---

Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Fisheries

Issue 5 - Evidence, May 8, 2001

---

OTTAWA, Tuesday, May 8, 2001

The Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries met this day at 7:00 p.m. to examine matters relating to the fishing industry.

Senator Gerald J. Comeau (Chairman) in the Chair.

[English]

The Chairman: Tonight we are continuing with our examin ation of matters relating to the fishing industry. Prior to introducing our witnesses, I would like to note that fishing is a significant part of life in the Eastern Arctic. In July of 2000, a working group of the Senate Fisheries Committee travelled to Nunavut to familiarize themselves with the issues facing fishers in that region. In keeping with the committee's mandates and mindful of cost, informal meetings were conducted. This evening's hearing is a follow-up to a briefing session that took place in Iqaluit on July 26, last summer, with the former Minister of Sustainable Development the Honourable Peter Kilabuk. Tonight, we have appearing before us the Honourable Olayuk Akesuk.

Please proceed.

The Honourable Olayuk Akesuk, Minister of Sustainable Development, Government of Nunavut:

[Mr. Akesuk spoke in his native language]

With me are my staff: Mr. Peter Ittinuar, Assistant Deputy Minister for Sustainable Development; my executive assistant, Jane Cooper; and Carey Bonnell, Director of Fisheries for the Government of Nunavut, Sustainable Development.

On behalf of the Government of Nunavut, I thank you, the Standing Senate Fisheries Committee, for inviting me to speak before you today regarding fisheries issues in Nunavut. In particular, I express a special thank you to Senators Willie Adams, Fernand Robichaud, Gerald Comeau and Charlie Watt, some of whom visited us last summer and met with Nunavummiut who are working and operating in our fishery. I trust those meetings contributed to your understanding of the challenges andopportunities we are facing in our young territory.

When Nunavut was created on April 1, 1999, roughly one-fifth of Canada's geography made up the new territory. Approximately 28,000 Nunavummiut live within this vast area. As I am sure you know, almost 85 per cent of the people in Nunavut are Inuit.

We are almost exclusively a maritime people as 25 of our 26 communities are located on the coast, the largest of which is Iqaluit with a population of about 5,000. Our population is young by Canadian standards. One-half of our population is under the age of 25.

As the newest government in Canada, we are examining issues of development that more established governments have faced before us. We are learning from their successes and their failures.

Our marine environment in Nunavut is what farmland is to many other parts of Canada - the source of our food and our income. It has shaped who and what we are in Canada. If you look at the map in the presentation, you will see that our adjacent coastal waters are rich with a wide variety of species, such as Greenland halibut, Arctic char and shrimp.

When Nunavut was established on April 1, 1999, our participation in the Atlantic fishery was limited to approximately 27 per cent of our adjacent turbot resource and 14 per cent of the northern shrimp. We did not have then and still do not have any deep-water port facilities near our resources. We have only one processing facility. The participation of our people in the Atlantic fishery, while growing each year, was still significantly below the participation rates of other Canadians.

In short, as we prepared to our strategy toward economic self-reliance of our new territory, we saw an offshore fishery that held tremendous opportunity for Nunavut. We know that we must now put in place a plan to build our fishery in stages.

We have established five main objectives: increase our access to the Atlantic fishery; increase our proportion of quota allocation; invest in the infrastructure necessary to land and process our resources within Nunavut; invest in the training and development of our people so they may increasingly participate in the fishery; and invest in a thorough and responsible science and exploration strategy to determine the extent and sustainability of the resources.

I am happy to report that we have already made progress on some of these initiatives. Late last year, my predecessor, Peter Kilabuk, had an opportunity to discuss our fisheries objectives with Minister Dhaliwal in Ottawa. Following that meeting, both governments tasked our officials with drafting a memorandum of understanding between our two departments on fisheriesdevelopment in Nunavut.

Last August, our young government had the privilege of hosting a meeting of the Canadian Council of Fisheries and Aquaculture Ministers. It was Fisheries Minister Herb Dhaliwal's first visit to Nunavut. During Minister's Dhaliwal's time in Iqaluit, this MOU was signed. The MOU recognizes that we have joint responsibility in the development of a healthy, viable fishery in Nunavut and sets out the principles under which our two levels of government will work together.

We are hopeful that it will also serve as a foundation for dialogue on some of the current public policy issues that limit our full participation in the Atlantic fishery.

Let me provide you with some few examples of these policy barriers in our five key objective areas.

The first is access. DFO currently has a commercial fisheries licensing policy for Eastern Canada and an Aboriginal Fisheries Strategy, neither of which addresses our needs. Let me cite a few examples.

Nunavut currently has no groundfish licence to access its adjacent groundfish resource, though several thousand groundfish licences exist for southern enterprises.

Since 1994, more than 250 commercial licences have been issued to Aboriginal groups under the Allocation Transfer Program of the Aboriginal Fisheries Strategy. DFO hasdetermined that Nunavut interests did not qualify for this program because we have a land claim agreement in place in Nunavut. The Nunavut land claim was a land transaction with the Government of Canada for which Inuit exchanged their Aboriginal title in return for defined rights under the NLCA. It was not an economic agreement, nor was it intended to preclude Nunavummiut from qualifying under government policies like all other Canadians. Section 2.7.3 of the NLCA specifically states:

nothing in the agreement shall affect the ability of Inuit to participate in and benefit from government programs for Inuit or aboriginal people.

In fact, the land claim contemplated the participation of Inuit in the offshore fishery. Section 15.3.7 of the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement calls for:

a fair distribution of licences between the residents of the Nunavut Settlement Area and the other residents of Canada.

Despite this, Nunavut still has not been granted one single groundfish licence.

The second issue is allocations. DFO currently manages the Atlantic groundfish fishery through the Atlantic Groundfish Management Plan. The plan explicitly acknowledges theimportance of adjacency to the resource in making allocation decisions.

Yet, as I stated earlier, Nunavut currently has quotas amounting to approximately 27 per cent of its adjacent turbot resource. Adjacent resource users elsewhere in Atlantic Canada are allocated the majority share of the groundfish resource.

The third issue I wish to address is infrastructure. DFO has managed a small craft and harbour program for many years, but to date has not extended this program in Nunavut. Obviously, our fishers cannot benefit from our adjacent resources unless they have adequate docks for vessels to land their catch. Once port facilities are in place, the opportunity exists for local fishers to invest in vessels of various sizes depending on the species harvested.

Docking facilities in coastal Nunavut communities also create an opportunity to invest in the processing sector.

We are Canada's newest and youngest territory. We will need some key public investments in infrastructure to set the foundation for our economy and to catch up with the rest of Canada. The three northern territories are the only jurisdictions in Canada that currently do not have an economic agreement with Canada.

The fourth issue I wish to address concerns investing in our people. Human Resources Development Canada currently has a number of programs in place that support Atlantic fishers in areas such as capacity building, skills and learning tools. Agreements of this nature should now be extended to Nunavut.

This will be essential to the establishment of a northern-based workforce with the skills necessary to compete in the competitive Atlantic fishery.

The fifth issue is that of science and exploration. Canadians have learned in recent years the difficult lessons associated with inadequate science and overharvesting. We do not want to repeat these mistakes with our adjacent stocks as their extent is still largely unknown.

In the last 20 years, science on Greenland halibut and northern shrimp has been held to an absolute minimum. Canadians expect us to harvest our resources in a sustainable manner. Thus, a comprehensive multi-year, multi-species research program must lie at the foundation of our Nunavut fishery.

We know that as a new jurisdiction, Ottawa is still getting used to including Nunavut in its planning and considering Nunavut in public policy debates. However, after more than two years, we are still largely on the outside looking in on some key DFO programs.

Senators Robichaud, Adams and Comeau will recall from discussions held in Iqaluit last July that Nunavut has been excluded from a number of federally funded economicdevelopment programs that support southern marine fishers. They include the Atlantic Fisheries Restructuring and Adjustment Program which, in 1998, allocated $730 million for the Atlantic groundfish industry; the Aboriginal Fisheries Strategy of 1992, which funded annually to the tune of $32 million; and the Marshall Strategy, which is a three-year strategy launched in the fall of 1999 to support First Nations with funding of approximate ly $160 million provided in the first year.

Pacific fishers have access to the Pacific Rebuilding and Restructuring Program, which is worth $400 million, of which $6.2 million was allocated to Aboriginal groups.

Thus, Nunavut fishers are quite possibly the only group in the Canadian marine fishing industry that has been completely excluded from these large public expenditures in the fishing industry.

As you can see from this presentation, we have a vision of how we would like to see the fishery developed in Nunavut.

We have studied the fishery to understand its components. We have met with officials in Ottawa to gain an understanding of the emerging policy issues we face. We have set out our objectives for the fishery. We have taken steps in our own Government of Nunavut budget process to build a fisheries capacity in our government.

Our vision will not be realized overnight, but our approach is one of working in partnership with the federal government - not in conflict.

I would be delighted if you would return to Nunavut next year, at which time we could compare notes on the progress that has been made in building Canada's next fishery.

Nakurmiik.

The Chairman: Minister, I heard the invitation and I hope we are able to respond to it.

Also, we appreciate your taking time out of your busy schedule while you are here in Ottawa to be with us this evening and to detail your government's and department's vision for the fishery. Nunavut is one of our newest and youngest governments, but you are certainly not any less enthusiastic.

The enthusiasm showed when we visited you last summer. We appreciate everything you did for us to make our visit educational and worthwhile.

Having said that, I would now like to move to questions by senators.

Senator Watt: I am not exactly sure where to begin because you have quite a range of areas that you want to tackle at this time. However, I fully understand the five main objectives that you have established. Let me start off with those five objectives.

In terms of the increased access to the Atlantic fishery, you quite rightly highlighted the fact that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans has the responsibility for administering and issuing permits on those licences that are required from time to time.

In your presentation, you mentioned you do not feel that you are getting your fair share of the stock. At the same time, you highlighted that perhaps because the government is new, from time to time the federal government seems to forget the existence of that new government. It needs to grow and move forward economically. I share wholeheartedly your concern in that regard.

You also mentioned the infrastructure needs. The Government of Canada has to understand it must put money into the requirements for infrastructure. I imagine those would be the facilities that you would need inland and probably also out in the sea. You might go more in depth on those. What facilities are you looking at? Are they similar to what is already being enjoyed and utilized by those in the South?

In conjunction with the huge stock that is available for harvest in the Arctic, as you mentioned, from time to time the Department of Fisheries and Oceans gives out licences with a quota attached to them. Are you saying - I am not too clear on this point - that you would like to have your government play a role in allocating permits? Is that one of the issues? Or are you just saying you are entitled to more than what you are getting now?

Before you answer those questions, sir, I would like to raise another issue. How will you deal with the South, which will have an impact on you in terms of marketing? As you know, the fishery uses a new regime in the South by taking the Arctic char from the Arctic, transporting them to the South, taking their eggs and replanting them - the practice of aquaculture, as in raising salmon and other fish. How will you protect yourself from that when it comes down to the issue of marketing? That will have a tremendous impact on you. The closer you get to the other players, the better it will be for you so that they can protect your market. Otherwise, you will have a great deal of difficulty in terms of marketing the product to the South because of the high cost of transportation. Those issues have to be taken into account.

Mr. Akesuk: I will do my best to answer the questions of Senator Watt. I apologize in advance if I do not answer all the questions just posed.

With regard to making decisions about the quota, we do not want to make those decisions. We want to get more of what we are getting now from the Atlantic fisheries, which is 27 per cent. We want our fair share of the quotas that are being handed out in the Atlantic fishery.

We are also asking that we be more up-to-date with what the South has now with regard to ports, vessels, things that we do not have. We would like in the future to have our own resources, ports and processing facilities to have the fishery in Nunavut. We have a big potential there.

With regard to conservation of the fish that we have, we in Nunavut ensure that we are not giving away everything we have. We will ensure that we are conservationists as a government. It is hard for us to have aquaculture. We do not have it now in the Arctic. A couple of times I asked one of the ministers, my colleagues, if it would be possible for us to start aquaculture in Nunavut and they said it is really cold up there and will not work as fast as it does in the South. Our role is to ensure that we do not run out of our food, Inuit food. We are a conservationist government. We will do our best to ensure that the species that we have in Nunavut are maintained.

I am sorry if I did not answer all your questions, Senator Watt.

Senator Watt: With regard to the marketing side of things, the issue I raise is the following. When your counterparts from the South are marketing their product, they do not confront the problems that you must face: the high cost of transportation. Therefore, you will need some form of protection. If not protection, then at least you should try to become closer to the other players so that you will be taken into account. Have you developed those aspects to their full potential where you might one day say, "Maybe the stock has to be sold as an exotic rather than just a regular species"? I do not know. Perhaps some expert can answer that question. I am wondering how you will protect yourself from the other big players.

Mr. Akesuk: We will have to look at overcoming the costs of the North. Perhaps we can make a deal with the airlines that fly our fish from the North to the South. It is costly for us to transport our meat or our products to the South. The best way to do it is to talk with the airlines. We know that we use the airlines during the winter. Perhaps we can use boats that are going up to the North during the summer. We could transport our stock in the summer if we had the right processing facilities to do our work in the summer. The other producers in the North use ships to transport our products to the South.

I am sure we could come up with a deal with the airlines, which would be great. Certainly, we could work closely with the other main producers and make a deal with them.

Senator Watt: Would it be correct for us to assume that you might be looking for subsidies also in regard to transportation?

Mr. Akesuk: We are always looking for subsidies as a government.

As you know, it costs a great deal of money to live in the North and there would be a high cost to establish our meat plants, et cetera. We will always look for subsidies from the government and other organizations if we must. We will continue to do that.

The Chairman: I would like to extend apologies on behalf of one of our members who could not make it here tonight. Senator Adams got stuck in a snowstorm this morning while attempting to fly here. He has extended his regrets. He especially wanted to be here and he regrets not being able to make it to see his old friends.

Senator Cook: Minister, in your opening remarks, you mentioned a memorandum of understanding that you have with the federal government. You say that you have joint responsibility. I was interested in that remark. Then, after looking a bit further, I saw under your land claims agreement that there is a fair distribution of licences between residents of your territory and the other residents of Canada. As I looked through your presentation I noticed that there seemed to be barriers presenting themselves in the form of access, allocations and infrastructure.

That is my observation. My question regards the adjacency principle, which seems to be an emerging concern. It surfaced in Newfoundland last year with the shrimp problem. I would like to hear from you, or from one of your colleagues, as to what your understanding of the adjacency principle is and how it will impact either positively or negatively on your fishing.

From your opening statement everything seemed lovely and tidy, you were brand-new and you had all those bits and pieces in place. Then, as I read through your presentation, it seems to me that there are barriers to the implementation of what is the ideal.

Mr. Carey Bonnell, Director, Fisheries and Sealing,Department of Sustainable Development, Government of Nunavut: We have pretty much made it clear here today that the principle of adjacency has not been applied in Nunavut and nor is it being recognized. We recognize the principle of adjacency as it is described. It means priority consideration. It does not mean exclusivity; it means priority consideration. It means that the majority of the resource goes to the adjacent user.

In terms of Nunavut, right now in our southern division, 0B, we have 27 per cent of our adjacent resource. Shrimp is even less. If we turn around and compare that to the rest of Atlantic Canada, off the coast of Newfoundland, Nova Scotia and other areas, generally the principle is 80 per cent to 90 per cent of that resource lies to the adjacent coastal resource user.

The point we have been trying to make here, in terms of the Atlantic fisheries policy review and other sectors, is the fact that it is not being recognized in Nunavut. It has not been recognized and it needs to be recognized. It will require some changes over the next couple of years to put the right pieces into place so that we have a similar arrangement that currently exists in the South.

Senator Cook: I am trying to understand where this new territory is in the scheme of things because I read that you have joint responsibility with, I assume, DFO. Yet I hear you say that you are not getting a fair shake from what I am reading as a joint responsibility. That is one of the barriers that I see here concerning access and the principle of adjacency. How do you see that working itself out? When can you begin to have this joint responsibility that your minister is talking about?

Mr. Bonnell: In terms of now and into the future, we are looking at the fact that adjacency plays a key role here, but there is a level of joint stewardship that must take place in working together. We are saying that from now and into the future we do not think things have worked in our favour over the last several years in terms of the development of the northern fishery, but we all realize it and progress has been made over the last couple of years. In particular, progress has been made with DFO over the last year or two from the perspective of Nunavut.

We are saying joint responsibility must take place. There must be a commitment on both sides to move forward in this area. We want to make the point clear that to date it does not exist. We are not being fully recognized in terms of comparison with the southern Atlantic fishing groups.

Senator Cook: That would go for your harbours and your infrastructure. Has there been anything done from DFO's point of view to establish your harbours so that they are ready for this industry?

Mr. Akesuk: No, there has not been anything done for Nunavut by DFO to get infrastructure in place. We were to get infrastructure done. That is what we want to see in the near future. We want our infrastructure put in place in order for us to have our own fishing industry.

The Chairman: I want to ask a supplementary question concerning the adjacency principle that you support. One would think that the Newfoundland-Labrador government would be natural allies to the concept of adjacency that you are proposing. Have you discussed it with the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to find out if in fact they would support the principle? I do not see why they would not, given its position last year on the shrimp quota uproar that happened when there was an allocation of surplus shrimp to be allocated to Prince Edward Island. Has Newfoundland been sought out as an ally?

Mr. Akesuk: No, we have not talked to Newfoundland about this, but it is a good idea for us to start talking with Newfoundland with regard to adjacency. We will certainly note that.

Senator Chalifoux: I would like to return to the memorandum of understanding. You signed that memorandum of understanding with the minister. Are there any "teeth" to that or is it just a document?

Mr. Bonnell: We signed an MOU on emerging fisheries last year with Minister Dhaliwal. As has been outlined in the presentation, we have a joint responsibility on developing fisheries in Nunavut, emerging fisheries. We put together a strategy every year, in which we look at areas we will work on. Last year, we looked at emerging species such as clams, marine plants and other species that have potential to develop in Nunavut.

We are still in the infancy stages now, but last year we put together a strategy of where we wanted to work over the year. The same thing will happen this summer. We will look at a strategy for what we want to achieve in the next year. Every year we look at putting a strategy together on how each of our emerging fisheries will develop and where we will work.

Senator Chalifoux: This memorandum of understanding, therefore, does not have any teeth to it where you have the ability to get in and negotiate what you feel is right for your territory?

Mr. Bonnell: To that level I would say no.

Senator Chalifoux: To put it bluntly, I think you are being too kind. It is time that you had a meeting with the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, because you are a government. You have a good minister. It is time that you stood up. I know about your infrastructure because I sit in northern and western caucus with your MP. She keeps telling us that there is not enough money for infrastructure in your territory and that it is needed very badly. I think we need a joint effort with all the departments in your government coming down and meeting and talking about infrastructure that would help with your ports, your processing plants. I think that is what has to happen.

I am taking away nothing from the Atlantic or Pacific fishery, but we have three oceans in our country. We have to stand up and be counted for the northern ocean, which is your territory. The memorandum of understanding is really nice, but if it has no teeth it is useless. I think this is what has to happen. I would like your response to that.

As well, with regard to shipping, we have been looking seriously, especially in northern and aboriginal caucus, at the transportation difficulties in the North. I would like your response as to what is stopping you from getting your own charter plane to deliver your fish.

Mr. Akesuk: The first issue is cost. It costs a great deal of money to ship. We have very limited transportation that we can use to transport our products to the rest of Canada or to the rest of the world. The problem is that our transportation is so limited and it costs so much, and there is not very much competition. We could try to talk to other airlines somewhere that might want to make a deal with us. Transportation costs are high, and if we could figure out how we could have a good deal with a Canadian airline, it would be good for Nunavut, especially an airline by the Inuit. Hopefully in the future the costs will decrease. It is a plus for them or a plus for us. I believe something can be worked out in order to have the costs go down.

I will ask Peter to answer some of the other questions.

Mr. Peter Ittinuar, Assistant Deputy Minister, Department of Sustainable Development, Government of Nunavut: Mr. Chairman, I would like to respond in part to the senator's question to us on the matter of allies. I am not going to name any jurisdiction. We have no allies. In fact, it is the opposite, for obvious reasons. A resource is a resource. It is finite. Science tells us how much it is, and governments tell you how much you can take. They tell you who can take it. That is one issue. We have no allies at the moment, except perhaps this committee and a few other people.

That initial MOU needs to be strengthened and to have some teeth to it, and it needs to develop from the recognition of a federal-territorial responsibility for an emerging fishery. We have outlined what needs to be done to emerge as a fishery jurisdiction. Access allocation is a serious matter for us. We need to do science and research to find out just what is out there. Science has already proven to be of benefit to us in fisheries in the past. We need to train our people. We are always being named as a "have not" territory, which is a serious matter. Infrastructure is absolutely critical to development. Before you can do all of this, we need to do science and a strengthen the MOU.

We mentioned programs that we are not accessing, as other jurisdictions in Canada are. We also need to have that recognized as well.

Senator Cook: Does Nunavut have an economic development agreement with the federal government?

Mr. Ittinuar: No, we have not had one since 1996. The three territories do not have an economic development agreement. We made the suggestion to the federal government that we are in serious need of an economic development agreement. Our funding levels at the moment barely meet our core responsibi lities, which include housing, education, infrastructure and development, including roads. We barely meet our responsibi lities. In fact, we are under-capacity as a government because monies are so tight that we will have to do a pre-attrition kind of program to fulfil our needs as a government.

We mention an EDA whenever and wherever we can, at various federal-provincial-territorial fora, and in other ways and other places. We are in serious need. If we are to emerge out of what The Globe and Mail and the Ottawa Citizen always perceive us to be - that is, a serious welfare state supported by the rest of Canada, which is not a true picture by the way, we need an EDA.

Senator Hubley: Before I ask my question, I should say that I come from the Atlantic provinces and we are often thought as being the "poor cousins" also of Canada, so we may have a few things in common.

I wanted to ask about sports fishing. Is that a possibility and is there any work being done on that as it relates to tourism in the North?

Mr. Bonnell: We are doing some work on tourism. It is like all the other sectors that we are developing right now. It is underdeveloped and under-utilized. A lot of work needs to be done. We are looking at ways to improve that through the fisheries and tourism department. We are looking at new strategies for that. There is a fair bit of activity taking place. We get a lot of sports fishermen from the South, but it is not being utilized nearly to the level it could be. It is cross-sectoral in that sense.

Senator Hubley: I think you have probably already answered my next question, that that may be limited by your lack of infrastructure as well.

Mr. Akesuk: Mr. Ittinuar just mentioned that economic development agreement. I believe that many of these programs would be available for us, and it would make our government easier. We are now using our own money, unlike the other provinces that are using economic development agreements to get infrastructure done. We are, as a government, using our own money to try to do our very best to come up with infrastructure money and I believe an EDA would be the ideal program. The programs that they have would fit into Nunavut. They are what we need.

Senator Forrestall: I want to talk for a moment about two things. The first is the shrimp fishery and the activity that is going on in your adjacent waters. Who is caging the shrimp?

Second, I had thought that there were potentially more moderately deep harbours that could, at low water, accommodate 8, 10, 12-foot draft vessels and I was surprised to hear you say they were virtually non-existent and that they are not developed where possible.

First, with regard to the shrimp industry, how many vessels are up there from Canada? How many are in those waters from other countries, Europe, Japan, et cetera?

Mr. Bonnell: First, the fishery is Canadianized, so there are only Canadian enterprises up there.

Senator Forrestall: It is closed for Canadian fishers?

Mr. Bonnell: That is right. In terms of who is there, any of the 17 offshore licence-holders would have access to that area. Much of our adjacent quota is fished by the offshore licence holders. If I recall correctly, we have an exploratory fishery of about 1,750 metric tonnes, which is very much exploratory so it has been utilized little. We have no knowledge of the resource and that makes it difficult to harvest.

We also have a 500-tonne inshore allocation within the Nunavut settlement area that goes to local interest groups. In many cases, groups from Nunavut would have joint ventures with Southern groups to fish that stock. There is an additional 500 metric tonnes that can be fished inside the Nunavut settlement area by an offshore licence-holder. One of the industry groups in Nunavut has one and one-half offshore licences. They have access in many cases to that inshore, 500-tonne allocation. That pretty much describes what we have in terms of shrimp right now in our adjacent waters.

Senator Forrestall: What about the crews on the ships that are operating up there? There is a requirement I am aware of that a certain percentage, where possible, should be from the areas concerned. Is the spirit of that being upheld? Are there a number of local fishermen on board these vessels and how are they doing?

Mr. Bonnell: The Inuit group that negotiates agreements with the southern enterprise would negotiate how many people would be on that enterprise. It varies from group to group. This is something we have targeted. A fisheries training needs assessment for Nunavut was completed last week. We are looking at maximizing training opportunities in the offshore sector. That is something the minister touched on in his presentation today. We are certainly focusing on that area. That will be one of the keys to capacity building. People are needed to operate these vessels. Our long-term vision would be in that area of training and capacity-building to go onboard vessels.

Senator Forrestall: Are you getting adequate help from the federal government with respect to the training of the northern people to serve on these vessels?

Mr. Bonnell: There are funding sources available. I not know if I consider it fully adequate. There are funding sources available through HRDC.

Senator Forrestall: Where does funding fall short?

Mr. Bonnell: In regard to the level of funding that is available, or the level of support, sometimes the funding is there but other supports in terms of building the capacity in the area may not always be there. There is still a significant amount ofdevelopmental work that must take place. That is one area that is moving in a positive direction in terms of training. There are many signs of improvement.

Senator Forrestall: I would hate like the devil to go home and give my eldest daughter hell, but she runs one of these southern fleets. They have three vessels and they operate up there. She is very concerned about training aspects. I am pleased to hear what you have to say.

Other than wages and catch shares, is the shrimp returning money to the district?

Mr. Bonnell: In terms of what the community gets from the shrimp fishery, most joint ventures are in terms of royalty arrangements whereby they partner with a southern group and they get royalties to carry out, in addition to any people they would put on that vessel. In our presentation about infrastructure development, we are looking at a period of time, with the support that we need, after which we would be moving away from royalty arrangements and into ownership arrangements. We look at models of long-term profit sharing where we would own the vessel or the enterprise. That exists in the South at present. That is exactly where we want to go over the next several years.

Senator Forrestall: It is a long way to move to Nova Scotia with a load of shrimp when much of that work could be done. That leads me to questions of harbour capacity and the community generating the type of electrical energy needed for the processing equipment et cetera. That is not a minor item at all.

Could you discuss some of the areas here that, perhaps, could be developed? Are there shallow draft harbours or deeper draft harbours that might be able to house vessels large enough to fish up there, bring their catch ashore, do the processing and then, when they come South with the final load, they could take down the finished product, enabling you to do that final piece of work that goes so far in providing employment? Could you identify some of these three or four such areas that are not developed but perhaps should be?

Mr. Bonnell: There are a number of areas that would have the potential in terms of the offshore fishery in the Baffin region. As was mentioned in the presentation, we have basically no small craft harbours. The federal government has a small craft harbour program. As you are aware, millions of dollars are spent each year on either building or upgrading these facilities. This does not exist in Nunavut. Almost every coastal community in Nunavut needs development in the areas of the most basic infrastructure. Small craft harbours must be developed where vessels of 20 to 30 feet would be capable of landing and offloading and moving up into some of the larger fleet sectors.

The key will be access to our resources. If the most basic of infrastructures are not in place, how do we move forward? That is one of the key points we wish to make.

You were asking questions about harbours. Tidal range is somewhat of a factor. Tidal range is extreme in some areas in coastal Nunavut, but in other areas it is not such a big deal. There are ways to overcome these issues, but in many cases we have not even arrived at the feasibility level to determine how we will look at or overcome the situation. We are not even to that point in the game yet. We need some support in working on that area and getting that infrastructure in place that the rest of Canada surely has at this time.

Senator Forrestall: There are opportunities there that could be exploited for the financial benefit of the residents and the area as a whole. The government does derive certain benefits from economic activity.

I wish you well. I hope you can get on with these areas. There is an enormous discrepancy in the amount of money that is available and the amount of money you are receiving. I can only imagine that in the judgment of the fisheries people it must be premature to start developing. I cannot think of any other reason why they would not. On the other hand, I hope that there would be economic justification. That is a large amount of money for so little to be sticking to the communities that could surely benefit from that. Here I am not just speaking about the shrimp industry, but there are products that you have not even looked at yet and that is what you want to address. I wish you well.

Senator Johnson: Tell me about your seal fishery. Is it adequately managed? We were told that in Baffin Island, there were so many harp seals that cod was found in their stomachs.

I lived in Newfoundland for many years so I am familiar with the fishery there. In your view, what should be done with the fishery in your area and what is going on with it now?

Mr. Bonnell: Our seal fishery is very much a traditional subsistence industry. We currently have harvests of from 10,000 to 20,000 animals per year. Traditional knowledge indicates that the stock has increased dramatically in our region, as it has in Greenland. We recently had meetings with Greenlanders where we talked about the harp seal population and our ringed seals. They indicated that harp seals are coming much earlier and staying much longer in the year. It is a phenomenon about which we are concerned.

The seals rely heavily on Arctic cod and turbot. Locals have found turbot in the stomachs of harp seals and ringed seals in the region. This goes back to the fact that we have very limited scientific information on our seal population. It seems that the line for research is drawn north of 60 and there is little research done further north than that. We are left to speculate on where the stocks are. Much of the opinion is based on traditional knowledge. It is an area of concern for us, as was indicated in our presentation today. We need science on seals as well as on fishery stocks because they are interconnected.

Senator Johnson: Are the policies that affect you not the same as those on the East Coast?

Mr. Bonnell: Yes, they are.

Senator Johnson: How many seals do you take in a year?

Mr. Bonnell: The estimate is 15,000 to 20,000 animals per year of primarily ringed seals. It is all subsistence based, and targets primarily ringed seals. There is no commercial hunt.

Senator Johnson: Could you take more?

Mr. Bonnell: There is no doubt we could take more.

Senator Johnson: How many more do you think you could take?

Mr. Bonnell: In past years, 50,000 to 60,000 seals have been taken per year. With the European ban of the late 1970s and early 1980s, the industry was completely destroyed in the North. Many people do not realize the effect that the ban had on the Inuit of Nunavut. The Nunavut Sealing Strategy is looking at ways to redevelop interest in the sealing industry. It is a slow process but we are moving forward.

Senator Johnson: What would be the ideal for Nunavut, the environment and sustainable development with regard to seals? You are saying that it is a totally under-used resource.

Mr. Bonnell: The key is to return to the way it was in the past when people made their livelihoods from it as a subsistence industry. In many cases, people have lost their sense of the land. They have been forced to move away from their traditional livelihoods and into, in many cases, government assistance in other areas. One of the keys to our strategy is get to the point where people can go back to the land and make a modest livelihood from it. That is what is missing now.

We do not have a long-term plan in terms of numbers, but the key is to get back to the way things were in the past.

Senator Johnson: It is fair to say, as in Newfoundland and other parts of Canada, that we should be re-evaluating our position in regard to the seal hunt? We all know that it is very restricted now because of the European boycotts of the 1970s that have continued since. It is not working out very well environmen tally because, in Newfoundland as in other parts of the Maritimes, the seals are in the salmon rivers eating the salmon. They are everywhere.

What should the government be doing in this regard? Should we be revisiting this policy? That is part of our job. Is it time, or has it been done recently enough for your satisfaction? We do not have to be married to the same policies forever. With globaliz ation it is a different world now and things have to be revisited. I know it is a touchy area in some respects.

Mr. Ittinuar: Generally speaking, the ban of the 1970s created a difficult sentiment with regard to seals. We need DFAIT, provincial and territorial jurisdictions, and some NGOs to revisit the Marine Mammal Protection Act and create a strategy to allow the world to buy seal skins and other products from seals again. In addition to fashion, there are health benefits from by-products of seals that we have not explored sufficiently. We really need to approach the American government to have them reopen the MMPA to allow the export of seal products to the U.S.

We just came from a fur show in Montreal. Nunavut designs in sealskin were there alongside those of Italian, French, and other world-class designers. Our product looked as good as anyone else's. There is a general trend toward wearing fur again. There is a general trend toward recognizing that for certain people of this world harvesting seals is a way of life - the lives of these people were devastated by Brigitte Bardot and others. There are a few people in DIAND and DFAIT - but they are too few - who are working with NGOs and other jurisdictions on a sealing strategy for Canada. Some people at DFAIT say that they do not want to touch it because it is too sensitive. It is not that sensitive any more. We buy a certain number of pelts per year from harvesters up north. This year the price for seal skin pelts at the auction was the highest in many years. That indicates that the general sentiment against sealskin products is lifting. That is what is needed generally.

The Chairman: Mr. Minister, is the turbot you are speaking of the same turbot that Mr. Tobin held up during the Spanish-Canadian confrontation, saying that it was the very last turbot?

Mr. Bonnell: You will be happy to know that it is the very same species. It is a common stock throughout the northwest Atlantic. The main spawning ground for all of Greenland halibut in the northwest Atlantic is in Davis Strait. Much of the turbot harvested off the coast of Newfoundland and Labrador is fish that likely spawned in the Davis Strait region. It is all part of a common stock.

The Chairman: I am pleased to hear that that little turbot had a few cousins that continued to reproduce.

In 1997, the federal fisheries minister reallocated 1,100 tonnes of turbot to Canadian use. I understand that the allocation for what is now Nunavut was in the order of 9 per cent of the quota, which actually resulted in a reduction from 28 per cent to 24 per cent of the Nunavut quota for turbot.

I also understand that Nunavut has been fighting this low allocation since that time, but it keeps losing its ability to maintain the historical quota it once had prior to 1997.

Is this still the case? Have you not been able to up the quota since prior to 1997? Does a good part of the quota continue to go to southern companies?

Mr. Bonnell: I could give you a breakdown of how things exist in terms of turbot in Nunavut currently. Davis Strait is composed of NAFO division 0A and division 0B; 0A is further north, up in Baffin Bay, and 0B is further south.

The current quota in 0B is at 5500 metric tonnes of which 1500 tonnes go to Nunavut interests. Out of those 1500 metric tonnes, 1,000 tonnes goes to the inshore fishing and 500 tonnes goes to the offshore fishing. In reality, we have a 500 tonne offshore quota. That is where the 27 per cent exists.

I believe that you are referring to what happened several years ago when a Canada made a unilateral decision to increase the quota. It was reduced later to the 5500 tonnes again. That is still in place. We still have that quota. Much of the remainder of the quota goes to southern interests, primarily Newfoundland and Nova Scotia.

As of this year, we will have a new fishery up in 0A, based on science conducted in 1999 in that area. NAFO recommended a quota. The NAFO scientific council recommended a quota of 4,000 metric tonnes. Quotas are generally divided between Canada and Greenland since it is shared stock. As there is no information on what existed in 0A except for the five years or six years that we have been fishing up there, an exact sharing arrangement has not been reached.

We understand that for this year we will go in and do our commercial fishing activity. In the last few years we have had catches of up to 300 metric tonnes, but our efforts have been limited to about 50 days per year. Therefore, it will be interesting to see how much we can actually harvest up in that area this year. It could be a positive story for us. It remains to be seen, but it is a fishery that has been granted 100 per cent to Nunavut.

That is a good news story that has happened in the past year from our perspective, but we still do not know the full extent of that fishery so we will take it in stages to see how it develops over the next couple of years.

The Chairman: Is 0A outside the settlement area or part of it?

Mr. Bonnell: It is outside the settlement area.

The Chairman: On the topic of the turbot allocation, are you aware that one of the proposals for the Atlantic fisheries policy review proposes that the current sharing arrangements would be fixed, as would the fleet charge at which point Nunavut would probably never be able to up its ante? Therefore, it would never be able to enjoy the benefits of its adjacent resources.

Are you aware of this discussion paper?

Mr. Bonnell: We are well aware of this paper. We have been actively involved with it throughout its stages. The policy review team recently finished consultations in Iqaluit, Nunavut several weeks ago. As a matter of fact, one of the major issues we have with the policy review document is that they are looking at potential of recognizing current sharing arrangements for the long term.

We completely object to this process. Our position has been made quite clear. The policy review states that there might be exception under special circumstances. I think that we would certainly want to look at Nunavut as a special circumstance. We were not involved in the development, and in many cases were excluded from the development of the fishery there. Twenty- seven per cent of our adjacent resources certainly are not something that we would want to look at fixing for the long term. We will be submitting a report in the next two weeks before the deadline. We will be outlining that along with many other issues related to the policy review.

The Chairman: This committee has pointed out in the past is that if resources continue to be allocated to private enterprise, those resources become privatized. The owner can then do more or less whatever he feels like doing with the quota. Therefore, the owner can take the quota being caught off your shores to be processed wherever they want. In other words, if they wish to change the processing from one part of Atlantic Canada or the North to somewhere else, they could do it even if it leaves towns devastated. It is no skin off their nose; they just do it. Human Resources must then carry the load at that point.

This committee has suggested in the past that this cost is borne by Canadians if privatized quota is moved around. There is a cost to society of privatizing what is normally thought of as a common property.

Have you as a government discussed this concept of private property of the fisheries? What is your stand on privatization of this property?

Mr. Bonnell: I would say that for the most part that we have not entered into detailed discussions with industry groups on the privatization factor. We are pushing one key. We recently had an industry meeting with all of the local groups involved in the offshore fishery. We want to play a consultative role with our community groups, so that when they make decisions, they are informed decisions. We have worked with all the various stakeholders in Nunavut - DFO, Nunavut Tunngavik Incorpo rated, the wildlife management board and other groups. We have talked with them about the benefits that can be derived from the industry. We have discussed the organizations working together. Any partnership that you form in the South would be in the best interests of the group in the North. I would not say that that has not always been the case.

Certain long-term agreements have been reached that have not been to the benefit of groups in the North. Therefore, we are working with the groups to maximize northern benefits to the resource. We would want to look at whether that would be defined in terms of privatization or not. We want to ensure that they make the best decisions and the most informed decisions.

Senator Chalifoux: Mr. Minister, in your opening statement, you stated that section 15.3.7 of the Nunavut land claims agreement calls for a fair distribution of licences between the residents of the Nunavut settlement area and other residents of Canada. You have yet to be granted one single ground fish licence. With whom have you dealt? With whom have you negotiated? What is the update on that?

Mr. Bonnell: We have been in discussions with a number of groups. We will be pursuing it certainly in this year with the expansion of a new fishery into 0A. We will certainly look at licensing, and the need for it.

DFO currently has a policy of maintaining or reducing capacities in the Atlantic fishing industry. It is recognized in the Atlantic Canadian commercial licensing policy. While that policy may fit in southern Canada where over-capacity is a problem, we are looking to develop a new fishery. The issue of maintaining or reducing capacity does not fit with our outlook on things. How can we increase our capacity without having access to the resource?

That is one of the policy areas that is causing us a lot of problems. It is something that we will be taking up with DFO management with the expansion of our new fishery into 0A. We certainly will be requesting a ground fish licence to pursue that fishery. That will be our first step of a staged approach.

Senator Chalifoux: You are telling me that you are dealing with the bureaucracy. Have you been dealing with the minister at all regarding this whole situation?

Mr. Akesuk: When we had the Atlantic fisheries ministers meeting in Saint Andrews, I talked with Minister Dhaliwal about our concern with regard to the fishing industry in Nunavut. Yes, I have talked to Mr. Dhaliwal about it. I have sent correspondence to him regarding the fishery.

Senator Chalifoux: Have you received any answers?

Mr. Akesuk: We have not received any answers, but we have received a letter from him saying that I should be expecting an answer soon. I received that letter about two weeks ago from the minister. He wrote to me and so I am expecting an answer soon.

Senator Chalifoux: Your presentation folder states that in existing fisheries it is sometimes important to fix existing shares of the resource, because of the amount of investment involved. Last July, committee members were told that southern fishing interests had developed an historical presence in the Davis Strait fishery, because local interests were initially denied access. Is historical presence a principle articulated by the DFO's Atlantic licensing and fish allocation policy? Were local interests in Nunavut denied access to the turbot fishery in the Davis Strait?

Mr. Bonnell: Certainly, I would say that Nunavut interests have been denied access to a larger share of the fishery in Davis Strait. There is no doubt about that. From that perspective, the fact that we have 27 per cent of our adjacent turbot resource, we have been denied. In terms of historical attachment, certainly DFO would be the authority with which to discuss the prevailing issues. That is what the Atlantic fisheries policy review and the independent panel on access to criteria, which is about to be established, will attempt to resolve. My understanding, from every document that I have read - and I have read most of the policy that exists in Atlantic Canada right now, is that adjacency is a priority. It is recognized primarily all over Atlantic Canada right now. There are small areas where there have been disputes, but for the most part we feel that adjacency is recognized in most areas of Atlantic Canada, with the exception of Nunavut - 27 per cent of an adjacent resource is not priority consideration.

It is the similar for our shrimp resources. Certainly, there is some merit to historical attachment, but in terms of adjacency, the coastal resource users, and economic dependence, they should certainly play a priority factor. We should be receiving the benefits from that resource.

Our territory has only been in existence for two years. Decisions in the past may not always have been made in our best interests. We came in a step behind. With the collapse of the Northern cod fishery, there is much movement to the North. That movement took place before we got a chance to get in there and decisions were often made without our involvement andawareness of them. So, certainly, we feel that adjacency should be the priority factor and it should be recognized, over a period of time, by Nunavut.

Senator Chalifoux: Policies are not law and they can be altered.

I have one comment. I am not sure whether you would be interested, but there is a conference being held at the end of May in Saskatoon. It is regarding the NAFTA and how that affects Aboriginal markets and Aboriginal people. If you are interested, I can get you the information.

Senator Watt: I would like to follow up on Senator Chalifoux's points. In one of your briefing notes, you mentioned that there was some attempt by the Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated, which is a first-rate corporation, to intervene on the decisions that were made by the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. This is a court action to which I refer. What was the clear justification of the fact that you were unsuccessful appealing the decision? Could you elaborate on this? You said that there was a "unsuccessful appeal," reading from the presentation, by Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated in the Federal Court in 1999.

If adjacency means that you should have the priority to the resources, which are next door to you, and if the policy is applied to all other areas of the country, should those not also apply to you? Why is it not good enough for Nunavut, when it is good enough for other provinces and territories? I do not understand.

Mr. Bonnell: If you are referring to the existing court case with NTI, the Nunavut government has not been actively involved in it. We are not part of that court dispute, so we cannot really comment in any detail on that situation.

Senator Watt: Is it a concern of yours?

Mr. Bonnell: Certainly, it is a major concern of ours. The facts that we put on the table today show that it is not being recognized.

Senator Watt: Do you not have control over your resources? How can the federal government expect you to grow, as a government, economically? You have a strong point.

I agree with my colleague who suggested that maybe you should return to negotiate with the proper authorities to make an attempt to increase the percentages that are allocated to you on turbot and the 14 per cent on the shrimp. What would be the acceptable level to the Nunavut government?

Let us assume that you have complete jurisdiction over deciding who receives it and who does not. What percentage would be acceptable to you, knowing that you have to share the resources with the southern partners from time to time because they have their needs too? You do not have to answer that question, if you do not want to.

Mr. Bonnell: We have already made the point clear, on a number of occasions, that over a period of time we would like to see nothing different than that which exists in Atlantic Canada; we would like a similar arrangement. We suggest, in most cases, anywhere from 70 per cent to 90 per cent of the adjacent resource goes to the adjacent coastal resource user. We know that will not happen today in Nunavut, but it is our objective. Over a period of time, we want nothing less than what exists in the rest of Atlantic Canada right now.

Senator Watt: I have been alerted by Senator Chalifoux that this year the minister's decisions subsequently went before the Federal Court of Canada, and they found that the fisheries minister was not obliged to provide reasons for his decision. What is that about? Is it because you are a new government and you have to be controlled by the federal government in every aspect of what you do with your life? Is that the meaning?

The Chairman: Senator Watt is referring to the extra allocation to which I referred earlier: The minister has an absolute discretion, as I understand it, to do whatever he darn well feels like doing under the Fisheries Act. This was taken, as I understand, to court by your government. Basically, the court said that the minister has the right to do as he pleases. I believe that is what Senator Watt referred to.

Senator Watt: I do not understand the rationale behind the minister making that kind of statement.

Mr. Bonnell: As a correction, it was Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated, not our government, that took them to court. Certainly, it is an issue that we have raised, and it is in the policy review. The policy review itself has looked at the fact that the minister has the ultimate authority. There are issues with that, of course.

Senator Watt: I believe that you also have a slight conflict with your next door neighbours, the Inuit of Nunavik, with regard to the right to a certain area. Which area is that? I heard that as second-hand information; I am not up to date on it. Are you familiar with it?

Mr. Bonnell: There are issues with that, but it is an issue that will be discussed in further detail between Nunavut government, Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated and Makivik over the coming weeks, I am sure. It is not an issue that we really want to discuss at this time but, certainly, there are issues.

Senator Watt: Perhaps I will make one recommendation. You can take it into account, if you want, when the time comes that the two groups meet together. Deal with your own internal problems. Perhaps you can jointly go back to the Minister of Fisheries to at least make an attempt to negotiate with both parties in place. That is all I want to say.

Mr. Ittinuar: Mr. Chairman, as a point of clarification on the court case that was mentioned, the Federal Court of Appeal said that the test for the minister's decision is "patent unreasonable ness" and apparently he was not patently unreasonable in his decision. Currently, the Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated is appealing and taking the case to the Supreme Court of Canada.

The Chairman: We will be following it very closely.

Senator Forrestall: Like Senator Watt, I am curious as to why. Is it something as simple as advice from his bureaucracy, his support staff, that would lead the Minister of Fisheries to a conclusion that this is not the time to grant the licences? Perhaps the equipment is not there to do the fishing? Perhaps the training has not taken place? Is there a lack of harbours? Is it something as sensible and straightforward as that? Or is it just an application of his own sentiment; "Oh, I got up this morning and I thought to hell with those fellows. I did not see them around; they did not put anything in the pot yesterday."

Is there some reason why the minister would be totally unreasonable? Do you have any explanation yourself? Better still, has the minister or have any of his officials given you any explanation?

Mr. Bonnell: We are at a point of making significant progress in the industry. The issue of capacity certainly comes up with respect to Nunavut. We do not have a great deal of capacity at the moment. We are a relatively new entrant to the industry and we cannot develop capacities overnight. We need quotas and licences in order to look at ownership models, so we can move forward.

That is the basic starting point. We cannot look at a large ownership model with a 500-tonne offshore allocation. With this new fishery in 0A, if things work out as hoped, and if the licences come through as expected, we can go to the next step. I think we are on the verge of making significant progress.

Senator Forrestall: You foresee a breakthrough then?

Mr. Bonnell: Yes.

Senator Forrestall: There must be some reasonably good answer. I do think you will see an end to it.

Do you have the capacity to build your own boats? Have people developed engines for small-craft operations? Is the government doing anything to set up training programs for boat-building? Is there any outfitting of boats for the various fisheries? Is that type of planning coming along? Is any action actually happening?

Mr. Bonnell: There are some small-scale boat-building operations going on right now. It is an area that can be developed further. Much of our current focus is on getting the quotas, the licences, and some of the other infrastructure into place. Then we can look at improving in that area. We are looking at other areas right now.

Senator Forrestall: If you wanted a 45-foot boat tomorrow, where would you get it?

Mr. Ittinuar: Covey Islands Boatworks in Nova Scotia. We do build a little bigger than kayaks now, but not of the size that we need for offshore.

Senator Forrestall: You have to start looking at 60- and 65-foot boats and upwards. You are probably right, minister, that as you grow in the capacity to meet these needs, that your quota access will grow as well. Adjacency is normal; that is why it is right.

The Chairman: I would like to ask honourable senators if it would be agreeable to file as exhibits the material submitted to us by the Government of Nunavut. Is it agreed, honourable senators?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

Senator Watt: There is one area that was mentioned over and over again in the presentation: the lack of scientific information available to make concrete decisions with regard to the allocation of quotas, whether on seals or fish.

I have an example that may be educational for the rest of the senators. About two weeks ago, I was involved in a meeting sponsored by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans in Kuujjuaq up in Nunavut. They were already trying to implement Bill C-5, which is the endangered species legislation. Even the fisheries and oceans representatives highlighted the fact that there is not enough scientific information, but they were still pushing for this piece of legislation regardless of that lack.

Why is our central government making a "rescue attempt" without proper information? While the fisheries and oceans representatives were highlighting the lack of information, they were also very quick to point out that there is no money. For that reason, there is a lack of scientific information.

Would you like our committee to take responsibility for highlighting the fact that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and Environment Canada, which has regulating authority, must make sure sufficient finances are placed for proper scientific assessment?

I thought that was an important intervention to make before closing, Mr. Chairman. We should take that into consideration.

Mr. Akesuk: You made a very good point, Senator Watt. We also have talked with Minister Dhaliwal about scientific research in the North. The North does not have any mapping right now for scientific research - especially in the Nunavut and Nunavik area. Yet they are saying there are not enough narwhales nor belugas in there.

If we do not have enough scientific information, we must continue to fight for the funds to collect that scientific information before making final decisions. As the Government of Nunavut, we also encourage the use of traditional knowledge of the Inuit, using what they have seen in the past and what they are seeing now. They watch how the animals are going around.

I believe that, using both scientific research and Inuit traditional knowledge, we will end up with good research. The scientists and people living in the North must work together. I do not think we should exclude the people who live there and who have lived there for a long time. I am sure that if we work with the scientists and the people living up in the North, we will end up with a really good report containing both scientific and traditional knowledge.

The Chairman: Thank you very much, Mr. Minister. I would like to make senators aware that our meetings are now available in real-time on the Internet, something called "Webcasting," for all you techies out there.

Mr. Minister, on behalf of the committee, I would like to thank you and your officials for helping us better understand the issues that face the people of your area, and how we might be able to help you. It has been a most interesting and rewarding evening for all of us. On behalf of all the senators, I thank you for it.

We acknowledge that your challenges are formidable and great. We know you are up to the task. Do not be afraid to call on us at any time to give whatever assistance we may be able to provide, given our limited powers. I am sure that Senators Watt, Adams and Chalifoux will ensure that I am reminded if we do not provide the kind of assistance for which you ask.

Thank you again for appearing before us. We hope to see you before too long.

The committee adjourned.

---