Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Fisheries and Oceans
Issue 1 - Evidence - Meeting of February 24, 2004
OTTAWA, Tuesday, February 24, 2004
The Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans met this day at 7:00 p.m. to examine and report on matters relating to quota allocations and benefits to Nunavut and Nunavik fishermen; and to study on matters relating to straddling stocks and fish habitat.
Senator Gerald J. Comeau (Chairman) in the Chair.
[Editor's Note: Some evidence was presented through an Inuktitut interpreter.]
[English]
The Chairman: Honourable senators, tonight, as you might note, we have the cameras on, so if you have any questions or you might wish to interrupt at any point, just let me know so that we can get CPAC to switch over to you.
Without further ado, I would like to introduce my guest for this evening and welcome Mr. Sytukie Joamie from Iqaluit, Nunavut. He has been the chief fishery negotiator for the Kimmirut Hunters and Trappers Association since 1999. He is currently the legislative adviser for the Amarok Hunters and Trappers Association and is involved in auditing for the organization. He is involved with fisheries issues for the Quliruak Incorporated, the corporate arm of the hunters and trappers and recently spent six weeks on a Norwegian longline factory vessel fishing turbot in area 0A, which we will be hearing about tonight.
Welcome to the committee. I understand you have a presentation that you will be making before we go to questions. We look forward to your presentation.
Mr. Sytukie Joamie, as an individual: Honourable senators, I am from Iqaluit, Nunavut. Currently, I am doing contract work for the Amarok Hunters and Trappers Association. I assisted in the establishment of Quliruak Incorporated, the corporate arm of the Hunters and Trappers Association. Quliruak Incorporated is mandated by the association to manage the fishery quotas received by the association.
Since 1999, Quliruak Incorporated has invited other independent quota holders to pool their fishery quotas to have a better negotiating position with the trawler operators.
The association's members have consisted of various organizations and private interests. The Mayukalik Hunters and Trappers Association of Kimmirut has been a member since 2000. The Mittimatalik Hunters and Trappers Association of Pond Inlet has been a member on two separate occasions. Other members have been private quota holders.
I have been the chief negotiator for the association since 1999. My task is to initiate and complete negotiations with the trawler owners to fish and land the fishery quotas.
The association currently has a combined total of 500 metric tons of shrimp in the inshore Nunavut fishing area, and a combined tonnage of 650 tons of shrimp in off shore fishing area 2.
When the Nunavut Wildlife Management Board has fishery quotas available for allocation, the associate members independently apply for such quotas. When they receive the fishery quotas, they pool them together.
The emerging fishing industry has great potential. It is our hope that the people of Nunavut will be able to fully be entitled to the benefits. The control and entitlement of the fishery quotas must be in the hands of the quota holders.
Currently, the great majority of benefits are enjoyed by interests outside of Nunavut. For example, when I was on the Norwegian longliner, the product fished within our waters was processed and packaged in boxes that were labelled as Norwegian products.
We had a crew of 13 on the Norwegian longliner. There were only two Inuit crew members; the rest were Norwegian. It is safe to say that the Norwegian fishing interest has benefited more than the fishing interests of Nunavut.
Therefore, it is with great interest that some of us are observing the development of the fishing industry in Nunavut in particular, the Baffin Fisheries Coalition, BFC. I certainly hope the BFC is successful in the long term. I have some serious concerns regarding the direction and control of the organization.
The 2001 BFC memorandum of understanding states that it has 11 members. Currently, public documents show that BFC only has five directors, and it does not indicate whom they are representing. Furthermore, the public documents of the corporate arm of BFC do not indicate any involvement of the 11 board members. These documents should be readily available to the membership.
It has been stated that BFC is to develop the fishing industry to benefit the Nunavut Inuit fishing interests. It appears that BFC has to rewrite its documents to actually indicate that BFC is serving the best interests of the members who are acting on behalf of the Inuit membership in each organization.
I hope that the BFC will restructure its foundation with a new memorandum of understanding. The current MOU ends May 28, 2004.
I will be submitting my written submission at a later date.
The Chairman: Thank you very much for the presentation.
For the interests of members and Mr. Joamie, if you wish to speak in Inuktitut, please do so. To get the interpretation, switch to channel 2.
Senator Phalen: Before I ask my question, I will try to explain the structure under which you fish, as I understand it. You can correct me.
As I understand it, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans gives the quota to the Nunavut Wildlife Management Board, NWMB. The Wildlife Management Board then gives the quota to the Baffin Fisheries Coalition, which is made up of 10 or 11 groups.
The Baffin Fisheries Coalition manages the quota by giving the quota to commercial fishing vessels. They fish the quota for you. In return, you receive royalties and some of your people get employment. Am I correct so far?
Mr. Joamie: Honourable senators, to clarify, NWMB is mandated by the land claim to carry out the authority of allocating resources that are allocated to them by DFO. Every time there is an allocation to be had, NWMB requests proposals or applications from all quota holders, including the BFC. The 11 members of the BFC also have their own independent quotas. BFC is made up of those fishing interests in our region. In turn, BFC competing against its own members when allocations are to be had.
BFC, as you stated, charters fishing vessels and the royalties are paid to them. However, it is a nonprofit organization. To date, the 11 members have not benefited financially because it is a nonprofit organization.
Senator Phalen: I understand that 30 per cent of the royalties is being saved for fishing trawlers, 30 per cent is for operations, 20 per cent is for research, and the remaining 20 per cent is fish that are delivered to the Inuit people. Is that correct?
Mr. Joamie: Twenty per cent
Senator Phalen: Is that free fish?
Mr. Joamie: It is termed ``free fish,'' but I have seen an invoice for that free fish. I do not know if it is actually free fish. ``Free'' to me is something that you do not have to pay for, right? They are actually paid in some way.
Senator Phalen: Is the quota that the commercial fishermen receive 4,000 metric tons?
Mr. Joamie: Yes.
Senator Phalen: They fish that off-shore. Is there a 12-mile limit?
Mr. Joamie: The 4,000 metric tons of fish in 0A are off shore quotas for turbot.
BFC stated in their presentation that they were not a monopoly. Certain organizations have stated that BFC is a monopoly, and they deny that. However, BFC is truly a monopoly within 0A.
I organized my fellow fishermen last year. There were 25 of us. We applied for the same quotas, but all of the quotas in 0A went to the Baffin Fisheries Coalition. They have a monopoly of getting that allocation in 0A.
Senator Phalen: Would you prefer to do your own fishing with the larger boats or fish closer to the shore with smaller boats?
Mr. Joamie: The fishing infrastructure has not developed well enough to achieve those goals to date. Ideally, the infrastructure of the fishing industry should be developed by the federal government, so that we could achieve what you just stated or that the fishermen could fish on behalf of BFC or any organization.
We want to be able to fish quotas ourselves. The allocation process is such that we are not able to receive any quotas, even though we are fishermen.
Senator Phalen: Do you believe that changes are necessary in the composition of the Nunavut Wildlife Management Board? Should the nominating process to the board be changed? Do you think that changes to that board are necessary?
Mr. Joamie: There is a land claim process for nominating and appointing those members. Land claims are entrenched in the Constitution. You would have to ask Parliament to change the agreement with the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement, NLCA. You cannot otherwise change the process of who gets appointed to the NWMB board — even if you dislike who is appointed.
Senator Phalen: Does the land claim apply to offshore fishing? Is that 0A water? Does that apply there or are you just talking about inshore fishery?
Mr. Joamie: The land claim applies to the 12-mile limit. The independent shrimp quotas apply to us. The offshore, technically, is not part of the land claim process, but the NWMB, because it is a land claim organization, has to follow certain procedures. In effect, in some ways the land claims process takes place during the allocations.
The Chairman: That has been most helpful. You have reminded us of a number of things that we may have forgotten.
[Interpretation]
Senator Adams: Thank you.
Whether you wish to speak Inuktitut or English when you reply is fine with me.
You are currently working with Quliruaq and Amarok hunters and trappers. How did they amalgamate in a joint venture to try to get their allocation? Before the BFC was introduced, how did the hunters and trappers work together?
Mr. Joamie: In 1982, the NWMB started allocating quotas. In 1998, Amarok had a quota allocated. They had a chairperson who was hired from Ottawa and we found that that manager was not honest and was taking payments under the table. We got rid of that manager.
In 1999, Quliruaq was established and they wanted to look after their own quotas and do their own fishing. Since then, we have been negotiating our allocations and fishing ventures. In addition, in 1999, Quliruaq and Amarok, jointly, along with other community hunters and trappers that we invite, began working together to try and get allocations. We have been working collectively as hunters and trappers before BFC was established.
Senator Adams: In 1995, I believe, BFC was established. Is that true?
[English]
Mr. Joamie: BFC was originally called the Baffin Fisheries Council. It was made up of various fish interests, prior to the Baffin Fisheries Coalition. It is my understanding that the NWMB was one of the initiators of the development of Baffin Fisheries Coalition. They had tried that organization by themselves as the Baffin Fisheries Council prior to the Baffin Fisheries Coalition.
[Interpretation]
Senator Adams: Before the BFC was established, there were 25 fishermen who tried to apply jointly for an allocation. You were included as a fisherman. You lost out on your chance to get that approved. Did you ask what your chances were as individual Inuit fishermen to successfully get those allocations?
Mr. Joamie: The 25 of us who were fishermen took training last year. We believed that we had every right to seek allocations to fish offshore because we are fisherman and we are indigenous to that area. We thought we had a good chance of getting an allocation because we term ourselves fisherman and we are indigenous to the area. We lost out.
Senator Adams: Was Quliruaq Incorporated established when you applied?
Mr. Joamie: Quliruaq was an independent, corporate arm of the Amarok Hunters and Trappers Association. We, as 25 individual fishermen outside those companies, applied independently.
Senator Adams: Did you put in a proposal to the NWMB?
Mr. Joamie: Yes. We wrote proposals to the NWMB and we signed as a joint company of individuals. There were 25 signatures on our application.
Senator Adams: Did you state how much you would pay per metric ton in your proposal? What did you say that you were prepared to pay per ton?
Mr. Joamie: We got together as individual fishermen because we wanted to become independent and make the fishery our livelihoods and business. We wanted to make money and have cash up front to start saving so that we could buy our own small fishing vessels.
As independent businessmen and fishermen, we felt that if fishing was to be developed in Nunavut, that we, as stakeholders and residents, had to have this opportunity to be involved in the establishment of fishers in Nunavut.
Senator Adams: What was the NWMB's response to your proposal?
Mr. Joamie: The Nunavut Wildlife Management Board does not state why they reject a proposal. They merely write a letter to you stating, ``I am sorry you were unsuccessful in obtaining this licence.''
Senator Adams: The BFC signed a memorandum of understanding with 11 hunters and trappers or individuals. In their memorandum of understanding, they had a mandate to develop the fishing industry up North and stated what they intended to do with the royalties. Have they stated to the Inuit public how they will spend the profits?
Mr. Joamie: We have not seen any written documents. We have no access to information on what is happening. As a negotiator for the hunters and trappers, we seek information from the BFC. They choose not to cooperate. They just give us the cold shoulder. We have difficulty cooperating and sharing information with them, although we may be termed members legally, they choose not to share the information.
The members of the board of directors of the BFC may see the documents, but they do not have to give the information to the general Inuit public if they do not want to. Their attitude has been that the information is not shared with the Inuit regarding 0A.
Senator Adams: We are talking about Nunavut quota allocations. Are they geared towards Inuit fishermen in Nunavut, or are they already allocated to BFC?
Mr. Joamie: The Nunavut quotas are already determined by NWMB to be targeted for BFC. They have first priority. Some of the members of the board of directors are informed after decisions have been made. I will speak in English to clarify it.
[English]
As a fishery negotiator, I have to be very transparent in what I do. I have to write documents in English and Inuktitut. It does not matter what document it is, it has to be translated. Every action I take has to be documented. When I call for a proposal, I have to list those who I have asked for proposals, who responded and who I think we should negotiate with for independent quotas. It has to be very transparent.
Baffin Fisheries Coalition does it in a different way. Baffin Fisheries Coalition had a board meeting a couple of weeks ago in Pangnirtung. The call for proposals, ironically, ended a couple of days later after that meeting had ended. The entire process of calling for proposals is done internally. I would assume that the executive committee members have knowledge of which proposals are given from which company. The 11 members are not really involved in that process.
[Interpretation]
Senator Adams: I am sure that you are aware of article 15.3.7 in the Nunavut Land Claim Agreement and that both your company and the BFC abides by it. Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated, NTI and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, DFO, are asked to work together on those issues and must be involved in decision-making. Is BFC gear towards that?
You may answer in English if you feel more comfortable.
[English]
Mr. Joamie: Every Inuit-owned organization has the option to register under the land claim organization to benefit from government contracts. You would think that the corporate arm of the Baffin Fisheries Coalition would be in that registry. It is not.
Therefore, we assume that for some reason it is not registered as an Inuitowned company. I do not know why. If it is, they would automatically register under NTI policies, but they do not. From what I understand, three Ottawa lawyers are holding the BFC in trust. There is no documentation to prove that it is owned by Inuit.
I know only one Inuk lawyer. I am sure that he is not involved in that group.
Senator Adams: Who is the chairman of the board?
Mr. Joamie: The Premier of Nunavut is the only Inuk lawyer that I know. I am sure he is not one of those three trustees.
The Chairman: I wish to remind senators that the function of the Nunavut Wildlife Management Board is advisory in zones 1 and 2. The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans is not obliged or bound to take the Board's advice. Sometimes we tend to forget that fact.
Even though it is not required to do so by the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement, the federal government and the NWMB have agreed that the board is responsible for allocating Nunavut's share of the commercial fisheries in those two zones, even though DFO is not bound by that advice.
[Interpretation]
Senator Watt: I will ask you quickly regarding the same question that Senator Adams raised. The Nunavut Wildlife Management Board was created under the Nunavut Land Claim. DFO allocates the fishing quota. The NWMB then allocates the quotas to applicants. Through that process, BFC receives its allocations.
Why is it structured like that?
Mr. Joamie: From my understanding, the turbot quotas for 0A are allocated to BFC so that BFC will develop into a Nunavut fishery. That enables BFC to join the fishing industry.
When new interests apply for turbot fishing in 0A, they are repeatedly rejected. The applications are repeatedly given to BFC and the new interests are never approved. BFC also has informed the NWMB that if there are new, additional quotas to be introduced in that area, BFC should have priority.
BFC also has interests in 0B, which is geared toward independent fishing companies in that the allocations go to independent fishing interests.
[English]
They are trying to squeeze everyone out. The 11 members have their own independent quotas and, BFC, in turn, is competing against its own membership.
[Interpretation]
Senator Watt: Economically it does not make sense for people to turn against each other and compete with one another.
[English]
You must have a board of directors. Are those 11 members that you mentioned not running the show?
Mr. Joamie: Currently, as seen on the Internet site, it is public knowledge that BFC has only five directors on the board.
Senator Watt: Only five?
Mr. Joamie: Only five. The Memorandum of Understanding states that there are 11 board members. They are registered in Ottawa, of all places. You would think that they would be registered in Nunavut.
Senator Watt: Are those board members beneficiaries?
Mr. Joamie: Yes, the five directors are beneficiaries. It states who they are but it does not state whom they represent. Technically, each time they go to a meeting, they are attending without the authority to do so. The other six members are riders to these five directors. You would think that all 11 would be registered as directors of a non-profit organization. You would also expect that the three lawyers would have been replaced a long time ago by the beneficiaries but they have not been. It is embarrassing to say that.
The main thrust of BFC is to develop the fishery in the North — in Nunavut — so that all northerners, not just Inuit, could benefit from their own resource within their area. It is like a car that is not running well — the engine is too big for the small car.
[Interpretation]
Senator Watt: The NTI land claims organization acts on behalf of the Inuit in Nunavut. Does NTI represent you on the Nunavut Wildlife Management Board?
[English]
Has the Board established a policy?
[Interpretation]
Mr. Joamie: Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated does not have the authority to instruct NWMB in its affairs.
[English]
NTI is a beneficiary organization and cannot dictate to NWMB what they should do. They can only make recommendations.
Senator Watt: The NWMB is under the umbrella of NTI, as such, through the land claims agreement, but in a sense they are totally independent, even though they should be considered part of the benefit to the Inuit of Nunavut. Is that correct?
Mr. Joamie: Institutes of public government that are similar to NWMB, such as the water board, do their own thing in the best interests of the public. NTI is for beneficiaries only. We cannot mix the two together.
Senator Watt: From the Aboriginal Inuit perspective, NTI has a role to play. They should have a voice in that area.
Mr. Joamie: Legally they have an obligation to protect the best interests of beneficiaries, but they have an arm's- length relationship with various organizations. They really do not become involved in the day-to-day issues. Perhaps one day in the future they will be involved, in the best interests of the beneficiaries.
Under the land claim, when quotas are allocated, the NWMB has to follow a certain procedure. The established quota holders are the priority and Inuit organizations take priority. The remaining allocations are given to other organizations after that. It is difficult to get an allocation.
For example, we, the 25 fishermen, should benefit from the fishery but as much as we try to get quotas, we never can get any.
Senator Watt: We have talked about the ethnic component. You have said that it is really in the hands of the public component — the government side. Can the Nunavut government take action to correct the situation?
Mr. Joamie: The Nunavut government is involved through the institute of public government as one of the members of NWMB. It could, in turn, appoint a member to take whatever action they feel that the NWMB should also take. The regional Inuit organizations have representation on the NWMB. They in turn can make recommendations through the board. The government is directly involved in the community in Pangnirtung. The Nunavut Development Corporation, under the Nunavut government, owns 51 per cent of the Pangnirtung Fish Plant. The people of Pangnirtung own 49 per cent. Through this arrangement, the people are directly involved in the fishery.
Senator Watt: Have you made a point of approaching the Nunavut government with the problem you have just highlighted to see if they could rectify this matter?
Mr. Joamie: I want BFC to succeed in the long term; I do not want it to falter. I am voicing my concern. I think I am one of the first ones to publicly voice our concerns before the situation goes too far.
It is always been claimed that BFC is 100 per cent Inuit-owned. Are the three lawyers at BFC Inuit? I do not believe so. Is BFC registered under the land claims organization as an Inuit-owned business? No, it is not. I have to voice these concerns to authorities such as you so that they become public knowledge. If I voice my concerns directly to BFC, they will not be heard elsewhere. I am a member of the BFC through my representative and I have dealt with fisheries since 1999. I have a little bit of knowledge of the fisheries so I am interested in the BFC. However, I cannot go to a meeting of the BFC. I was kicked out of a BFC meeting two weeks ago.
Senator Watt: Do you still support the BFC?
Mr. Joamie: I still support them, technically. It took them one-half hour to kick me out but they did it. I have nothing against the BFC personally. Have concerns about their structure and their foundation.
Senator Watt: and their practices.
Mr. Joamie: Yes. I hope BFC succeeds. They are on their way, but it had better not be like a train that gets lost on its tracks.
Senator Watt: On the one hand I am somewhat surprised to hear what you have to say when your government is so accessible to you. You could highlight your concerns to your government, which might be able to act faster than we can act, as senators. That is one of the reasons I mention this. You have not approached the Nunavut government, which I would recommend, to rectify the matters that you are facing.
Mr. Joamie: That might be difficult to do because the territorial government has an adviser to the BFC.
Senator Hubley: The BFC originally had 11 members and you have told us that only five members are identified. How were those members chosen? Do they represent districts? Do they represent the communities throughout Baffin Island?
Mr. Joamie: The original 11 signatories represented the quota holders of the day in 2001. They were formed as a coalition to advance the development of the fisheries. Prior to that, everybody was independent. We were all independent of one another and promoting our own interests in the fishing industry.
Senator Hubley: Would that be a fishing organization or would it be a community? Would the fishing organizations within the communities have a member on the Baffin Fisheries Coalition? Were the 11 members individuals that owned quota at the time?
Mr. Joamie: There are two individuals from two private, Inuit-owned companies. There is one member from Qikiqtaaluk Corporation, which is a corporate arm of our regional Inuit association. That corporation competes against us as well. The Inuit are very good at competing against one another.
The others are all members of the hunters and trappers organizations, HTOs, from Pond Inlet, Clyde River, Qikiqtarjuaq, Pangnirtung, Iqualuit and Kimmirut. Those organizations are for Inuit beneficiaries only.
Senator Hubley: I wanted to have some clarity on the involvement, if any, of the BFC. What is the role of the beneficiaries? I believe you said there were three in Montreal. What is their role?
Mr. Joamie: Do you mean the three trustees?
Senator Hubley: Yes. Did you call them beneficiaries or trustees?
Senator Watt: They are trustees.
Mr. Joamie: They are lawyers.
Senator Hubley: What is their role?
Mr. Joamie: I believe their role is to establish a numbered company to transfer the ownership to the rightful owners. To my knowledge, that has not yet happened. Perhaps we do not qualify yet as owners. We trust them very much.
Senator Hubley: You do indeed. In the short term, what would you like to see happen in your area that would benefit your people and would also establish a fishery in your name? What would you like to see happen in the short term?
Mr. Joamie: The fishing industry is well established in other areas of the country such as British Columbia, Newfoundland and Nova Scotia. The federal and provincial governments have supported the infrastructure of the fishery in those areas. The federal government should build the infrastructure in the North so that the fishing industry could benefit northerners.
The vast majority of the benefits are leaving the North and even Canada altogether, for that matter. If our product from fishing our waters suddenly becomes labelled as Norwegian product, who is receiving the PR from that? If they are selling the product in Japan, then the Japanese must be saying, ``oh, man those Norwegians have great turbot!'' Right?
Senator Hubley: Exactly. I agree with you. Infrastructure is one of your major concerns.
Mr. Joamie: Further to that, there are enough fish in our waters to support the local infrastructure. There is only one community in our region that has a fish plant. Originally the intention was for people to travel to that community from other communities to work. That has not happened once. The people who have moved to that community are usually plant managers from Nova Scotia or Newfoundland. They have benefited while other communities have not. There are enough fish in the area to support these fisheries.
The federal government is obligated to assist with infrastructure. If it could do it in Newfoundland, surely it could do it in Nunavut. Honourable senators must remember that the fishing is happening in Canadian waters. Yet, who is benefiting from the fish in those waters? Outside interests. The northerners should control everything. The Baffin Fisheries Coalition was here once. I do not know how many times you viewed that program to really hear what is going on and to listen to the questions.
Under the Baffin Fisheries Coalition, all of the benefits are leaving the northern region. There need to be plants in each community. The majority of the workers in the plant at Pangnirtung are women of an older age group. They are earning income and not receiving social assistance, whereas the younger folk are out on the fishing vessels. Both ends of society are benefiting from that fish plant, although not too many young folk want to work in a fish plant. There are only two, perhaps, from the younger age group working there. Most of the workers benefiting from the employment are older. It is of great benefit to that community.
There is enough fish for everyone to succeed but business being business, the folks in Pangnirtung will always tell say they do not want another fish plant somewhere else.
Senator Hubley: They would then be working against one another. There would be competition.
Mr. Joamie: That is the business.
Senator Hubley: Business is business.
Senator Trenholme Counsell: I am glad to see you have maintained a sense of humour in all of this.
I have been trying to understand and to learn from you. One of your concerns is that there should be 11 people, and there are only five, on the Baffin Fisheries Coalition. Is that right?
I ask this because at Appendix I in the notes it says that BFC is a federally incorporated notforprofit organization with five directors. It is my understanding that it has five directors that represent 11 organizations. Is that correct?
Mr. Joamie: There is no way that a community such as Clyde River would want to be represented by the representative from Iqaluit.
Senator Trenholme Counsell: Each of you wants to have your own. However, from the beginning there have not been 11 directors. Have there always been five?
Mr. Joamie: According to the documents on the Web site, which has not been updated for some time, the five directors are original signatories to the Memorandum of Understanding. Would you not think that the nonprofit organization would be established in Nunavut?
Senator Trenholme Counsell: I am not debating this with you. Rather, I am thinking that perhaps each of the 11 organizations would like to have a representative. I guess that is not what was laid down when the BFC was incorporated. Perhaps it was not fair but it seems to me that that is what happened. I suppose the federal government formed it. I am only looking for clarification on that.
I want to ask you another question. Concerning the 30 per cent of royalty income to go to the factory freezer vessel, how close are you? I have the impression from other hearings that this is a priority. It is my understanding that for the past three years, 30 per cent has been allocated towards the factory freezer vessel. Do you have any idea how close you are to the amount needed to get that?
Mr. Joamie: Back in our pre BFC days when we were negotiating various contracts with trawler owners, we always quietly mentioned to the trawler owners that we wanted our own boat. Of course, they would smile because they knew we were in no position to accomplish that goal.
Today, the tables have turned. As we speak there are interests coming to Nunavut that are trying to sell us partnerships so that they could sell us trawlers. The factory freezer costs about $18 million.
Senator Trenholme Counsell: How much is in the fund?
Mr. Joamie: I am not sure. We are not entitled to that information.
Senator Trenholme Counsell: Do we have the information? Do you know what 30 per cent of the royalties would amount to in this 0A area?
Mr. Joamie: My estimate is that it would be more than $1 million per year, based on my understanding. However, I am not privy to the financial records of BFC.
Senator Trenholme Counsell: As a committee, we would probably like to know how close they are to getting that trawler, which we have been told, repeatedly, is important. It is laid down in the rules for the BFC that 30 per cent is supposed to go to your trawler; but you are not sure whether that is happening.
Mr. Joamie: That is their business, as they would say.
Senator Trenholme Counsell: I think it is all of our business.
Mr. Joamie: Yes, it is, but they keep that information to themselves.
Senator Trenholme Counsell: Is there not an annual report? Is there an annual report from the BFC that would contain that kind of information? Would you ever see it?
Mr. Joamie: Yes, but it contains only general information. If I mandated you to buy me an $18-million trawler, you would just report to me in general terms until you actually buy it for me.
Senator Trenholme Counsell: Well, I would not, but I think it would be —
Mr. Joamie: You would also get a 10 per cent commission for finders' fees.
Senator Trenholme Counsell: I have heard how that works.
Can I have more clarification on what is actually happening in the fishery? We have a table before us from 2001 to 2003 that contains several things of interest. One is that in 0A, in 2001, 100 per cent of the catch was trawler. That has since dropped to 60 per cent with the remaining 40 per cent by hook and line. Are your people fishing by hook and line?
Mr. Joamie: I was one of eight beneficiaries who were on the longliners this past fishing year only one of eight.
Senator Trenholme Counsell: What kind of vessels are involved in the hook and line?
Mr. Joamie: There is a long line of 7,700 hooks that are shot at once out the back of the vessel. Altogether, there are about 24,000 hooks on three separate lines. The end part of the line is better because the majority of the fish are alive when they are hauled into the boat. In trawler operations, because everything is packed together in a big net, some of the catch are dead by the time they are hauled into the boat.
Senator Trenholme Counsell: Very large vessels also do the hook and line method that you are describing.
Mr. Joamie: Pardon me?
Senator Trenholme Counsell: That method is also used by very big vessels.
Mr. Joamie: Yes.
Senator Trenholme Counsell: I have one more point. It seems to me that Canadian involvement, shall I say, is on the rise, significantly. I know you mentioned that most of this was going to foreign fishing vessels. Between 2001 and 2003, the number of foreign vessels is cut by half and the Canadian has gone up by that amount. Have you been aware of that, or has that been positive for you people?
Mr. Joamie: Right across Davis Strait are our own relatives — the people of Greenland. The federal government dictates that we cannot go into business with them regarding the fishery. We cannot do business with our own family members across Davis Strait.
Senator Trenholme Counsell: Because there is a line.
Mr. Joamie: Amazingly, we could get a Norwegian trawler to fish our fish off our waters.
Senator Trenholme Counsell: Do your people notice any difference between the Canadian vessels — let us say the ones from Clearwater Company, versus the Norwegian? When the men and the boys come back and say they have been on these vessels, is one better than another or does there not seem to be any difference?
Mr. Joamie: The majority of fishermen who work on trawlers would never want to go on the longliner. It is hard work. I wanted to quit after the first few days because it is much more difficult working on a longliner than it is on a trawler. Work on a trawler is fairly standard; it is repetitive work day in and day out, six hours on, six hours off. On the longliner, you work for eight hours, sleep for three or four hours at most, and then work for eight and then take off eight hours.
Senator Trenholme Counsell: Are the longliners Canadian or Norwegian?
Mr. Joamie: There were two longliners from Norway. In the shrimp fishing industry, the federal fisheries department, dictates that we cannot use foreign trawlers in shrimp fishing; but you could use them up until December 31 of last year. This year, they are supposed to Canadianize everybody.
Senator Trenholme Counsell: That seems to be happening. Is all of this up for renegotiation this year? It seems, in 2001, it was negotiated for a three year period. Is this the year that renegotiation takes place?
Mr. Joamie: Do you mean the trawler operators?
Senator Trenholme Counsell: My understanding is that the memorandum of understanding was negotiated in 2001 for three years.
Mr. Joamie: We have already made suggestions to the BFC on how the MOU should be changed.
Senator Trenholme Counsell: Then this is probably a very important year.
Mr. Joamie: Yes, it is. The members who have concerns about BFC certainly hope that it is restructured with a new MOU and operated to benefit the people as it was originally intended.
You must remember that BFC has a head office in St. John's, Newfoundland. We have Inuk office space for all of the companies in Newfoundland to have offices in Iqaluit, but our own company has a head office in Newfoundland.
Senator Trenholme Counsell: I certainly hope that you find out what is going on and get the answers. It has been very good to talk to you.
Senator Cook: I will ask for your patience because I will have to ask you to go through it again. I need your wisdom to help me understand what I am hearing here.
Once upon a time, there were 11 organizations contained in the same number of communities who decided that they would form a coalition to grow their fisheries, become resourceful and to help grow their communities. Thus, the Baffin Fisheries Coalition was born. Am I right so far?
Mr. Joamie: Yes.
Senator Cook: The quotas in those 11 communities were then amalgamated and the coalition had the responsibility for them; is that correct?
Mr. Joamie: The original 11 signatories had their own independent quotas. As a new group, they got new quotas. They did not amalgamate their existing quotas.
Senator Cook: They received additional quotas, is that correct?
Mr. Joamie: As an organization, yes.
Senator Cook: What happened to the original quotas in the communities? Where did they go?
Mr. Joamie: They still have them.
Senator Cook: These quotas are separate and apart from the Baffin Fisheries Coalition, is that correct?
Mr. Joamie: They are a separate operation.
Senator Cook: DFO gave this new group, this new entity, an extra quota, is that correct?
Mr. Joamie: DFO gave the resources to the NWMB. NWMB, in turn, allocates those quotas to whomever they are allocating it to.
Senator Cook: Okay. Let me try again. A group of people came together, and they are called the Baffin Fisheries Coalition; then a creation of a board of directors came into being. Who created the board of directors with the five directors, two employees and a liaison officer, and registered them as a not for profit entity to help the people of Nunavut?
The Chairman: Might I interject here? I think what is missing is that there is the Nunavut Wildlife Management Board, which is the top organization that created the BFC, right?
Senator Cook: No. I am trying to get the creator.
Mr. Joamie: Okay. Eleven signatories — the independents — became one big family.
Senator Cook: Okay.
Mr. Joamie: I would assume the chief executive officer took care of all of the documents, so I would assume that he is the one to transact the documents. You would think that the directors would entrust him to do that. They would not do that. They rely on their employee to carry out that function.
Senator Cook: This group registered itself as a not for profit organization to grow the fishing industry in those 11 communities, and a board of directors was created and trusted with this responsibility, is that correct? This was to grow the turbot fishery, right?
Mr. Joamie: That is correct.
Senator Cook: Up to this point in time, this Baffin Fisheries Coalition has sold its allocation to whomever would, I guess, give them the bang for their buck. The royalties — the economic piece — are held in trust somewhere and the benefit to your people is simply training to go on the draggers that this Baffin Island Coalition sells their allocation to? Am I right there?
Mr. Joamie: That is correct.
Senator Cook: It seems the mandate was good in the beginning, but we have sort of moved. How do you see us getting that mandate back, to grow the fishery in the communities, to help your people have a viable fishery and to be independent?
Mr. Joamie: We are in Ottawa, where everything is done by the written word. If and when Baffin Fisheries Coalition renews the MOU, it should state clearly the direction of the organization and who the directors are.
Right now, the liaison officer that you mentioned is registered as a member of the board of directors of that organization, and he is an employee.
Senator Cook: Who is the coalition? To whom is this board of directors responsible? Where is the transparency in this whole structure? Are they responsible to the 11 original signatories?
Mr. Joamie: Each member is told to report to their respective organization, but the BFC is an entity on its own.
Senator Cook: How can that be?
Mr. Joamie: I told you earlier that we compete against each other very well.
Senator Cook: They were created for a purpose. That primary purpose was to grow your turbot fishery in your area and to grow your communities and make them viable and self-supporting. It would seem to me that if they are fulfilling their mandate, the accountability must be back through the system to the community or to the 11 organizations that created them. Are you telling me that is not so?
Mr. Joamie: Everything has to be transparent. If we form a company, we want everything to be transparent. Who moves what, what voting shares you may have, what not.
If the Inuit own Baffin Fisheries Coalition, the corporate arm, would you not think that would be transferred a long time ago to the rightful owners? Who are the rightful owners? If, when they registered in Ottawa, they wanted to have five directors, that means that legally, the six remaining people just kind of tag along to the meeting without a legal authorization to be at that meeting. It is like calling myself a senator when I am not.
Senator Cook: I am looking at some notes here that talk about the Baffin Fisheries Coalition's three year plan, which is to purchase the factory freezer trawler, to have research, to develop a processing plant in Pangnirtung, and the remainder to operations. What would you classify as ``operations''?
Mr. Joamie: I guess it is up to the individual who is controlling the corporation or the body. What I term as operations could differ very much from what you term as operations. I would assume that it is basically inhouse operations. We are not privy to such information, if I may say so. They are a corporate entity and they act so. I would hope that they will change the present philosophy of how they deal with the membership.
Senator Cook: How do you see that happening?
Mr. Joamie: Remember, the NWMB was instrumental in establishing the organization and they want it to succeed. If it starts getting fractured, if one member pulls away, other members will pull away, too, for their own reasons. If it starts fracturing, then they will have lost the cause.
Senator Cook: Will they pull their quota with them?
Mr. Joamie: The 11 members do not have individual quotas, per se, in the membership in BFC. It is one big pot under that umbrella. No individual member has a quota, per se.
Senator Cook: It is complex, is it not?
Mr. Joamie: We are very good at being complex.
Senator Cook: What I am hearing you say is the original mandate and the mandate today of the Baffin Fisheries Coalition differ somewhat, and the accountability of the coalition is not transparent to its membership.
Finally, is this coalition a benefit to your communities, or is there a better way to grow your community and for you to be self-supporting?
Mr. Joamie: The actions of BFC speak loudly for themselves. The head office of the coalition is in St. John's.
Senator Cook: That is a problem for you. I should tell you I live in St. John's, but I hear what you are saying. It is a long way from your home. If you are to grow and develop your own destiny, you should be where you are and not someplace else. I would have the same problem if something in my province had a headquarters in some other province. I understand that.
Mr. Joamie: I would never put anything in Harbour Grace when I am from Bay Roberts, right?
Senator Cook: Right.
The Chairman: I have one brief question. Let us follow the sequence again. The quota goes from DFO over to the Nunavut Wildlife Management Board, which is then allocated to the BFC, which then subcontracts it to either southerners or Norwegians or whomever. This is done because your region does not have the sufficient infrastructure — wharves, fish plants and so on — that enables northerners to fish this quota.
For a moment, let us say that you did have those facilities the wharves and the field fish plants. What kind of a fishery would northerners prefer to see, in your view? Would it be a smaller boat fishery or a factory freezer trawler fishery, if you were to have access to that quota in 0A?
Mr. Joamie: There could do both. Ideally, both situations would be the best. The small operator on the 65-footers — 64-foot, 11-inch footers — could fish part of the quotas and offload on the bigger boat, or they could offload in the plant, if there was one. There would be employment for a lot of people; the economic spin-off would be great.
The Chairman: My impression has been that the northerners would prefer not fishing for one or two months on a factory freezer trawler; instead, they would prefer being home much more often. Is that a concern, or would some of your younger people be willing to be away for extended periods of time?
Mr. Joamie: As the fishing industry is being developed, there is a lot more interest in the fishing industry. Many more young people are interested in going on the boats because there is high unemployment in almost all of the communities.
The Chairman: Finally, should we look — and we have had requests to this committee, as a matter of fact, requesting that quotas be allocated to companies — should the NWMB, look at assigning quotas to companies, with the resulting things that could happen when that happens?
Should quotas be assigned to companies?
Mr. Joamie: To which companies are you referring?
The Chairman: I know of one individual who did ask to be assigned a quota. Is this a way to go? There are repercussions to assigning quotas to companies or individuals.
Mr. Joamie: It is already being done anyway. You must remember that there are two independent, private interests on BFC. One is Aqviq Marine Limited, and the other is Kabva Marine Services Limited.
The Chairman: I beg to differ because the quotas have not been assigned as of this point, as far as I know. The quota still belongs to the Canadian people, held in trust by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. Those quotas have not been assigned to any one individual company. I think they are allowed to fish it under royalty, but in some areas, fish are allocated eventually. Some requests are made sometimes to allocate the fish to individual companies.
Should the DFO be looking at this model to assign the fish to companies, or should it be looking at the model to assign the fish to communities in the North?
Mr. Joamie: As a fisherman, I would love to get a quota from DFO directly without going through the hoops.
The Chairman: Have you looked at the downside of that, though? If the quota is assigned to you individually, you can turn around and sell it to me.
Mr. Joamie: Yes.
The Chairman: Then I can sell it to somebody else, a doctor in Toronto. Has that been considered?
Mr. Joamie: It is happening. Do you recall that I mentioned the independent quota holders?
The Chairman: Yes.
Mr. Joamie: There are two independents. They do that.
The Chairman: In 0A?
Mr. Joamie: 0B.
The Chairman: I will not pursue that further.
Mr. Joamie: There are pros and cons on the issue. I know where you come from. Do you want to give a window of opportunity to private interests when you are trying to develop the fishery in the North?
The Chairman: You cannot have it both ways.
Mr. Joamie: You cannot.
The Chairman: You either hand it over to the private interests, and they will develop it as they see fit, or you hand it over to the communities and the communities will develop it as they see fit. There are two different models.
Mr. Joamie: The approach is right at this time of the fishing industry. It is just that we might have differing views on how to go about doing it. The philosophy is right. Those 11 folks knew that, so they stuck together. It has been a rough marriage, though.
The Chairman: I can see that.
Mr. Joamie: It is a tough one. If you are sitting right beside a guy who says, ``I do not want a fish plant in your community.'' How do you react?
[Interpretation]
Senator Adams: Thank you. I want to go back to a few questions. You said that you attended an NWMB meeting and they requested that you leave the meeting. Why were you requested to leave the meeting? I understand that you are not the first one who has been asked to leave one of their meetings. Would you care to explain what caused you to be evicted?
[English]
Mr. Joamie: The Baffin Fisheries Coalition was soliciting agenda items from its membership, and they said they were going to have a board of directors' meeting in Pangnirtung. We assumed there would be a board of directors' meeting. Because we have interest in the fisheries, we decided to travel to Pangnirtung to observe the meetings because they were going to discuss important aspects that affected us directly.
When we got there, it all of a sudden became a shareholders' meeting under the numbered company, so we were not permitted to attend. They would not allow us to be in that room even though we have direct benefits or a direct line to that organization. We used that opportunity to visit the fish plant in Pangnirtung. As it turned out, we got more information from that visit to the fish plant than we would have if we had sat in on that meeting anyway. It was a blessing in disguise. Sometimes it is good to get kicked out of a meeting.
[Interpretation]
Senator Adams: Regarding the numbered company, what do they call themselves as a numbered company?
Mr. Joamie: They call themselves 611.
Senator Adams: Do they have shares? Have the members been given shares?
Mr. Joamie: They should be given their shares, but I do not think the members have received the shares. I believe the lawyers are still holding the shares in trust.
Senator Adams: The 611 company you are talking about, has that been passed at their meeting officially? The legal company?
Mr. Joamie: I believe, yes, it has been legally created.
Senator Adams: I understood it was rejected in Iqaluit as a company.
Mr. Joamie: I understood that 611 is operating.
Senator Adams: Who is managing the 611 company?
Mr. Joamie: Rightfully, it should be the board of directors, but I do not think the board of directors have been given the management of 611.
Senator Adams: I believe all communities have a share in that. Have they received their shares?
Mr. Joamie: I do not know. Not that I am aware of. As hunters and trappers, we should be members. I have looked in my office for any evidence but I have not seen it.
Senator Adams: Regarding the quota allocations, have other outside interests bought quotas? What arrangements have been made? What has been going on with outside interests, nonInuit who do not live in Nunavut?
Mr. Joamie: I believe that there is involvement with non-Inuit. I understand the non-Inuk is managing it.
[English]
Senator Adams: I think about five years ago, somebody bought all those Inuit quotas that were allocated. I do not think the Inuit benefit from those quotas right now; they are only collecting the royalties. I think somebody bought a seven-year agreement for the Clearwater Company to the Davis Strait. These are quotas that belong to Nunavut. This was an agreement five years ago between NWMB and the BFC.
[Interpretation]
Are you aware of them?
Mr. Joamie: No, I am not aware of those, because nonInuit have managed it. We in Iqaluit, Pond Inlet, Kimmirut, and Pangnirtung are hunters and trappers. We are not managed by nonInuit managers. We are able to handle our own affairs. As for having outside managers look after operations, it has happened unfortunately.
[English]
Senator Adams: I think there was an occasion about five years ago where some people from outside went up there and bought quotas. They had an agreement with the Nunavut Wildlife Management Board for seven years. That is why I asked the question. There are two more years to go. People thought they had quotas and now find out some of the three communities are not getting the quotas; they are only getting money from the royalties from people who are fishing from outside Nunavut.
Senator Robichaud: The Nunavut Wildlife Management Board is composed of nine members. From what I read here, it is four appointed by Inuit, four by government, and a chairperson nominated by the eight members and appointed by government.
You also said that the BFC was sort of a creator of the Nunavut Wildlife Management Board. Did I hear that correctly?
Mr. Joamie: The NWMB is an instrument of government; it serves the public.
It was one of the initiators of the creation of Baffin Fisheries Coalition. They realized that we were too independent of each other to develop the fishery to a satisfactory level so they initiated the quota holders to form that group to develop the fishery together. We tried to bring groups together, but it is difficult to do.
Senator Robichaud: It is the same in all fishing communities. It is very hard to bring people together when there are quotas in question.
You were saying that most of the quota at one time went from the Nunavut Wildlife Management Board to the BFC. Are directors or members of the BFC the same in some cases as directors or members of the Nunavut Wildlife Management Board? Are they completely separate, or is there a significant amount of overlap there?
Mr. Joamie: There is no overlap. They are independent of each other.
Senator Robichaud: They are completely independent?
Mr. Joamie: Yes.
Senator Robichaud: You cannot say that they receive the quotas because they had connections on that board which gave them an ``in'' on the decision.
Mr. Joamie: I would say ``no comment.''
Senator Robichaud: I do not want to put you on a hot spot.
Senator Robichaud: I am trying to understand this clearly. The BFC was set up for the development of the communities, yet you are saying that the communities are not receiving what should rightfully be coming to them. They are receiving some benefits, such as training. However, that is not what you are expecting to get from those quotas.
Mr. Joamie: The thrust of the matter is that the BFC is accomplishing many of the goals it has given itself. However, the process is not transparent enough. For example, we applied for quotas as fishermen, but we were not able to get any quotas because everything went to BFC.
Senator Robichaud: What kind of connection did they have to receive all those quotas? What were the reasons given to you why you were not considered for those quotas?
Mr. Joamie: The normal practice for NWMB is to tell you that you have not received any quotas. They will not give you a reason, unless you ask for it.
Senator Robichaud: Did you ask for it?
Mr. Joamie: If they are not straight up front in the beginning with something that you should know, why go through the process of asking for it? They should provide the answer right away.
Senator Robichaud: I do not want to embarrass you, but I am trying to understand why things work that way if the NWMB exists to serve the people of those communities. I find it hard to comprehend.
Mr. Joamie: We are talking about the fishing industry. It is a multi-million-dollar business and there are many things that might not be transparent. There are two kinds of people in the fishing industry — the fishermen who earn their money and the other people who are ``fishy.''
Senator Robichaud: It is becoming clearer.
Senator Watt: You are telling us that you have a problem in regard to BFC, which is a runaway organization. There seems to be a board of directors. Originally, there were supposed to be 11, but you highlighted the fact that there are only five. You are coming to us to ask for help to see if we could fix what you consider to be broken.
The Nunavut Wildlife Management Board seems to have some interest in BFC. Maybe one or two, I do not know. That also leaves me to question why NTI and your government have not acted upon the fact that you have a runaway organization.
Are those 11 interested parties licence holders? Are they companies? Are they collective companies or are they individually owned?
Mr. Joamie: There are the hunter and trappers organizations, two private interests and one regional organization.
Senator Watt: Are those are representing the collective needs of the beneficiaries?
Mr. Joamie: Yes.
Senator Watt: In other words, apples and oranges are being mixed within the Baffin Fisheries Coalition. There are the representatives of the private sector, looking out for their own interests and there are the collective companies representing the beneficiaries.
I believe you also said that Baffin Fisheries Coalition has been set up as a nonprofit organization. The idea is to generate revenues from the royalties that are made by selling licences to foreign companies or and interested parties. That money is to be used for training your people. That money is also supposed to be used for increasing the capital year over year and to develop the infrastructure.
You hope that one day, you will be able to say to the government: ``We have to raise this money. We want you to make the difference in regard to our infrastructure need.'' Is that what you are saying?
Mr. Joamie: That is correct.
Senator Watt: For that reason, the original idea of setting up the Baffin Fisheries Coalition was a good one. However, over time, the board of directors does not seem to have any control over that organization. Someone must have control over the directors of that organization. Who would that be? Would that be the a general director? What title does he hold?
Mr. Joamie: The person who appeared in front of this committee, I would assume, has control as chief executive officer.
Senator Watt: Does he have a private interest within the Baffin Fisheries Coalition, to your knowledge?
Mr. Joamie: No, not to my knowledge. I answer that guardedly.
Senator Watt: He is certainly in the position to make deals with companies with which he might have an affiliation. Is that one of your concerns?
Mr. Joamie: When you solicit calls for proposals and you work for 11 members, would you not think that that call for proposals would end prior to the board meeting so it can be dealt with at a board meeting instead of ending after the meeting?
Senator Watt: According to the law, he is supposed to be accountable to the board of directors.
Mr. Joamie: Yes.
Senator Watt: He cannot make decisions on his own. What you are saying to us is that the board members have no power. There are five, but you are not sure to what extent they can provide directives to the BFC.
Mr. Joamie: We are all interested in BFC succeeding.
Senator Watt: I understand that.
Mr. Joamie: On May 28, 2004 — this year — the BFC will have a new MOU. If it does not fix itself, it will keep running away. Somebody in authority should do something about it because if it cannot fix itself, it will die of its own cancer.
Senator Watt: You want the senators to support the original idea. You want to put a stop to what BFC is doing?
Mr. Joamie: I am voicing my concerns so that they can be made public. We have raised these concerns very privately. People in the fishing industry who have experience in the fishing area have these same concerns, but we are in no position as individuals to force the restructuring that is needed.
Senator Mahovlich: How many fishing factories could Nunavut probably manage?
Mr. Joamie: I will give you a deep answer. The answer lies deep in the ocean: There is enough fish there for each community to have a plant.
Senator Mahovlich: We have to police our fish now. We are having problems all around the world with fish. We have to be careful that we do not lose them. There might be many today but, as you say, Norway is coming in and other countries are coming. The fish might not be there tomorrow.
Nunavut could handle another fish factory. Is that correct?
Mr. Joamie: All of the work is being done outside of Nunavut by some factory somewhere.
Senator Mahovlich: It is all shipped out except for one plant, is that correct?
Mr. Joamie: Except for one plant, that is correct. That plant is also not working at full capacity.
Senator Mahovlich: You are saying that there could be three or more fish plants in Nunavut.
Mr. Joamie: We have to benefit from the resources that are within our territory.
Senator Mahovlich: You are entitled to do that.
Mr. Joamie: That word is very important, ``entitlement.'' It hits the nail on the head. We are entitled, but we are on the sidelines. I worked on a longliner and the rest of the crew members are from Norway.
It is true that we have to manage the fishery for conservation purposes so that we do not deplete the resources to such a low state as is happening elsewhere.
Senator Mahovlich: You are telling us that the structure is not right. We are not managing it properly.
Mr. Joamie: There is no infrastructure to benefit the community. The internal constitution must be restructured.
The Chairman: I would like committee members to remain for several minutes.
I thank our witness, Mr. Joamie, this evening. You have been a most impressive witness. You have certainly captured the interest and the imagination of our members. As you can see, we are well over the time that we had intended to stay tonight. We appreciate your candid comments and your deep knowledge of the fishery, particularly in your region. It has been most helpful to us.
I am quite sure we will be hearing from you again in the future. With that in mind, I wonder if we might be able to call on you if we do have questions that we cannot answer. Thank you very much, sir.
Honourable senators, you will recall that last week we asked our clerk to prepare a budget proposal to wrap up the northern habitat studies. The clerk has prepared that budget. My understanding is that it is quite a modest budget. If you would be agreeable, I would entertain a motion to accept this. Are there any questions to ask the clerk?
Senator Cook: I so move.
The Chairman: I see consensus around the table.
I will report the budget on your behalf. The wrap-up will be the end of March.
Thank you very much for a most interesting, pleasant and informative evening.
The committee adjourned.