic provinces have?
Senator Cochrane: In the recommendations that you have proposed to us, it says that no non-Nunavut fishers shall be allocated quotas until Nunavut quotas are equal to those allocated to other provinces.
I look at that and wonder why would you not have a partnership agreement with a non-Nunavut company to set up a fish plant and operate that fish plant. They could avail themselves of the services that your people would have to offer in those plants. Has that ever been considered?
Ms. Towtongie: Yes, I believe so, but as Senator Adams is quite aware, we have IQ, or Inuit knowledge of the circumpolar region. We have two words for waves, one caused by wind, white waves, and one caused by the rotation of the earth, rolling waves. We have not seen the southern fishing industry applying the principles of natural justice in their policies or their programs. Our environment and our climate, we believe, and our IQ should be applied to southern vessels in some areas and in some training programs. It would also focus on stock conservation. Nunavut has a very harsh environment, and if we do not apply the principles of conserving the stocks, we have to balance the equation, and the southern fishing industry has to apply it to our standards.
Senator Cochrane: Do you not think they would?
Ms. Towtongie: Sometimes we have seen the economic interests take precedence over the resource when the resource cannot sustain the economy. They keep on fishing. That has been our observation in the southern Atlantic provinces. That is our fear. We need a balance, and balance it has to take precedence in that circumpolar region.
Senator Cochrane: Are you prepared to do that?
Ms. Towtongie: We are prepared, but at this time we want the principles in section 15.3.7 applied to the decisions that the minister will make.
Mr. Nirlungayuk: Why are we not making any partnerships with the south? There are existing partners. We realize that, in Nunavut, the fishing industry is very new commercially, especially in the areas of turbot and shrimp. We are learning the technology that is used from the southern fishers, so there are some partnerships. However, in the area of docking facilities, infrastructure, why would they want a partner when there are no real dollars invested in Nunavut? We need the dollars flowing up to Nunavut so that more partnerships can be created.
Senator Cook: I am interested in the operations of the Baffin Fisheries Coalition. What kind of a quota do they have, and are you satisfied with their operation? I see it is a coalition of a number of groups from Nunavut.
Ms. Towtongie: There has been criticism of the allocation of the quotas by individuals in Baffin Fisheries Coalition. However, two articles in the Nunavut land claims agreement deal with Nunvat fishers' rights, articles 5 and 15. Article 5 outlines the roles and responsibility of the Nunavut Wildlife Management Board. That board is the primary instrument for wildlife management in the Nunavut settlement area. They have been working with the Baffin Fisheries Coalition at this time. As to the quotas, I do not have those details on hand, but we might have it here.
We have to look at all aspects of the fishing industry so we can critically analyze how it would affect the Nunavut economy including the mining and energy sector and the construction sector. At this time, because of the lack of access, the lack of infrastructure and the lack of dollars, we have been eliminated from having access to the Aboriginal dollars for fishing.
Senator Cook: Does the Baffin Fisheries Coalition have an adequate quota for their operations?
Ms. Towtongie: No, they do not. We want 85 per cent to 90 per cent at this time. That is the bottom line. They do not have the quotas. Some of them are scientific quotas; some are experimental quotas.
Mr. Nirlungayuk: I believe the Baffin Fisheries Coalition was created in 1993, fairly recently. It is made up of some communities on the shores of Baffin Island which are are allocated a quota of shrimp and turbot. However, again, with the lack of funding to Nunavut, they cannot invest more on the fisheries.
Just to give you an example of the turbot and the companies that are allocated the quotas, Seafreeze a company from the south, has 1,900 tons, which is 76 per cent. Clearwater has 230 tonnes, or 9.2 per cent. Seaku Fisheries Incorporated has 2.8 per cent. Nunavik Arctic Foods has 2.8 per cent. Labrador Inuit Development Corporation has 2.8 per cent, and Torngat Fish Producers Co-op has 6.4 per cent. That is the breakdown of the turbot fisheries.
The Acting Chairman: Honourable senators, that ends our time for questions.
The committee adjourned.