Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Fisheries and Oceans
Issue 8 - Evidence, May 8, 2007
OTTAWA, Tuesday, May 8, 2007
The Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans met this day at 6:59 p.m. to examine and report on issues relating to the federal government's new and evolving policy framework for managing Canada's fisheries and oceans.
Senator Bill Rompkey (Chairman) in the chair.
[English]
The Chairman: We are welcoming today the representatives from Nunavut. Honourable senators will recall that in 2003, the committee did a study on matters relating to quota allocations and benefits to Nunavut fishers; Senator Comeau will remember that well. Witnesses appeared between mid-September and early November 2003 and in February 2004.
The committee's report focused on the benefits generated in the turbot industry, and tonight we want to do an update on that excellent report. Therefore, I am pleased to welcome our witnesses, and I will call on Paul Kaludjak first and ask him if he would introduce the others who are with him. Then we would ask him to make a presentation, after which we will have questions.
[The witness spoke in Inuktitut.]
Paul Kaludjak, President, Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I know you do not have Inuktitut translators back there.
The Chairman: Unfortunately, I have only two words, and that will not get us very far.
Mr. Kaludjak: I was just noting to the committee members about our trip here, and the weather down here has been long summer for us because up North we are still skidooing. We still have lots of snow, and we could still build igloos if we wanted.
With me today we have Joanasie Akumalik, our government liaison officer here in Ottawa. Also we have our Legal Counsel, John Merritt, also stationed here in Ottawa. As well, we have our Senior Wildlife Adviser, Glenn Williams, who is also from the Iqaluit office. Two of us are from Nunavut and the two other gentlemen are here in Ottawa. They are enjoying the weather along with you.
I would like to thank the members of this committee for inviting Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated to speak to you about Nunavut fishery issues that we face. Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated represents the Inuit for all purposes relating to the land claims agreement and associated Aboriginal rights and interests. Unfortunately, our staff specialist could not make it today; we had one more slated to come with us. Due to other commitments, he was not able to attend because he was specifically tasked with the fisheries activities that we do in Nunavut Tunngavik.
In opening, I would like to point out that Nunavut commercial fisheries are in their infancy state right now, compared with the existing Atlantic fisheries. Notwithstanding that, Nunavut's efforts have grown by leaps and bounds from meagre beginnings and we have accomplished a great deal in a short period of time.
Nunavut fishers were the first Canadians in 1987 to establish the exploratory turbot fishery in Subarea 0. Today, the total allowable catch, or TAC, for turbot in 0A is at 6,500 tonnes, which is allocated entirely to Nunavut fishers.
Even with these accomplishments, Nunavut fishers still face many challenges in developing a commercial fishing industry comparable to the rest of Canada. In particular, we face two major handicaps: lack of infrastructure, as many of you know, and discriminatory fishery allocation policies and practices.
With respect to infrastructure, Nunavut still does not have small-craft harbours or major ports that the rest of Canada takes for granted. Nunavut fishers are now slowly able to make investments in commercial fishing vessels, with majority ownership in two factory freezer trawlers and a gillnet vessel. However, we are still undercapitalized. Without adequate infrastructure, we are more handicapped by economic and geographic constraints presented by an isolated Arctic environment.
Investing in infrastructure for Nunavut is crucial to realizing our commercial fisheries' potential. Without such infrastructure, we will continue to lose out in what could be a major part of building a sustainable economy in Nunavut.
In addition, Nunavut continues to face ethnic and regional discrimination in how commercial fisheries are managed by the federal government in Nunavut. In every part of Canada, residents of provinces routinely get 85 per cent to 100 per cent of allocations of fish in their adjacent waters. In Nunavut, we get only about 50 per cent to 60 per cent of what we should be getting. We believe this discrimination not only limits our economic prospects but also violates the equality guarantees of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
In recent years, we have made some progress with respect to exploratory fisheries. Despite that, we remain unhappy with the overall inequity of our commercial fisheries' allocations. For example, Nunavut still has only 27 per cent of the commercial allocation in the 0B turbot fishery with no access to the 1,500 tonne competitive fishery.
This discriminatory treatment is reflected in how Nunavut fishers are licensed and administered in the offshore. Not one enterprise allocation licence has ever been issued to Nunavut fishers for groundfish in 0B, and Nunavut fishers are licensed through individual quota licences that are ultimately fished through a royalty basis, given the limited allocations.
In the northern shrimp fishery, Nunavut fishers have access to just 30 per cent of the quotas in the adjacent waters off Nunavut. A majority of that 30 per cent allocation is striped shrimp, which has less market value than pink shrimp, and the fishery is administered as an exploratory fishery.
Nunavut has 1.5 enterprise allocation licences in the northern shrimp fishery out of the existing 17 licences. The 1.5 licences are held by the Qikiqtaaluk Corporation. There has been one licence shared in partnership with Makivik Corporation, representing the Inuit of Northern Quebec.
In closing, Mr. Chairman, Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated invites the committee to support our four recommendations for the future of Nunavut fisheries. First, the federal government should continue to support the Nunavut Wildlife Management Board, Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated and the Nunavut government in our ongoing efforts to develop responsible fisheries for Nunavummiut.
Second, the federal government should increase its efforts to expand access and allocations for Nunavut fishers in their adjacent waters, with the goal of achieving equity with all of the other coastal jurisdictions within Canada — that is, allocations of 85 per cent to 100 per cent of adjacent fish resources.
Our fishery regime should fully respect both the terms of the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated has offered to negotiate a reasonable and fair schedule to remove discrimination in a phased-in achievement of full parity with other parts of Canada, but unfortunately our offer has not been accepted by the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.
Third, the federal government, in collaboration with Nunavut, should develop and implement an infrastructure investment program to provide Nunavut with some of the basic fisheries infrastructure taken for granted in southern Atlantic fisheries. The lack of infrastructure hurts every aspect of our commercial fishing prospects and is particularly damaging to the inshore component of a balanced Nunavut commercial fishery.
Fourth, and finally, the federal government should substantially increase its budget for scientific and exploratory research on the marine resource adjacent to Nunavut. A solid scientific platform is the cornerstone of the successful development of Nunavut's fishery.
Mr. Chairman, I thank you for this time to address you and your members.
The Chairman: Before I go to questioners, could you explain to us the relationship between the Nunavut Wildlife Management Board, Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated and the government? Could you just explain the composition and the relationship of those three bodies?
Mr. Kaludjak: Okay. I can do that and I will pass it on to Mr. Merritt if he wants to add to my comments.
The Nunavut Land Claims Agreement created the Nunavut government back in 1993. Under the agreement, different components were to be created, such as the Nunavut Wildlife Management Board. That has happened.
Through that process, we have other organizations like the water boards and the environmental groups that we have created under the umbrella of the claim.
The relationship of those parties is to collaborate among the three of them; to exchange ideas and create working groups where need be — to talk about, for instance, the fishery issue; to work together as a team; to deal difficulties that arise in terms of the industry — in this case, the fisheries — through collaboration and work; and to deliver that work to the responsible government, which is the federal government.
The Chairman: Two of them are elected, and one is a compilation of hunters and trappers associations, or whatever they are called in the various regions, is that correct? Two of the governments are elected, and also Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated is elected, too, is it?
Mr. Kaludjak: Yes, both Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated and the Nunavut government are elected organizations. The hunters and trappers at the local level have their own elections, but the members of the Nunavut Wildlife Management Board are appointed through those groups.
Senator Baker: The people of Nunavut have only 30 per cent of the quotas adjacent to Nunavut for shrimp and 27 per cent of the turbot quotas in 0B, which is about halfway up the coastline of Nunavut. You say that the principle of adjacency should apply. Of course we all agree with you on that; this is a great thing that Senator Adams and Senator Watt have been preaching here as far as your area is concerned.
What is the distance from the shore to the line that goes down the middle between you and Greenland? What is the distance out to that line?
Mr. Kaludjak: The line almost goes halfway up. I have not taken a tape measure to see how far it is. It is pretty much halfway across toward Greenland and Baffin Island. It is broken up pretty much through the halfway mark. It is an arc, so it is hard to say it is exactly so many miles.
Senator Baker: It is totally in Canadian waters; there is no international zone at all. What you have now is a dispute with the federal government, and you should have a dispute. You receive only 1.5 licences of 17 shrimp licences. Is that a fact? We know that two of those 17 licences are owned by a dentist who lives in Florida — two of the remaining licences.
How would you suggest that you get those people out of the fishery? Are you saying that the federal government should step in in the name of justice and say that we will just cancel the licences or buy them out? Those licences are renewed every year, are they not? Every single year, you have to renew your 1.5 licences and all those people have to renew theirs. It is up to the federal government whether they renew them. How would you suggest that they get rid of all those people, those dentists and so on who own licences and live in Florida, so that your people will have your resource?
Mr. Kaludjak: The fancy words are ``devolution'' and ``allocation'' and giving the responsibility to Nunavut — to the Inuit and the people who run Nunavut. Give that responsibility to them. Stop using as a reason for withholding that delegation that we do not have infrastructure. If you want us to build fisheries, then you have to give us the infrastructure behind it. You cannot keep robbing us. You must give us that opportunity to administer the fishery industry in Nunavut that we are entitled to, that we should run ourselves, and stop giving it to someone else to run. Give us the licences so that we can do our own fishery.
Senator Baker: In the meantime, before you get the infrastructure and before you get the boats, would you suggest that the federal government give you the quotas, given the fact that a great many of the people who have those licences do not fish those licences and there is a ready market? Labrador licences are not fished. From some of these licences, the fish are sold in the water or just leased out. If you were to receive 80 per cent or 90 per cent of the licences, which you so rightfully deserve, the benefit would amount to millions and millions of dollars for you. Would you suggest in the interim getting rid of these people, who should be gotten rid of, and maintaining control of the licences? Is that a consideration?
Mr. Kaludjak: It is very much so. That is why we offered to negotiate the fishery industry for Nunavut. You must understand that in order for it to grow, we need proper allocations and proper control over the industry. In that way, we could plan our territory — the lands that we own — and fish our own waters, not have them fished by someone else.
You mentioned earlier about who owns the waters. Our interest in the waters is through the land claims agreement, as we have said, and we have to protect those interests. We have the 100-mile agreement, through the land claims, giving us the right to those waters and those adjacent to them. We are here today to seek the support of this committee so that we can get over the hurdles we continue to see before us, which weaken our development of the fisheries in Nunavut with layers of rules, regulations and processes that we have never heard of.
I have told my team many times that the deeper I delve into the discussions of fisheries, the more fishy it becomes. It has been like that. It is a complicated business and I do not have all the angles of the process that require these steps to be taken. I do not even understand why those two dentists, wherever they are, hold those licences. They probably do not know where Nunavut is. We want to resolve those things.
Senator Baker: I have one final question. Through the land claims agreement you have rights, which you can see as they are written and which you signed and the federal government signed. You own the ocean floor, do you not, out to a certain distance from the land? If this does not resolve itself, can we look forward to you taking the federal government to court and asking the court to impose a settlement on the fishery, given the fact that all of these vessels that fish up North are dragging the bottom of the ocean? There is no other way known to man to fish turbot or shrimp except by dragging the bottom of the ocean, and you own the bottom of the ocean. Certainly, Mr. Merritt has been to court many times so perhaps he can tell us. Do you consider taking the government to court as an option down the road if you do not find satisfaction?
Mr. Kaludjak: Senator, I will pass that to Mr. Merritt for clarification, but in terms of owning the underwater world, I would have to seek legal advice on that. We have not seen anyone patrolling the deep sea, neither Russian submarines nor U.S. submarines in the deep seas of the North.
We have continued to lobby our government to ask exactly what you are talking about when you talk of dragging the floors of the sea and what impact it has. We must work on that to know how much the bottom of the sea is disturbed because of dragging and how much disruption there is to sea mammals out there. That remains to be determined properly. We continue to support scientific measures to know exactly what you are talking about, what impact it is having on the fishing industry, and how much damage the ocean floor has received once it has been fished.
In terms of ownership, Mr. Merritt will comment.
John Merritt, Legal and Constitutional Advisor, Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated: The land claims agreement does not deliver ownership rights to the sea floor, per se. Certainly, it does not deliver anything remotely similar to a fee simple title that would exist on land. It is my understanding that the federal Aboriginal land claims policy would not allow that anywhere in Canada and, to go a little further, there probably is not an established tradition in common law to have non-governmental interests with full ownership of the sea bed.
Obviously, coastal jurisdictions sometimes create leasehold interests and lesser interests. Inuit do have fishing rights, as you pointed out, that are more extensive within the core Nunavut Settlement Area. They would also extend to the equidistant line to Greenland. Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated has litigated on those rights and, in the late 1990s, one of the minister's fisheries allocations was overturned. One problem that we find at NTI in litigating on ministerial decisions is that even when you win, you lose to some extent because the minister, under administrative law principles, gets to reconsider and make a new decision. Thus, it tends to be a little like a dog-chasing-car exercise.
Over the last couple of years, Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated has researched the extent to which the inequity for allocations in Nunavut may constitute a breach of Charter rights, under section 15, and equality guarantees on the basis that it constitutes discrimination against Inuit and Nunavut as a region. We have a legal opinion from a well- known West Coast Aboriginal rights lawyer. That is novel law, I would say, in the sense that there is not precedence strictly on point. However, we are quite confident that to sustain this practice indefinitely would, in effect, put Inuit in the category of second-class Canadians. Independent of whether Inuit have additional rights through a land claims agreement, they are fully guaranteed the same equality assurances as other Canadians. The minister is on notice that we expect a willingness to negotiate a schedule to put an end to this discrimination. That schedule does not have to be tomorrow morning, but this situation is not tolerable if the government drags its feet indefinitely.
The Chairman: I should acknowledge that we are here because of Senator Adams. He is a champion of Nunavut, as I am sure I do not have to tell you. He speaks forcefully on every occasion on the issues that concern Nunavut. We want to try to help understand what those issues are and how they can be resolved. I wanted to put that on the record because Senator Adams has been diligent in his duties.
[Senator Adams spoke in Inuktitut.]
Senator Adams: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I was saying thank you in Inuktitut and giving him more chance and powers than last Thursday afternoon. The budget passed with Senator Comeau, the deputy leader in the government, supporting it. I was saying to Mr. Kaludjak that today the chairman should be able to do it before we break. He will travel up to Nunavut Territory in the fall. They speak Inuktitut, English and French there. Senator Gill should also go and experience the language in the community.
Thank you for coming. I have studied the Nunavut fishery over five years beginning in 2002. At the time, before 2002, there was a policy that came out in Nunavut between the Government of Canada and the Nunavut Wildlife Management Board. It happened according to the land claims. I do not know whether you were there, Mr. Kaludjak. Some policies and quotas were established for the community.
According to land claims, some of the communities should have been consulted regarding policy for commercial fishing in the area. The consultations never really happened. I studied how many quotas were held by the community. At that time there were only three communities in Subarea 0B. They had quotas then but now they are higher. The shrimp quotas you mentioned for Qikiqtaaluk Corporation were 600 tonnes. Another one was 200 tonnes.
In the beginning, Pond Inlet, Clyde River and Holman Island communities had turbot quotas. There was a quota of about 8,000 metric tonnes in Subarea 0B with a lot of money associated with it. The estimate for shrimps and turbot was close to $30 million a year for the fish up there.
I have a concern with the structure of the quotas and some of the people who have the quotas. My question is about royalties and the government regulations associated with them. Only the people who have the quotas can collect the royalties. It should be good for Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated or Nunavut Trust or something like that. Now those royalties are not going to the communities because they do not have quotas. Last year at Broughton Island, they finally got an extra 700 tonnes from Baffin Fisheries Coalition from Nunavut oil export, and now the quotas are owned by the community. We found out the royalties are worth $600 per tonne. From the royalties he got $680,000.
He received another 7,000 metric tonnes and received royalties because another company owns the quotas. He cannot go back to the community for those royalties. It is worth about $3.6 million a year.
My question is a bit long. Maybe Mr. Merritt knows more about it. He has been involved since the beginning. He has been working through the land claims. He knows every word.
Mr. Kaludjak: For the committee's information, Senator Adams was the first mayor of our community. I followed in his steps as I used to be mayor, too.
The Chairman: He is talking about the old grey mare.
Mr. Kaludjak: I am lucky to have less grey hair.
In terms of the fishery itself, we have supported the fishery industry to the communities, not just so that two communities could benefit. For example, you mentioned that the potential revenue of the fishery industry for Nunavut could be as high as $80 million annually. This would be achieved if the fishery industry were nailed down pat, operating at 100 per cent and allocations were 100 per cent. That is how much we lose because of lack of arrangements.
That is why we are here and why we keep arguing that we need proper allocations. Be fair with us. Give us what is rightfully ours and adjacent to us so that we can generate those kinds of revenues. Right now, Nunavut is doing about $8 million annually with the fishery. It could be $30 million, and if it were functioning right, it could be $70 million to $80 million per year. That is a loss for us because we have a lack of support from our government. They fail to support us in getting proper infrastructure and helping us to get proper allocations. That is why we lose out on those monies that we would otherwise make. We continually try to argue that. For many years there has been a lack of fairness.
Mr. Merritt: Thank you for saying those things, Senator Adams. I was reflecting that I used to be a young-looking man but then I spent a number of years negotiating with the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs and it has its consequences.
Adding to what the president has said, Senator Adams clearly identifies some of the community tensions that exist in Nunavut as a consequence of Nunavut as a whole receiving an inadequate share of the total amount of fish available. As you predict, the less Nunavut receives in total, the more communities compete tenaciously against each other.
This situation not only deprives Nunavut of the global benefits that the president referred to, but it also generates a difficult set of politics at the local level within Nunavut. That is not helpful for any of the communities. It becomes a bit of a balancing act, the extent to which people band together to get a better deal for Nunavut as a whole, the extent to which people are tempted to strike off on their own. Those community-level tensions are one of the prices paid for Nunavut getting an inadequate share of the total resource available.
Senator Adams: Those people from Broughton Island will be discriminated against in fishing, and I think there will be people in the communities who will look at that. I hate to have to mention to you, but right now people from Newfoundland have partners. They have been talking to the Nunavut government. It is a discriminatory board because I have heard from the organizations, especially Baffin Fisheries Coalition, that you guys cannot go in there. You need 200 vessels in order to do so.
That is the case anywhere in Canada. I think there are many people down East who are fishing now and they always have a ship. The Inuit people can use it for so much a day or month.
The only question you did not quite answer was about how the royalty system should work. Perhaps Mr. Merritt could explain that a little bit.
With respect to royalties, the government should give us a portion because we settled a land claim. Currently, someone else is receiving the royalties but they were not up there settling a claim. A minister once told me with regard to royalties: ``We pay you guys 27 per cent.'' Fishermen cannot even use that amount of money for buying equipment.
With the system now, one must have quotas. The guy who has the quotas gets the royalties. If you are not partnered with the other fishermen in the community, you cannot collect royalties. The one who gets the quotas from the community gets the royalties and the fish. It is typical for the royalties to stay in the community, as long as there is no company to take over. That is why the royalty situation is so difficult now in Nunavut.
Mr. Kaludjak: Before I go to Mr. Williams with respect to the royalty issue, when I talked about which of the communities would benefit, we were talking about 0A and 0B, where Baffin Fisheries Coalition members are. Those are the communities that we foresee will be affected.
When we talk about benefits to communities, the communities include Pond Inlet, Clyde River, Broughton Island, Pangnirtung, Iqaluit and Kimmirut. Those are the main communities affected by the fishery industry today.
Glenn Williams, Senior Wildlife Advisor, Department of Wildlife, Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated: The point that you make is incredibly valid. In the turbot fishery, when it first started, small amounts of allocation were handed out to different fishing associations. Sometimes it was the hunters' and trappers' organizations, such as in Kimmirut, Iqaluit, Pangnirtung and to some extent in Broughton Island as well, which were communities adjacent to the fishery. They were given small allocations of 200 metric tonnes or maybe 50 or 150 metric tonnes. There would be as many as 15 or 20 applications made for maybe 1,500 metric tonnes.
We found that these communities would have a small allocation. They did not have the ability to fish it themselves, so their only option was to sell it. They would get money back, and that money would go into the community. No one really knows where it went. It was absorbed into the community.
When the 0A fishery was being talked about, the Government of Nunavut, the Nunavut Wildlife Management Board, NTI and employees or people who worked for the Department of Fisheries and Oceans got together. We talked about how we would develop a fishery that was not big enough.
That group all put in a little bit of money, and we invited all the companies that were getting allocation from turbot and from shrimp in Nunavut together. They came together, and we had a three-day meeting.
At that three-day meeting, a number of things were agreed to. It was agreed that they would pool the full allocation for 0A together for three years. For that three-year period, they would not touch the royalties. The royalties would be put into an account in order to build up revenue so that they could look at purchasing vessels, training programs and doing a number of things.
We were being asked, ``Why do you want the fishery when you do not fish it?'' We could not fish it because we did not have the infrastructure, equipment or training to do so. We were trying to figure out how to go about doing that. That was the Baffin Fisheries Coalition.
The Baffin Fisheries Coalition now owns two or three vessels. This year, they have set up a training consortium that has trained 58 Inuit fishermen. They are continuing to put that in so we can develop some capacity.
They also take some of their fish to the only fish plant we have in Pangnirtung. I think they dropped off about 600 metric tonnes of fish so that it could be processed in that plant we have in Pangnirtung. That plant employees over 60 people throughout the winter in processing the fish and flying it out. It turns that money back into jobs and work that we do not have in Nunavut.
One of the problems we are facing is that there are a number of organizations or businesses that are sniping at this cooperative approach that Nunavut has taken. There are interests that would like to see the same thing that occurred in 0B, which are little bits going to each community so that Nunavut could never develop the capacity to be able to do our own fishing or have our own plants or benefit from jobs and development of our fishery.
If you look at the last five or six years and what Nunavut has done in that time, it is amazing. It has been very difficult to do because there has been a lot of bad press and accusations that are unfounded. That is what we are dealing with.
I think you will hear the same thing from the Nunavut Water Board and the Government of Nunavut when they appear before you, that we are doing something unique in Canada. We have never had a fishery that has gone from nothing to being full-fledged players in such a short period of time. We will have to do things a little differently, and that is what we are trying to do. Mr. Kaludjak has asked that we continue to get support from the federal government. We have been getting support, and there are ways that we can continue to bring this inequity of the amount of allocation that goes to Nunavut in line with the rest of Canada.
The Chairman: Before Senator Adams finishes his questioning, I want to clarify my own thinking. The Baffin Fisheries Coalition is all of the groups involved; is that right?
Mr. Williams: That is correct.
The Chairman: Who has control over the money that was put in the account? Is it the Baffin Fisheries Coalition?
Mr. Williams: Yes, it is the Baffin Fisheries Coalition. We now can show you where all the money goes. Every year they submit financial statements. They have a board and an executive. Through that board and executive, the decisions are made and plans are done. We now have accounting of all the money that is generated. You can see the annual reports of this coalition.
The Chairman: The only problem is you would like to have more money in that account.
Senator Adams: I know the background of Baffin Island. Right now, we have $5.5 million for training Inuit people — that does not include Nunavut — down at Memorial University in Newfoundland. We live on the water and the land. We have been catching the fish and seals. They do not teach you how to catch fish at university. The Nunavut government got $5.5 million from the Department of Human Resources in Ottawa two or three years ago, and now we have Memorial University in Newfoundland teaching the Inuit people how to fish.
The only problem I have with the Baffin Fisheries Coalition is that they have a lease from Greenland for two ships; those ships are not owned by the Baffin Fisheries Coalition. I am concerned about royalties. Greenland gets the royalties. They take it back to Europe or something like that. They have about 6,000 metric tonnes.
Right now, you talk to the people, the hunters and trappers. They have over 2,000 tonnes now. They have a partnership with the people from Newfoundland. We have the quotas from 0B. That is why I want to see the all community up there like that. As long as you have the Baffin Fisheries Coalition, you have the management board and everything. Sometimes they ask for the quotas and did not look at the people they asked for the quotas in the community. That is why those people have a difficulties there. The company has been getting a start from here in Ottawa, not from Nunavut. We have a difficulty with that.
Mr. Kaludjak: That is why we have been saying to groups like you and our governments that we are open for business. If you will not give us that business, we will go elsewhere. We will go somewhere else where they will help us out. That is why you see the Greenland arrangement. If the federal government would be willing to help us a little more, we would not be losing out on the fishery industry in Nunavut. As we grow the fishery, we need support from the governments, the territorial and the federal sides. What we say must be heard — the difficulties that we are outlining — instead of shooting ourselves in the foot and instead of pointing at each other.
As we said, we are working together to develop the fishery in Nunavut, and it is a unique arrangement. No one has done it before through the land claims agreement, the two governments at hand and the private sector out there that is ready to embrace the success and the business opportunities in the fishing industry.
What we need is proper allocations and adjacency rights that are guaranteed to us through our land claims agreement. That is what we are trying to do. If we are not going to get that, we will never succeed in what we are trying to do.
Senator Comeau: My recollection was that the 0A fishery was an exploratory fishery rather than a permanent, allocated fishery. Is this still the case for 0A?
Mr. Kaludjak: To my understanding, that is correct; that 0A section we are talking about is an exploratory fishery.
Mr. Williams: Currently, it is an experimental fishery, but the Department of Fisheries and Oceans is now considering moving it from an experimental fishery to a commercial fishery.
Senator Comeau: One would hope that an experimental fishery generally reopens the whole allocation issue. I hope you are keeping a close eye on not losing the allocation that has been fished by Nunavut fisheries interests for all these years. We want to keep a close eye on that because we do not want it to end up like an 0B.
I recall that there was a great interest when we looked at the Nunavut fisheries some years ago and the hopes of having a Nunavut-based fishery. There was a great deal of interest that the fishery eventually become a small-boat, community-based fishery. I know you will probably bring up the issue of the infrastructure that is not there for small- boat fisheries. The hope at that time was that it would be a small-boat fishery rather than a factory freezer trawler- based fishery. Does the idea still have any kind of merit for the Nunavut fishery to be a small-boat fishery?
Mr. Kaludjak: With respect to Senator Adams' comments about having the resources, we need something to go to the bank with. That is why we need those allocations, so that we can build that industry. When we are prevented from giving those allocations, it is hard to build that industry, when someone will hold that back and prevent us from developing it. The resources are out there, but the allocations will not be forthcoming, so you have nothing. You cannot grow an industry when you do not have the support of your own government. We need something to bank with.
Mr. Williams: Regarding your question about the development of the inshore fishery, for the record, we have had an inshore fishery since 1986. It was developed in Cumberland Sound with the community and it has been consistently ongoing. There is potential for the inshore fishery to be developed in Qikiqtarjuaq, Kangiqtugaapik, and Mittimatalik. There have been numerous years of exploratory fishing inshore. You mentioned that it is a boat fishery, but it is actually a Ski-Doo and komatik fishery. It is a longline fishery done through the ice in the wintertime.
The situation we are faced with now is that we have demonstrated that the fish are there and that there are people in the community who know how to catch the fish and who are willing to catch them and bring them to town. Then, if this were to go ahead, there would be a big pile of turbot on the beach. There is no infrastructure there able to handle that fish.
Nobody is even thinking about a summer longline fishery because there are no harbours, no ports. There is no place to off-load your boat. When we fuel up our small boats, we have to roll a barrel out into the ocean, lift it on board, pump it in and roll it back out.
A friend of mine came to visit from the Faroe Islands. He was in Iqaluit, the capital of Nunavut, watching our summer dry goods shipment arrive. He looked at me and said, ``The last time I saw something like this was in the Galapagos Islands. This looks like a Third World country, the way Canadians in the Arctic unload your freighters.''
The Canadian military came up to do an exercise. As part of the exercise, they let all the soldiers go walk around onshore. Then they said that they had to leave as quickly as possible. There was about a two-foot sea and a 15-knot or 20-knot wind and the soldiers had to go out in little boats. Our Canadian military was climbing up over the side of a destroyer on netting to get into the boat. It was a Laurel and Hardy show. It was embarrassing for Canada. That is the significance of our not having ports.
Senator Comeau: Getting back to my original point, if I remember correctly, the desire of the people of Nunavut over the long term would have been to have a small-boat fishery, to stay away from the factory freezer trawlers as the long-term solution.
I understand very well the concerns that you bring up about the facilities. They are just not there. There are no places to land the fish, no port facilities, so that has to come first. However, in a perfect world, if we had those landing facilities, would the concept of a small boat fishery still be the dream of the people of Nunavut, or are they accepting the concept of factory freezer trawlers, where you are away for a week or two while you freeze the fish on board?
Mr. Kaludjak: Regarding a long-term combination, the fishing industry will have to verify your question about sustainability — how much impact and how much resources can be sustained by bigger fishing or medium-sized fishing. It remains to be determined by interest groups like the Baffin fishery group and the hunters' and trappers' organizations out there to tell us what works.
I am here basically as an enforcer. These guys have the numbers and the rule books. All I ask is that they give me the right information and I enforce it; that is all I do.
I make sure that our case is heard. These problems are real; we have a potential here that we cannot maximize the benefit from because of what we have outlined: lack of allocations; lack of coordination by our responsible government, the federal government, to help us to achieve those tasks and targets that we are setting on the fisheries side.
Senator Comeau: Along with infrastructure — port facilities, wharf facilities and so on — is one of your suggestions to buy out the dentist from Florida in order for us to use that allocation for the people of Nunavut?
Mr. Kaludjak: Tell them we are accepting donations.
Senator Hubley: Some time back, our committee did a study on the health and viability of our coastal communities and we did hear from people from Nunavut. Many of the issues that we heard at that time are being repeated here tonight. We are hearing about the need for infrastructure and allocation.
You started off positively in your presentation, Mr. Kaludjak, when you said that Nunavut has gone in leaps and bounds from meagre beginnings. The coastal communities were a concern of mine, as of everyone else on the committee. Can you point to anything positive that is taking place within the coastal communities of Nunavut to give us some encouragement that a lot of the things that we have been discussing are taking place?
We heard about the need for training opportunities and for employment possibilities — infrastructure was one and the small boats were another. You also underlined scientific exploratory research, which seems to be in most recommendations.
I would like you to comment on your communities. I was concerned about that comment on community tension; I do not think that is needed. I do not think it is healthy for communities to be pulled apart because of situations that have been created by governments, let us put it that way. However, I would also like you to comment on the need for scientific research right now, and whether you have anything in mind regarding putting that in your report.
Mr. Kaludjak: There are many positives in the communities. Of course, there are always negatives in Nunavut, but there are positives as well. Those are human beings out there, too.
Regarding helping us determine the development of the communities, of course people are waiting, in particular on the employment side. We want to open the fishing industry so that some people can find jobs; that is our hope, that we can help them in that regard. Many people are waiting for development. Many communities have a very high rate of unemployment, which adds to difficulties and challenges at the social level and has dramatically affected families. We have to help those communities turn that around to a more positive activity.
With the development of this fishery strategy for Nunavut, proper support needs to be given by our governments at the federal level and the territorial level. We are working with the government to try to fine-tune our economic development planning and see what works best. We are talking about the mining industry. Mr. Williams talked about the port development for Iqaluit over the short term. Over the longer term, we want communities to develop services such as receiving facilities for the fishery industry and small vessel fishing operations in each community. I hope that some day we can achieve those things.
Senator Gill: Back to the matter of the dentist and allocations, I have a suggestion. Perhaps an idea is to put them in a kayak, without a paddle, to solve the problem. Sometimes it takes radical action.
I was looking at the information we have before us and I see that the unemployment rate is not very good. I would imagine that it is not easy for you to watch the things that have been going on, such as money passing your communities by and your rights not being upheld. There must be lots of frustration in all of that.
You have a land claims agreement with the government and, as far as I understand, it has not been implemented in the way that it was supposed to be implemented. The people who are not implementing the terms of the agreement are in the same boat as the dentists. Could you tell us how much is not implemented? It is a matter of credibility and the lack of confidence to find a way to achieve implementation. The main issue is to improve the confidence levels between government, non-native and natives. How much needs to be implemented to reach your desired goal of good employment and appropriate fishing allocations?
Mr. Kaludjak: If we were to give those two dentists in Florida two kayaks and no paddle, we would see them anyway, even though they have no paddle, because the Gulf Stream flows north between Greenland and Iqaluit.
Thank you for your comment. We knew that this issue of the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement not being fully implemented would be raised by some members. It is a side issue but I can talk about it all night, if you want to hear the long story. To make it short, the land claims agreement is about 50 per cent to 60 per cent implemented. There are over 40 articles in the claim. We have targets such that in Nunavut, the federal and territorial governments should have at least 85 per cent Inuit employment, which is not happening. We set those targets about five years ago but they have not been met.
Training programs are supposed to be happening for our people but so far they have not caught up to the current population. We have a housing crisis to deal with. The economic development work needs to catch up to Nunavut. Some communities have unemployment rates as high as 30 per cent. I am glad to report to members of this committee that those things are turning around, but only because we have been open for business in the mining industry. The 30 per cent rates have been going down because of the mining industry that is developing in Nunavut.
Two of the regions outside Baffin, Kitikmeot and Kivalliq, have been very proactive in developing the mining industry. For that reason, many people are starting to work and to be trained at the same time. It helps us to keep the unemployment figures down as we speak today.
In terms of the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement, it is no secret that we are challenging the federal government in the court system for failing to implement the land claims agreement to date, for stalling the provisions of the claim, for failing to implement the outstanding implementation provisions and activities that were supposed to start that have not started because the federal government failed to honour the land claims agreement for the Inuit. That is why there is a challenge today.
Senator Gill: You mentioned that the money for training was going to a university. Is it still the same? If so, then it is the same problem that we had some time ago with our people. We decided that the money should go directly to you so that you could buy the services. It goes without saying that you are the person who needs this so, at the very least, the money should go to you and then you can pay for your services yourself.
Mr. Kaludjak: Thank you for that, Senator Gill. We have our own training under the land claims agreement for Inuit only. I have many answers for my organization but I do not have any answers for the government because they can speak on their own behalf. You can hear more about the training initiatives when members of the territorial government come from Nunavut to talk to you. You can ask them about the $5-million training program that Senator Adams talked about to learn what they think of it.
As well, you can ask the federal government how they handled that training initiative and whether it affected Nunavut youth and how much. They would be able to answer those questions; I cannot speak for the two governments because it is their program. We have our own and we do what we can. Our training fund was about $13 million under the claim. It is being utilized for the needs that arise for our own people.
Senator Robichaud: Mr. Kaludjak, you mentioned in your presentation that Nunavut fishers are slowly able to make investment in commercial fishing vessels and that you have a majority ownership in two factory freezer trawlers. Who are the minority shareholders in those trawlers?
Mr. Kaludjak: We do not have those numbers at the moment. We can find out whether they are available and exactly how much it is. We would have to find out from the company who is responsible, which in our understanding is Qikiqtaaluk Corporation. Those numbers will show how much ownership and control there is with those companies. We do not have those numbers in front of us but we can find out and share that information later on.
Senator Robichaud: If those other shareholders were people who are not involved in the communities and who are somehow outside interests, there is a danger that they could actually gain control, could not they?
Mr. Kaludjak: That has happened many times before. That is why we want to regain that control. We are seeing the money come by and go down south and we are just watching it happen. We want to stop that. We want to make that money go to us instead of going down south. We want to put it into people's pockets up in Nunavut, to our beneficiaries. That is where we want it to go rather than to outside interests. That is our ultimate mandate. That is our initiative, to see the money go to the people instead of outside the territory.
Senator Robichaud: The last time I was in the North, we heard a lot of talk about BFC, Baffin Fisheries Coalition. At the time, some people came to the committee saying they were not satisfied because it just brought together a few hunters and those hunters had complete control. Nobody knew what was happening. They were not content with the accountability of that. Now do I understand that you are actually promoting that model?
Mr. Kaludjak: I cannot say whether it was a fact that the organization did not have accountability. The organization was created to be a coalition, to have a number of communities involved. Unfortunately, one of the communities walked away from the membership. They had different opinions about the operation itself. To my understanding, the group, as Mr. Williams outlined earlier, was being accountable and financial statements were available to people. Those are the facts and the group has been willing to share that information. When people call asking for that information, it is there. To my understanding, they have been adequately accountable to whoever they were responsible for.
The coalition is not just one group but rather a number of communities taking part in the fishing industry. There are a number of members and an executive. Mr. Williams outlined the makeup of the group to you. They try to work towards investing in the fishery. As you heard, they try to put in money so that they could grow that money and not touch it for a while so that it could benefit the territory.
Senator Robichaud: Is that the BFC?
Mr. Kaludjak: Yes, he was talking about the BFC.
Senator Robichaud: The comments we heard were probably growing pains in trying to bring people together to manage some benefits for communities. I am glad to hear that things have been worked out.
Mr. Kaludjak: Yes.
Senator Robichaud: You said that there are 1,500 metric tonnes in the competitive fishery in 0B turbot and no Nunavut interest is allowed to fish that. Who does? Are those the dentists?
Mr. Kaludjak: Those are the two with the kayaks. I will pass it on to Mr. Williams to clarify.
Mr. Williams: One of the questions we have been asked today is where is there room for movement from that 27 per cent of the allocation of turbot in 0B to Nunavut. We feel that the competitive quota is currently an opportunity. That competitive quota is open to the licence holders from Southern Canada. You asked who fishes. We do not have access to that 1,500 metric tonne competitive quota. That goes to the licence holders from Southern Canada who fish in 0B for turbot.
We see two options of working forward. One is that there would be room or opportunity within that competitive quota for turbot if it were reallocated to Nunavut. We are also looking at a long-term suggestion, and that was the concept or idea that we presented to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans: we would look at a way of negotiating over a number of years so that it would allow companies and businesses that currently are fishing an opportunity to prepare for a buyout or for a reallocation of those quotas. I think it is only fair, economically, for those businesses to have that opportunity to prepare and to line things up and know what is coming. It would take a longer period of time to negotiate. We have not been able to establish that negotiation yet with the minister on how we can address the reallocation of quotas to Nunavut, to bring us up to the standard that is enjoyed in the rest of Canada.
Senator Robichaud: Do you know how that competitive quota is fished? You say companies from the South, which means the rest of Canada, are fishing these quotas. Are they company-owned vessels or is it contracted out to some foreign persons? Can they still do that?
Senator Adams: Yes, if they put up a Canadian flag.
Senator Robichaud: Would you know if that were happening?
Mr. Kaludjak: It is happening.
Senator Robichaud: It is happening.
Mr. Kaludjak: If a Russian ship came up to that area they could put up a Canadian flag and no one would know.
Mr. Williams: I am under the understanding that both the 0B fishery and the 0A fishery are fully Canadianized. I am sorry I cannot give you a definition of what Canadianized is, but I am under the understanding that it took ten years to Canadianize the 0B fishery. There are complaints that have been made against the fishery in 0A but, it only took us three years to Canadianize the 0B fishery. The information that we have is that the fishery in both 0B and 0A is Canadianized. I will leave it at that. I do not have the definition of what that means to those vessels, but that is the information we were given.
Senator Robichaud: Mr. Chairman, maybe it is something we should look into, as to what Canadianized means. I feel that there might be different definitions of what Canadianized means.
The Chairman: Our researcher has heard and will look into that.
[Senator Watt spoke in Inuktitut.]
Senator Watt: Allow me to translate what I said. First, I said welcome, and we are glad to have you here. The way it goes, a matter in court sometimes cannot be directly dealt with, which I have learned over the years. I appreciate the fact that latitude has been given here to discuss the grievances that Mr. Kaludjak has highlighted. It is more than just a grievance issue that has been brought forward.
When two sides have an interest and the sides are trying to conclude an agreement to satisfy both, I know this is not an easy thing to do at times, as Mr. Kaludjak knows very well. I have been in that field for a number of years myself, representing the people of Nunavik.
As an individual senator, I heard you loud and clear. You would like to see the allowable catch be handed over to Nunavut so you can begin making plans about how to deal with this industry, not only for economic purposes but also for the environment, sustainable development and conservation. All if those issues must be taken into account. I am sure those are in your mind.
I know you have been having discussions with the federal government up to 2003 in terms of what is in it for you. At the same time, you understand that you have to surrender your rights to the ground. What you were supposed to get in return was stipulated. I know that at times they do not make it clear when it is being made into a final agreement. Nevertheless, you have reason to be here, to highlight how important it is to have not only the government's side answered but also the Inuit's side.
How does that impact the social and economic life of the people when they are already confronted with the high cost of transportation and living, lack of employment and things of that nature, that you have looked forward to in order to advance your people when you entered into land claims negotiations with the Government of Canada? At the end, you may find out that you have answered the government's needs, but your needs have not been answered.
How does that impact the social and economic life of the people? We hear from time to time that there is a high suicide rate in the North, probably because people do not see what is in the future. I am sure this is a large contributing factor to much of the suicide we face in our communities.
Could you elaborate on this? I do understand, but I would like the other senators to have a clear understanding about the message you have brought forward today. I think that message must be carried out. I know it is not to your liking that you are in court.
Mr. Kaludjak: Senator Robichaud mentioned growing pains. Nunavut is only seven years old now. We have come a long way in a short time. There will still be difficulties along the way.
What you have outlined is a difficulty of the social aspect of the community. We know that. It is something that we must work at. We are prepared to do that, along with our government in the Nunavut region, to ensure that as an organization we help improve living conditions in the community and in the home.
We have asked for proper housing and education, equal services that Southern Canada gives to its people, equal benefits and programs, a parity to Southern Canada or what the federal government allocates to its people. We want those services as well. We do not want to lag behind, which we are doing now.
People get depressed because they have no room to move in the communities. They have sought every opportunity, and some have not seen that opportunity. That is why we have that difficulty.
We want to open up the opportunities. That is why we are talking about the fishing industry, so that people can have a sense of hope in the future. We want to be able to open the road for them so that something comes forward to the communities. We need members of the community to help get our word out and resolve the problem of allocation and red tape in the fishing industry. Help us grow this industry so that we can fix some of the problems you have outlined.
It makes it even more difficult when your own government fails you in terms of living up to our claim, the Nunavut claim. We were promised equal benefits in programs, housing and education, which did not become equal. It became unfair. That is why we are challenging the government today through our claim; that commitment has not been there for the Inuit.
It is difficult to answer the question. Eventually, we want people to see the light at the end of the tunnel. We want people to have hope. When we do not get support from our own federal government, it is hard to share that hope. We have our own hope, but it relies on the government, which is responsible for fulfilling that need in the community. It is not there. It is most difficult to work with because someone has failed us. That is why you see the difficulties that people face in their homes in Nunavut.
I know you have your share in Northern Quebec. We see that every day as well. We all have a responsibility to help those people get on their feet and find jobs, find hope for them so that they can improve their living conditions as well. We all have responsibility for that.
It is difficult, and we cannot answer this question overnight. It takes long-term planning to resolve these issues, and that is what we are trying to do.
Senator Watt: Mr. Kaludjak said he had four sets of recommendations that he would like us to look at and determine how they can be handled. Have you provided those to us in writing, Mr. Kaludjak?
Mr. Kaludjak: Yes.
Senator Watt: The committee will do what it can to advance your case. We will talk amongst ourselves to try to come to grips with this problem and see how we can move forward.
Senator Cochrane: I apologize. I had another meeting, so I was late arriving. However, I sympathize with your case. I learned just this last week that a bottle of milk that costs $2 here will cost you $9. It is beyond me how you can live or find enough money to eat. A bottle of water that we pay 99 cents for costs you $5, or something like that, in Nunavut. It is unbelievable, mind-boggling.
I wanted to ask about the training money that goes to Memorial University. Was this money used to send your people out for training?
I would like to know about your infrastructure and how it has improved. What types of courses are you offering within some of the buildings that you have constructed? Are they in all of these places, or are they just in Iqaluit?
Mr. Kaludjak: With respect to the training dollars, I explained that earlier to one of the senators who asked about the training initiatives that we do. In terms of the training components that are created by the territorial and the federal governments, I cannot say on their behalf how they allocate and administer those funds. They can speak later on. They are appearing before you later on this week or next week, I understand. You can ask them about the particulars of that.
In terms of your other question about the training components and what we have on board for our people, as I said, we have our own training organization, which is the Nunavut Implementation Training Committee. That is created under the claim. Through that, we have a number of scholarships as well as training for various boards created under the claim that can access that money for training their board or committees like this in Nunavut. That is what we do.
In terms of other courses provided outside the normal educational program within the government, again, they can talk about their management training programs and the campuses they have. If you want that information, I am sure they could provide that readily. I am sure they can speak to that on their own if the question is raised.
Senator Cochrane: You also have a mining company in Pond Inlet. About how many people work in that mine? Will the company train your people? Where do they get training to work in that mine?
Mr. Kaludjak: I think you are talking about the mines in Arctic Bay, which closed four or five years ago. We missed the boat there, because it was an early start before our claim kicked in. Today we have IIBAs, Inuit Impacts and Benefits Agreements, that are struck before a company can start production. We outline training components, employment levels, contracting levels for Inuit-owned businesses in Nunavut. All those provisions need to be in place before the mining company starts production. We have those arrangements now through the claim. Those are in practice as we speak. We have a number of those arrangements, especially on the west side. You can sign onto the agreement with the mining company that you are willing to hire so many employees. We set records, like 60 per cent, 80 per cent levels, where they are. Those agreements outline provisions such as the mining company must hire so many Inuit if it is to be in production for a certain number of years, depending on the life of the mining company.
We have royalties, which someone noted earlier. There is a royalty clause in our claim which states that for any extraction of minerals on the surface and the sub-surface we are entitled to 12 per cent in royalties on whatever the mining company makes with those minerals. I am happy to report that those provisions help us economically.
In terms of cost, Nunavut has no roads linking anywhere to another community. In Ottawa, you see the roads weave all over the place. In Nunavut, there is no single road linking communities. That is why you see bottled water being $6 and milk being $12, because everything is shipped by sealift or air cargo, which inflates the cost. That is why we ask you to help us with those costs and give us proper subsidies to maintain the levels so that people can afford it. You are absolutely correct when you ask how people can afford those kinds of costs. Some people cannot. That is why we need jobs and why we need to open up the fishery for people to take revenue and pay for those costs. That is why government operations and programs are important to offset some of the costs that we incur.
Senator Baker: I want to thank you, Mr. Kaludjak, and the people with you here today for the remarkable job that you have been doing on behalf of the people of Nunavut. Everyone recognizes that. We see your message here in these four points.
You have a reputation in the world for producing the highest-quality fillet of any fish that comes out of the ocean. You have the best fish because it comes through the ice and there are no worms in your fish. That is quite something. In Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, P.E.I. and New Brunswick, we have a terrible problem in our plants where there are worms that must be picked out. You do not have anything like that. You have the best quality, and you produce the best fillets in the world at Pangnirtung.
What percentage of the small-craft harbours budget for Canada does Nunavut presently receive? You have an incredibly large coastline. Do you know what percentage you receive? If you do not know, we will investigate it.
Mr. Kaludjak: When we are meeting, we stop using ``short'' and start using ``brief.'' Brief normally works better for us — it is quicker, and that is what we use in the meetings.
I do not have the exact percentage, but it is minimal. It is next to zero, I am sure, that spent on trying to produce those kinds of facilities. We can provide information to you later on regarding the percentage that the territorial government spends on developing the small-boat port facilities in Nunavut. I know it is minimal.
In the community that Mr. Williams and I come from, which is Iqaluit, before the elections there was talk of a $50- million seaport for Iqaluit. I understand it is non-existent right now. It was existent before the election, but now it is not. That is something the committee might want to investigate to see how far it has gone.
Again, however, the percentage spent on small ports is next to nothing in Nunavut right now.
The Chairman: I want to thank our guests for being here. You have been very thorough and extremely helpful to us and have given us a lot of information. As well, you have given us many questions that we can ask to the others who will come before us, and we thank you for that as well. We want to learn as much as possible about this, and we will be issuing a report afterwards.
The committee continued in camera.