Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Fisheries and Oceans
Issue 17 - Evidence, October 22, 2003
OTTAWA, Wednesday, October 22, 2003
The Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans met this day at 6:22 p.m. to examine and report upon the matters relating to quota allocations and benefits to Nunavut and Nunavik fishermen.
Senator Joan Cook (Deputy Chairman) in the Chair.
[Editor's Note: Some evidence was presented through an Inuktitut interpreter.]
[English]
The Deputy Chairman: Honourable senators, we are meeting today to resume our consideration of the fishing quota allocations and their economic benefits to fishers in Nunavut and Nunavik. Tonight we have with us — and please forgive me if I do not get the proper pronunciation of your group — Nunavut Sivuniksavut, a unique college program for Inuit youth, and we welcome you.
We have already heard from quite a range of witnesses, and today we are joined by the Minister of Sustainable Development for Nunavut, the Honourable Olayuk Akesuk. The minister is accompanied by officials from his department, including Alex Campbell, Deputy Minister; and Carey Bonnell, Manager for Fisheries and Sealing. Also with us today are representatives of the Nunavut Wildlife Management Board. They are Mr. Ben Kovic, Chairman; Michael d'Eca, Legal Adviser; and Michelle Wheatley, Director of Wildlife Management.
Welcome to the committee, ladies and gentlemen.
I understand that the minister will begin speaking and will immediately be followed by the representatives of the Nunavut Wildlife Management Board. After that we will go to our usual round of questions and discussion.
[Interpretation]
The Honourable Olayuk Akesuk, Minister of Sustainable Development, Government of Nunavut: On behalf of the Government of Nunavut, I would like to thank you, the Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, for inviting me to speak before you today regarding fisheries issues in Nunavut. Joining me tonight are my Deputy Minister, Alex Campbell; my Executive Assistant, Udloriak Comeau; and my Manager of Fisheries and Sealing, Carey Bonnell. They will assist me with any questions you may have tonight.
[English]
I would also like to welcome the people who are taking the course at Nunavut Sivuniksavut. Thank you very much. You will probably be sitting here one day, so keep up the good work.
It is my pleasure to be here before you for the second time in more than two years. As most of you will recall, I appeared before you in May 2001, during your discussion on freshwater and northern fisheries.
Our discussions during the appearance as well as during visits to Nunavut in 2000 were accurately reflected in your 2002 report, entitled ``Selected Themes on Canadian Freshwater and Northern Fisheries.'' In this respect, I wish to congratulate the entire Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans for their work.
I strongly believe that this document has gone a long way toward creating a better understanding of the key challenges and issues we face in our attempts to develop a viable fishing industry in Nunavut. I would like to briefly highlight three recommendations your committee made in its 2002 report.
Recommendation number four called for the Department of Fisheries and Oceans to increase its funding for multi- year fish stock and marine mammal assessments in the North.
Recommendation number 11 dealt with the need for the Government of Canada to move to operationalize the memorandum of understanding it signed with the Government of Nunavut in August 2000.
Finally, recommendation number 12 emphasized the need for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to adopt a fair and consistent policy with respect to Nunavut's access to and allocations of its Atlantic fisheries resources, particularly as it relates to article 15.3.7 of the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement.
It is fair to say that the federal government has made limited progress in the past two years in recognizing or supporting these recommendations.
During my 2001 presentation, I provided you with an overview of the Nunavut territory, as well as the key challenges we face in our attempt to develop a viable and sustainable fishing industry in Nunavut. These challenges include: obtaining equitable access to, and allocation of, our adjacent resources; developing the infrastructure required to support industry development; obtaining a commitment to the ongoing science required to support a sustainable fishery; training Nunavuumiut to take full advantage of employment opportunities in a developing fishery; and obtaining a commitment to emerging fisheries research and development.
I am happy to report that we have continued to make progress on some of these initiatives. In 2001, we saw the emergence of the Baffin Fisheries Coalition in Nunavut, with its long-term objectives to develop the capacity of Nunavut fishing interests to harvest the turbot resources in the waters adjacent to Nunavut, develop the credibility of Nunavut fishermen in the Atlantic fishing industry and to maximize fisheries development over the next 5 to 10 years.
The Baffin Fisheries Coalition is a 100 per cent Inuit-owned company, with ownership consisting of 11 Inuit organizations, including the hunters and trappers' organizations of each of the communities along the east coast of Baffin Island. In its three short years of operation, the coalition has achieved a number of successes, including the development of a detailed business plan to guide its operations over the next five years.
Key priorities of the coalition over the next year are the pursuit of vessel acquisition options, as well as the implementation of a detailed five-year training program. I am pleased to say that I fully support the initiatives of the Baffin Fisheries Coalition, and I am committed to working with them over the upcoming months and years to bring the benefits of our adjacent fishery to Nunavut.
[Interpretation]
I would like to clarify further the steps that the Government of Nunavut has taken to develop and diversify our fishing industry in Nunavut. Last year, we introduced a new program — the Fisheries Development and Diversification Program — and put forward $350,000 in funding per year, to be delivered in contributions in Nunavut. This program was primarily developed to support community-based projects such as test fisheries, technology transfer and other related fisheries initiatives.
During the 2002-03 fiscal year, we were successful in leveraging an additional $600,000 from other sources, resulting in close to $1 million of new research and development dollars going into Nunavut's fishing industry last year.
[English]
Probably of most significance was the launching of Nunavut's first economic development strategy. The Government of Nunavut and Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated launched this strategy last month on behalf of more than 20 organizations and groups, including Indian and Northern Affairs Canada. The strategy sets out the values and priorities that will guide economic development in Nunavut over the next 10 years, and places significant emphasis on the fisheries sector in particular.
While we continue to make significant progress in certain areas, our development efforts are still severely constrained in a number of key areas. Let me provide you with a few examples of some of the problems we continue to face in our efforts to develop a Nunavut-based fishing industry.
From a policy standpoint, significant progress has been made in our efforts to achieve a fair and equitable distribution of our adjacent resources comparable to other adjacent jurisdictions.
Of particular note is the 2002 report of the Independent Panel on Access Criteria, IPAC, commissioned by the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. The panel viewed Nunavut as a special case in the Atlantic fishing industry as we do not have access and allocation comparable to other adjacent jurisdictions. In keeping with the spirit of the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement, and the fair and consistent application of the adjacency principle, the panel went on to recommend that: ``No additional access should be granted to non-Nunavut interests in the waters adjacent to the territory until Nunavut has achieved access to a major share of its adjacent fisheries resources.''
On November 8, 2002, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans accepted this recommendation and committed to having Nunavut reach a major share of its adjacent resources.
Since the release of the IPAC report, there have been two commercial quota increases in Nunavut adjacent waters, both of which occurred for shrimp in Shrimp Fishing Area 1. The first took place in September 2002, and resulted in a quota increase of 2,690 metric tons, of which Nunavut interests received less than 9 per cent.
The second increase took place in May of this year, and resulted in a quota increase of 2,127 metric tons, of which Nunavut interests received approximately 51 per cent. The latter increase resulted in Nunavut's share of our entire adjacent northern shrimp resource increasing from just 25 per cent to 26 per cent, or 7,847 metric tons of an overall 29,717-metric-ton quota. This is hardly reflective of the commitments made to Nunavut in IPAC.
While we have achieved some great policy decisions in principle, in practice, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans has not lived up to its obligations and has not significantly advanced our adjacent access and allocation position.
With regard to infrastructure development, the successful development of a fishing industry in Nunavut cannot be achieved without basic infrastructure such as ports and small craft harbours. At the present time, we do not have any port facilities, small craft harbours or marine service centres to support either an inshore- or offshore-based fishing industry in Nunavut.
In this year alone, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans has committed close to $56 million in harbour development and improvements for the rest of Canada through its Small Craft Harbours Program. However, I am sad to say nothing has been committed to Nunavut, despite repeated requests by the Government of Nunavut to extend this program to our territory to support the development of our fishing industry.
Concerning the Northern Fisheries Science Program, a solid scientific platform is the cornerstone of the successful development of any fishery throughout the world. Without it, true fisheries development cannot take place.
The three-year turbot science program co-funded by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the Nunavut Wildlife Management Board from 1999 to 2001 is a great example of the successes that can be achieved when we work together. It resulted in the establishment of a 4,000-metric-ton quota for Nunavut interests in NAFO Division 0A, as well as providing us with some very valuable information on the overall health of the stock.
There is now an obvious need to continue to build upon the successes of this program and to develop a multi-year, multi-species program to support the development of new and emerging fisheries in Nunavut. This is especially relevant to Nunavut, given the unknown and unexplored nature of our region and the fact that it seems like everywhere we look, we find new marine resources with the potential for development. Without such a science program, we may never achieve the true potential and benefits available from our adjacent resources.
The Department of Fisheries and Oceans recognizes the need for more detailed science on the resources in the North, but it has been unable to invest the necessary financial resources to develop such a program for Nunavut.
With regard to training, the development of a trained, northern-based workforce is obviously key to the successful development of our fishing industry for the benefit of all Nunavuumiut. I am pleased to say that we are making significant strides in this area. Industry groups such as Qikiqtaaluk Corporation and the Baffin Fisheries Coalition have developed a long-term training plan for employment in the offshore fishing industry.
We are also conducting significant training in our inshore fishing industry. For example, this past spring we co- funded a winter turbot fishery training program in Clyde River, utilizing the skills of successful winter turbot fishermen from Pangnirtung. The result was the completion of a very successful technology transfer project with significant opportunities for the future.
With regard to emerging fisheries development, nowhere else in Canada is the potential for emerging fisheries development greater than in Nunavut. Much of the vast regions of our adjacent waters are untouched in terms of experimental and exploratory activities.
As most of you are aware, in 2000 my department signed a MOU with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans on emerging fisheries development in Nunavut. 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.
The MOU is an example of a policy that looks great in principle; but limited effort has been undertaken by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans to take this to the operational phase. It appears that they have no strategy or approach for dealing with the emergence of Nunavut's fishing industry.
Fisheries development offers one of the best opportunities for economic development and job creation in Nunavut, in a region with limited opportunities. The total current landed value of marine quotas in Nunavut's adjacent waters is nearly $100 million. Unfortunately, at the present time, the vast majority of these quotas are held by interests from outside Nunavut.
The Government of Nunavut, along with our partners, Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated and the Nunavut Wildlife Management Board, has spent a tremendous amount of time and resources over the past several years strategizing on the development of our fishing industry. As you will see from the formal written submission that we have prepared for you, we have a clear vision in place to move our industry forward. We need the federal government to become a true partner as well.
Our plan is quite aggressive and ambitious, given the key challenges identified above. We recognize that change will not take place overnight. Significant investments must be made by the federal government to establish the basic infrastructure needed for fisheries development in Nunavut. If this does not happen, I fear we will be sitting before you five years from now with little progress to report.
To senators around the table tonight from Atlantic Canada, I would like to conclude by painting you a brief picture of our situation in a different context. Picture your own coastal communities. Now, take away your harbours and port facilities, marine service centres, your core regional science programs, your Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency funding and fisheries diversification programs. In your Atlantic Aboriginal communities, take away the Marshall decision and the Aboriginal Fisheries Strategy funding. Now imagine being told to develop your fisheries without these basic support structures in place. This is what we face in our attempts to develop a Nunavut-based fishing industry.
Thank you very much for giving me the opportunity to make my presentation, Madam Chairman.
The Deputy Chairman: Thank you, minister. Before we go to the other witnesses, Senator Cochrane has another engagement. We will offer her an opportunity to question the minister on his presentation.
Senator Cochrane: Thank you so much, minister. I am happy you all came. It is wonderful to see you here, especially coming all the way from Nunavut.
Before I begin, minister, I would like to recognize your young people here. Are those here involved in a leadership program?
Mr. Akesuk: Yes.
Senator Cochrane: Are they taking this program in Ottawa?
Mr. Akesuk: Yes.
Senator Cochrane: Is it something new? I am impressed that we have so many youth interested in improving themselves and making a contribution to their own region. I am sure that many will work in their region and make Nunavut a prosperous area.
I have been there. I must say I am really impressed to see so many of your people here.
Are they sponsored by the federal government?
Mr. Akesuk: Yes, they are.
Senator Cochrane: Wonderful. I am so happy, and I am sure you are too.
I know that Nunavut has recently established a new government. What is the Minister of Fisheries in your new government saying about not getting quotas, ports, harbours — or anything in regard to the marine habitat or helping the quota situation?
Mr. Akesuk: I am the Minister of Fisheries.
Senator Cochrane: Pardon my ignorance. That is wonderful.
What sort of conversations have you had with your federal counterparts?
Mr. Akesuk: Before Mr. Thibault became the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, we had Mr. Dhaliwal, who supported us pretty well 100 per cent with regard to fisheries. We have less support from Mr. Thibault in terms of quota allocation. The last time they did our allocation, Mr. Dhaliwal put in 100 per cent. Now, it is 51 per cent from Mr. Thibault.
We have been talking to them, and we are ensuring that we communicate in writing or verbally. We will continue to ensure that we send our message to Mr. Thibault, or whoever will be the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans in the next government.
We have been lobbying the federal government to recognize that we need the infrastructure development in Nunavut in order for us to have a successful fisheries industry there.
Senator Cochrane: Do you have DFO people stationed in Nunavut?
Mr. Akesuk: Yes.
Senator Cochrane: How is your rapport with them?
Mr. Akesuk: It is good. Our government has been trying to work with them. Our colleague, Mr. Kovic, is also close to the DFO. We are working well there.
Senator Cochrane: Do you see something positive coming?
Mr. Akesuk: We want to see something more positive. We want to see more infrastructure development and more support on quota allocations in adjacent waters for Nunavut.
Senator Cochrane: You mentioned that you have only one-quarter of the total allowable catch. I looked at the figures. It seems to me it is only one-quarter of the quota, is that right?
Mr. Akesuk: It is 26 per cent of the quotas that are available adjacent to Nunavut. We only have 26 per cent.
Senator Cochrane: Tell me — be specific — who has the remainder?
Mr. Carey Bonnell, Manager, Fisheries and Sealing, Nunavut Department of Sustainable Development: The minister is referring to the northern shrimp fishery. There is an offshore sharing arrangement. There are 17 offshore licence holders in the northern shrimp fishery.
For the most part, the fishery in our waters is split 17 ways. Nunavut has 1.5 of the 17 licences, which gives us about a 9 per cent increase. There is 1.5 that goes to Northern Quebec, and the remainder would go to Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia and perhaps other Quebec interests. That is basically how the northern shrimp fishery in our adjacent waters is split.
There are other allocations for exploratory fisheries where we have larger shares. There are two core commercial fisheries for shrimp in our adjacent waters. One is Shrimp Fishing Area 1, which is off the coast of Qikiqtarjuaq. It is a 14,000-metric-ton quota. Currently, we have 15 per cent of that quota.
The other one is in Shrimp Fishing Area 2, off the coast of Resolution Island. That fishery is prosecuted probably within 12 to 14 miles of our coastline. We have about 9 per cent of that quota. In a nutshell, that is how it is broken down.
Mr. Akesuk: We have a map on the first page of our presentation. That will clarify matters for you, senator.
Senator Cochrane: You are not getting very much in your quota allocation, as we have already heard from several people from Nunavut or that area. One lady who came before us said she wants to buy a vessel to go fishing, but she cannot because she has no quota. This quota allocation will not change until 2005?
Ms. Michelle Wheatley, Director, Wildlife Management, Nunavut Wildlife Management Board: The Nunavut Wildlife Management Board, or NWMB, allocates the quotas that are awarded to Nunavut. You will hear about the board policy when Mr. Kovic makes his presentation. We have an allocation system. In 2002, it was decided that, since the same players had been coming back year after year, the allocations would be made for three years — for 2002, 2003 and 2004 — as long as those current quota-holders followed the plans and prosecuted those fisheries.
When someone new wants to get into the fishery, from whom do we take it away? Without new allocation, we cannot take it away from someone just because someone else wants to start.
Senator Cochrane: How many fishermen do you have in Nunavut?
Mr. Bonnell: That is a difficult question to answer. It depends on the area. In the offshore fishery, working on offshore vessels, there are anywhere from 40 to 50 people out there at any given time, depending on with whom they are working. We have a winter fishery in Cumberland Sound, near Pangnirtung. They fish through the ice for about four months of the year. You will see that in the booklets we have handed out. There are about 50 to 60 people employed in that winter fishery. There is also a fish processing facility that employs another 50 to 60 people.
There is also the traditional Arctic char fishery in Nunavut that occurs throughout the territory. Hundreds of people are involved in that.
There are a number of different groups, depending on the fishery we are talking about.
Senator Cochrane: Some people are working in the offshore fishery. Are they working for other owners? Are they processing the fish on the ships, on these factory-freezer trawlers?
Mr. Bonnell: Yes. At the present time, depending who has the quota in Nunavut, the quota-holder would more or less partner with an industry group in Atlantic Canada. As a condition of that partnership, a number of people from Nunavut would be employed on those vessels. That is how the procedure normally works at this time.
Senator Cochrane: Is that working out okay?
Mr. Bonnell: It is working okay, but as you saw from the minister's presentation, Nunavut's long-term goals are to move toward vessel acquisition, ownership and control of our own resources. That will create a great deal of new employment. We are happy with where things are at the moment, but we see a tremendous amount of potential over the next 5 to 10 years.
In retrospect, our history in the offshore fishery goes back no more than about 15 years. Newfoundland and Nova Scotia fisheries have hundreds of years of history. It is amazing how far we have come in the last 20 years, given the lack of infrastructure that you have already heard about tonight. There is a lot of potential on the horizon, given that the right decisions are made to build that infrastructure.
Senator Cochrane: Since you do not have ports or harbours, where do offshore vessels from other provinces come in to land?
Mr. Bonnell: There are one or two sites. They can reload and offload in Newfoundland, say in Harbour Grace. Some vessels go to Greenland. Obviously, the time required to steam back and forth from Newfoundland to Nunavut is a deterrent, so some vessel operators offload their catch, be it shrimp or turbot, in Nuuk, the capital of Greenland, and have it trans-shipped.
Mr. Akesuk: They also draw about 300 to 400 metric tons to the Pangnirtung fisheries processing facility.
Senator Cochrane: You do have a processing facility in Pangnirtung?
Mr. Akesuk: Yes, we have a facility for turbot.
Senator Cochrane: How many does that employ?
Mr. Akesuk: That employs 50 to 60 people locally. It is seasonal employment, but it lasts probably nine months of the year.
Senator Cochrane: That is pretty good.
Senator Watt: Is that nine months of actual fishing?
Mr. Akesuk: No, there are nine months of fish processing.
The Deputy Chairman: I have a supplementary question that may help us both to understand.
The quota allocations are all divided up. You would like an increase in your allocations. Is there capacity to increase quotas so a new fishing process can be introduced? All the quotas are currently being used. Are there enough resources to allow Nunavut to have an extra licence or two? Is that a realistic expectation?
Ms. Wheatley: There certainly is interest. The requests are always three to four times more than what we have to allocate.
At the moment, all quotas are harvested using royalty charters. Until there is a sufficiently substantial quota to support a vessel with a long-term plan, we must do it by royalty charters. As you increase the quota, there is a better chance of moving toward self-sufficiency and justifying buying and maintaining a vessel.
The Deputy Chairman: Help me to understand this a little further. Are the resource allocations reviewed annually or are they set?
Ms. Wheatley: Are you asking about the allocations for Nunavut?
The Deputy Chairman: I mean the total allocations.
Ms. Wheatley: The Nunavut Wildlife Management Board allocates quotas that are reviewed annually. We were doing completely new applications every year, but it takes a lot of time for our staff — and also for the participants — to write the applications every year. We were not seeing any real change because people were meeting their requirements. In 2002, we moved to a three-year allocation.
Participants still must submit a report at the end of the fishing season to show that they did as they said they would do, that they put in the effort required and that they harvested their quota. If some parties did not go after their quota, then we could adjust allocations to the individual organizations or companies. We do not now actually go through a full application process every year.
The Deputy Chairman: Thank you. We will ask Mr. Kovic to proceed.
Mr. Ben Kovic, Chairman, Nunavut Wildlife Management Board: Thank you for this opportunity to appear before the Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans this evening. Joining me from the Nunavut Wildlife Management Board are the Director of Wildlife Management, Michelle Wheatley, and the board's legal adviser, Michael d'Eca. They will assist me in answering any questions that senators may have. As part of NWMB's opening remarks, Mr. d'Eca will take a few minutes to talk about the relevance to your study of the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement and the principle of adjacency.
I will begin by saying that the NWMB fully agrees with the remarks just made by my colleague, Minister Akesuk. Further to those remarks, the NWMB would like to briefly cover four things in our opening comments.
First, I will explain NWMB's role under the land claim agreement, which I will refer to as ``the agreement.'' Second, I will briefly set out the policy development followed by the NWMB in allocating commercial marine fishing quotas. Third, Mr. d'Eca will explain the significance of section 15.3.7 of the agreement for your study, and also discuss the application of the principle of adjacency in the Atlantic fisheries. Fourth, in conclusion, I will tell you what assistance NWMB is seeking from this Senate committee.
I will begin with the role of Nunavut Wildlife Management Board. NWMB is composed of nine members, four of whom are appointed by Inuit, three by the federal government and one by the territorial government, with the chairperson nominated by the other eight members and appointed by the federal government.
Under the terms of the agreement, the NWMB acts as an independent tribunal that makes most of its decisions dealing with wildlife management within the Nunavut Settlement Area, known as the NSA. The NSA covers all Nunavut land territory, except for a few small islands in Hudson Bay — all of its inland waters and all of the marine areas up to the outer limit of its adjacent territorial sea.
Within the NSA, it is the NWMB that makes decisions related to establishing, modifying or removing limitations on harvesting. With respect to commercial fishing, for instance, the NWMB sets quotas, gear restrictions and seasons. If a quota, gear restriction or season needs to be changed, the proposal must come before the NWMB for a decision. The NWMB is also responsible for allocating commercial quotas inside the NSA.
All of the NWMB's harvest limitation decisions are subject to review by the appropriate minister. Although it rarely happens, the minister can reject NWMB decisions if he or she meets the conditions set out in the agreement. Outside the NSA, the minister makes all wildlife management decisions, including setting commercial quotas, gear restrictions and seasons. However, the agreement does provide for an important wildlife advisory role for the NWMB outside the NSA, and the minister must consider that advice.
The NWMB's advisory jurisdiction extends to the east of the NSA, throughout the waters of Davis Strait and Baffin Bay — subject to Canada's jurisdiction — that are not part of another land claim settlement area; and to the south of the NSA, throughout the waters of James Bay, Hudson Bay and the Hudson Strait that are not part of another land claim settlement area.
Although not required to do so by the agreement, the Government of Canada and the NWMB have agreed that the board is also responsible for allocating Nunavut's share of any commercial quota outside the NSA. This is significant because both of Nunavut's major commercial marine fisheries of turbot and shrimp take place, for the most part, in waters adjacent to Nunavut but outside the NSA.
For instance, in NAFO Division 0B, almost all of the turbot are fished in the offshore, beyond the territorial sea — and, therefore, beyond the NSA. However, Nunavut's entire 1,500 metric-ton share of the resources in 0B is allocated to Nunavut fishers by the NWMB. The board's allocation decisions are not subject to review by the minister. The same is true for turbot in Division 0A to the north, and for the Shrimp Fishing Areas 1, 2 and 3.
I will now speak to the NWMB allocation policy. The board's allocation policy for commercial marine fisheries is set out in detail in Appendix 1 of our joint submission. The policy is firmly based on a number of principles, objectives and other directions already set out in the agreement. NWMB uses those directions as guidelines to establish criteria to evaluate applications for quotas in fisheries with established commercial quotas and for quotas in new, emerging fisheries.
Both the turbot and shrimp fisheries in the waters adjacent to Nunavut have established commercial quotas. There are always more applicants for those fisheries than there are available allocations. Therefore, it is extremely important for NWMB to evaluate applications impartially, using fair and objective criteria.
NWMB uses nine criteria to evaluate applications for allocations within its adjacent turbot and shrimp fisheries. The first one is adjacency to the fishing area. Communities closest to the fishing area will have priority over those farther away.
The second one is ownership or sponsorship of the enterprise applying for the quota. Regional Wildlife Organization, RWO, or Hunters and Trappers Organization, HTO, ownership or ownership by a resident of Nunavut will have priority.
The third one is employment provided to Nunavut residents. Applicants providing employment to Nunavut residents, especially Inuit, in harvesting and/or processing will have priority.
The fourth one is training provided to Nunavut residents. Applicants providing training to Nunavut residents, especially Inuit, in harvesting and/or processing will have priority.
The fifth one is other economic benefits provided to Nunavut residents. Applicants providing other economic benefits to Nunavut residents, especially Inuit, will have priority.
The sixth one is history in the fishery. Applicants with a demonstrated ability to harvest quotas allocated to them will have priority.
The seventh one is economic dependence on marine resources. Applicants and communities with an existing dependence on the fishery will have priority.
The eighth one is harvesting method. Applicants using harvesting methods that best uphold the principles of conservation will have priority.
The ninth one is compliance with any management, conservation or harvesting plan approved by the NWMB. Applicants demonstrating compliance with such plans will have priority.
In a professional, independent and impartial manner, the NWMB takes the combination of the above nine factors into account when reviewing all applications.
I will turn it over to my legal adviser, Michael d'Eca.
Mr. Michael d'Eca, Legal Adviser, Nunavut Wildlife Management Board: The third topic we want to address this evening is section 15.3.7 of the agreement. It has been referred to by other witnesses before this committee, including Minister Akesuk earlier this evening. We also want to talk about the related principle of adjacency.
The agreement, as I am sure you know, is a land claims agreement within the meaning of section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, which is the supreme law of Canada. It is important to remember that the agreement was arrived at in exchange for the surrender of Aboriginal rights held for thousands of years. Because of its constitutional status, where there is any inconsistency or conflict between any federal, territorial or local government laws and the agreement, the land claim agreement must prevail to the extent of the inconsistency or conflict.
Being a part of the agreement, section 15.3.7 is, of course, protected by the Constitution. You have all likely read that provision at one point or another. It is a somewhat long section with a number of different parts to it. I would like to take a few minutes to break the section down for you, because it is so important to the issues that you are looking at, and hopefully to make its meaning clearer.
Pursuant to the terms of section 15.3.7, the Crown is subject to four interrelated obligations with respect to Nunavut Inuit. The first is to recognize the importance of the principle of adjacency. According to the Canadian Oxford Dictionary, a ``principle'' is a fundamental truth or law to be used as the basis of reasoning or action.
Second, the Crown is required to recognize the importance of the principle of economic dependence of communities in the Nunavut Settlement Area on marine resources.
Third, the Crown is required to give special consideration to both of these principles when allocating commercial fishing licences within Baffin Bay, Davis Strait, Hudson Strait, Hudson Bay and James Bay, except in areas that are part of another land claim settlement area.
Finally, the Crown is required to apply both of these principles in such a way as to promote a fair distribution of licences between the residents of the NSA and the other residents of Canada, in a manner consistent with Canada's interjurisdictional obligations.
The NWMB requests that the committee, as it undertakes this special study on quota allocations and benefits, use these constitutional obligations of the Crown as a yardstick to measure whether present allocations and benefits to Nunavut fishers are fair; and if they are not, to determine what allocations and benefits would be fair in the future.
Besides that constitutional yardstick, there are two other very helpful tools that the board believes will assist you in assessing the level of fairness in the turbot and shrimp fisheries adjacent to Nunavut. These are the two reports on resource access produced by the Federal-Provincial Atlantic Fisheries Committee Working Group.
In 1997, the working group produced a document with which you may be familiar, entitled ``Historic Resource Access/Provincial Share Groundfish Summary Report.'' That report, which was reviewed for accuracy and accepted by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the Atlantic Provinces, confirmed that during the period from 1979 to 1991, the fishers of a province adjacent to a fishing area were allocated the majority share of the adjacent groundfish resource. That share is generally in the 80 to 90 per cent range, or higher.
For instance, throughout the vast marine areas adjacent to Newfoundland and Labrador, the fishers of the province of Newfoundland were, and still are, allocated slightly more than 90 per cent of the resource. The report revealed one glaring exception to this strong correlation between adjacency and access — that is the Territory of Nunavut.
In 1999, the working group produced a companion document, entitled ``Resource Access/Provincial Shares Shellfish Summary Report.'' This time, the working group looked only at then current access, in 1997. However, the findings were essentially the same. In fact, the report did not even examine most of the shellfish fisheries, since it concluded ``For the large majority of shellfish fisheries, access is presently restricted to fishers from one province. Therefore, those are not an issue.''
With respect to shrimp, the working group reported on the three fisheries where fishers from more than one province do participate. Its findings were consistent with those of the 1997 report on groundfish.
In the Gulf of St. Lawrence, most directly adjacent to both Newfoundland and Quebec, the fishers of those two provinces share almost equally approximately 86 per cent of the quota. In the Scotian Shelf, directly adjacent to Nova Scotia, the fishers of that province are allocated 75 per cent of the quota for the mobile gear sector, and 100 per cent of the quota for the fixed gear sector.
Then there is the Offshore Northern, which has seven Shrimp Fishing Areas — 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6. Four of those seven are directly adjacent to Nunavut. In that large area, four provinces and one territory share seventeen licences. Newfoundland has eight licences; Quebec has three and a half; Nova Scotia has two; New Brunswick has two; and Nunavut has one and a half.
In combination with the IPAC report, to which Minister Akesuk has already referred, the NWMB believes that the two working group reports and section 15.3.7 provide a strong foundation for the 12 objectives and recommendations contained in that joint GN-NTI-NWMB submission to the Senate committee.
With that, I turn it back for the conclusion to Mr. Kovic.
Mr. Kovic: Thank you. Our final point concerns the assistance that the NWMB is seeking from the Senate committee. During the last few years, a clear consensus has emerged among knowledgeable observers that Nunavut has not been treated fairly with respect to its adjacent fisheries. What Nunavut needs today is the political will in Ottawa to take the steps necessary to make all of the required changes within a reasonable period of time.
Minister Akesuk has already referred to your excellent report, produced last year, on Canada's freshwater and northern fisheries. That report and its recommendations have made an important difference. You will recall that when the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans appeared before you in June 2002, he said: ``Your Committee is a well-respected voice in my department. Your recent reports on aquaculture and freshwater and northern fisheries have given my department much food for thought. In fact, our decision to provide Nunavut with 4,000 tonnes of a new turbot fishery in NAFO Division 0A stemmed in part from your recommendation that our newest territory be given fair access to our Atlantic fishery.''
Given that kind of endorsement from your committee and its 2002 report, as well as the results that the report helped to produce, what the NWMB is seeking from this committee is simple and straightforward: Another strong report — one that will help to generate the further political will necessary to make the needed changes.
We hope that your report will firmly endorse the 12 objectives and 12 recommendations in our joint submission. The NWMB is prepared tonight, and at any time in the future, to answer your questions and to assist the committee in its important work.
The Deputy Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Kovic. Colleagues, we will begin our round of questions and we will take 10 minutes each.
Senator Watt: I will speak in Inuktitut.
[Interpretation]
There has been an agreement made with Canada. It has been a year since you made your first presentation. Has there been any change to this date?
Mr. Akesuk: It has been almost two years now. We were here in May 2001. No change has been made since I was here last. However, the Government of Nunavut has been working on this. We would like to work more on fisheries matters and to have more development. The Baffin Fisheries Coalition has developed, and they would like to have a good direction with regard to fisheries. This has really given us good support, and things have improved since I was here last year. Looking at the development within Nunavut, we have had some success in going forward. It has showed us the strength that we can have, and the goal for our future.
Senator Watt: Looking at your presentation here, as well as Mr. Kovic's presentation, I would like to bring out the fact that $100 million is going outside of Nunavut. You are looking at that with regard to adjacency. This goes back to your government. Ms. Towtongie said the bottom line is that 90 per cent is outside of Nunavut, and the Government of Canada has made an agreement through article 15.3.7. As I recall, Jose Kusugak, when he was president of NTI, had you going to court on this point — is that correct?
Mr. Akesuk: I do not recall too much of what was going on when Jose took this to court, but the economic development for the people in Nunavut and in our waters can be accessed by everyone. However, we are looking at possible economic development, and also at the 26 per cent quotas allocated to us. We can go further than this. There can be more development if we can get more quota allocation than we have now. You asked about Jose Kusugak. I wonder if one of the other people here with me would be better able to answer this question.
[English]
Mr. d'Eca: The NDI did go to court with respect to section 15.3.7 — not once, but actually four times — in two different cases, both of which went to the Federal Court and then to the Federal Court of Appeal. It has been looked at by the courts and we have had mixed success. Of those four appearances in court, NTI was successful twice and the government was successful twice.
In terms of the court's interpretation of section 15.3.7, in my talk I said that section says that the Crown must give special consideration to these principles. One judge said, ``That means that they have to give priority consideration for licences in these commercial fishing areas to Nunavut Inuit.'' It went to the Federal Court of Appeal, because Canada appealed it. They said, ``No, you do not have to have priority consideration for licences, but section 15.3.7 requires the establishment of a principle of equity in the distribution of commercial fishing licences in these areas.'' Here, ``equity'' means fairness. That is really where the law now stands.
I want to make the point that that is also really what this panel of people is saying. If it must be equitable, then let us look at what the standard is. When you look across the Atlantic fisheries, the standard is that if you are adjacent to a fishing area, you get 80 to 90 per cent of the resource. Further, a number of important points have been made about the amount of funding that is devoted to fisheries infrastructure. Again, we seek equity, which is what the courts have interpreted section 15.3.7 to be aimed at.
Senator Watt: I will not dwell on that because it needs to be dealt with in the future.
[Interpretation]
I will continue in Inuktitut.
Looking at the $100-million agreement from your region, what do you do with your 26 per cent? What money does that represent from your resources?
[English]
Mr. Bonnell: I could comment on that. If you look at the offshore shrimp and turbot fishery in Nunavut's adjacent waters, it has a value to Nunavut, the territory itself, in the range of $9 million to $10 million in royalty payments, and in employment on the vessels, in the plants and in the fishery.
We need to recognize that you need security of resource to build capacity. It is very difficult for a community to do much with 200 metric tons of quota in terms of building capacity. That goes back to the discussions in the coalition about building capacity as a group. In terms of where we want to go, we use the term ``about $100 million.'' That would be the entire landed value of the quotas in our waters. Not all those quotas are harvested fully, but a significant portion is.
Right now, if we talk about what resources Nunavut has, land and value would be in the range of $30-million-plus. We see ourselves getting a larger share of that over the coming years as we start to move into vessel investment and ownership, taking control and revenue sharing, and away from royalties. That is the direction this industry is going.
Problems have been raised tonight such as lack of infrastructure and how we will land our product if we have no ports. Anybody who visits our northern communities will see 35- to 45-foot boats with holes in their sides because there is nowhere to land. We have tidal problems and no core science budget. There is an inequitable distribution of quota. We have 26 per cent, but as I indicated earlier, in actuality, if you take away the exploratory quotas, the numbers are worse. No other jurisdiction would tolerate it. You could ask the question: How would residents from Newfoundland feel if 70 to 80 per cent of their crab resource on the northeast coast went to groups from New Brunswick or Nova Scotia, or vice versa? That is what we face today.
[Interpretation]
Senator Watt: The $100 million is just an example. Given the 26 per cent that you have and the development, infrastructure and resources that are required, have you looked at how much money you need?
[English]
You are bringing in $10 million now. What is the total cost of the infrastructure requirement? Have you done any studies on that?
Mr. Bonnell: In the submission that we have provided, we have looked at a number of factors in terms of small craft harbours, for example. The cost of the average small craft harbour is estimated to be in the range of $3 million.
Senator Watt: Could you give me the total picture, if you have it?
Mr. Bonnell: Are you asking for the total value of infrastructure dollars needed?
Senator Watt: The total requirement for you to what you want to do.
Mr. Bonnell: In terms of physical infrastructure, two to three small craft harbours in the range of about $10 million would be required.
Senator Watt: Each?
Mr. Bonnell: No, to put two or three in place, as a starting point, for some of our coastal communities. Right now, Pangnirtung has a fish plant, but nowhere to land its product; they have no harbour facilities. If you look at fisheries development and diversification, and I do not have exact numbers on what is required, but in terms of things like vessel buy-outs, if you are talking about buying out a 65-foot operation, it could be anywhere from $2.5 million to $6 million. Those are the kinds of numbers. We would like to see progress over a period of time. Things will not happen overnight, everyone recognizes that, but steps need to be taken on those four or five key areas to get us to where we want to go.
[Interpretation]
Senator Adams: I would like to thank the Nunavut students for coming this evening to our committee hearing. As the minister mentioned, you might be sitting here in the future. You are here to further your education.
Thank you, minister. I will be asking you questions in Inuktitut, but some questions will be in English.
Minister, you mentioned in your presentation the work you are doing with the BFC. How did this begin? How were the allocations set? What did the Nunavut government do?
Mr. Akesuk: We were looking at the fisheries in the Nunavut region and what the Inuit can do. We were looking at the fisheries allocations being given to the fisheries outside Nunavut, to Newfoundland and Nova Scotia fisheries. We are looking to see if we can have Nunavut-owned fisheries, where economic resources are coming into our territories. We are looking at the fisheries organizations taking the economic resources outside Nunavut. We are looking at adjacent fisheries to see what we can do in partnership with DFO before this goes too far.
The fish stocks are available in our waters but a big percentage of the fish is taken outside of our regions.
We would like to see more of the economic resources stay within Nunavut. This will help us with our economy. This will help the Inuit in Nunavut.
This is our goal. This is what we are bringing forward here. Mr. Bonnell can add to this.
[English]
Mr. Bonnell: The origin of the coalition goes back about three years. At the time when the quota increase took place, we, the Nunavut Wildlife Management Board, Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans met with all the groups that have been involved in the industry and said that there are a couple of options. We could look at starting to build some capacity together, bringing resources together and have a sort of sector champion role in reinvesting in emerging fisheries, training, the inshore and offshore fisheries and supporting local communities. It is a community-based focus.
The members at the time, the hunters and trappers organizations and the other groups, said this is the direction they would like to pursue. They came together and the coalition was formed. That is how it has built over the last several years. They put ``X'' percentage of their royalty revenues aside for vessel investment, ``X'' for training and ``X'' percentage for emerging fisheries development in the communities and supporting the fish plant in Pangnirtung. Capacity building has been a theme for the last several years. How do we develop our capacity? Let us use the royalties in a way that will lead to vessel investment and ownership. That is the vision that has been laid out and has worked quite well.
Ms. Wheatley: It is the Nunavut Wildlife Management Board that does the allocation. The initial allocation was 2,000 metric tons, based on the research that the NWMB, along with DFO, had funded in 0A in 1999.
Prior to that, there had been some preliminary sentinel fisheries, which is where the vessels fish specific spots to see what the numbers are. The fishing was not done as a quota, but as so many fishing days. Nobody had a history in that fishery. No one had established a history. None of those precedents were there. We also had many discussions with the Nunavut Fisheries Working Group that if we were ever going to see the fishery develop in Nunavut, we needed to consolidate as opposed to breaking apart. The fishery was not going to develop with a few hundred metric tons being given to each community. Whereas that would give immediate gratification to the communities and they would see immediate income, in the long-term picture, the only way it would happen was to keep it together and leverage that, as has happened, toward getting a vessel and developing other fisheries.
That was the recommendation from the fisheries working group. We met with the fishers, with the various organizations involved, and that is what led to the Baffin Fisheries Coalition.
[Interpretation]
Senator Adams: In the past three years since this began, what progress have you seen? What more is needed in the future to develop this as an economic resource? What can Inuit get from this? Do they report to you yearly on their progress?
Mr. Akesuk: They did come to visit me last week. They gave me a proposal on what they would like to do and a report on what they have done to date. They do see me yearly. As a government, we do give them the support that they need. We look at what we can do to support them.
The committee members will be coming here as witnesses to this committee. As the minister, I do come to speak to different ministers of the federal government. I spoke to Mr. Martin today with regard to this issue.
We try, as a government, to give as much support as possible. We look at what more we can do to give aid to DFO. We are very grateful for the work that they have done up to now and the efforts they have made.
Senator Adams: You mentioned the money that would be needed, the $350,000 to $600,000. Is this to train people for the fisheries? What does this money do to help you prepare? What kind of training does it provide?
Mr. Akesuk: It does involve training. We have different fisheries programs. The different steps that are needed are identified. They identify the different training programs that are needed and the employment that can come out of this. We look at how this can be better organized to best utilize these monies and how they are divided among the different programs.
Let us use the purchase of a boat as an example. The boat would cost $17 million. We would have to give support to this and work as partners toward this goal. We divide the money among different projects.
Senator Adams: Who runs the royalties and the fisheries working group? How do they help with the BFC? Are they both under the BFC, or are they a different organization?
[English]
Mr. Bonnell: The Nunavut Fisheries Working Group is very much an ad hoc group formed in 1999 or early 2000 that consists of our department, the Nunavut Wildlife Management Board, Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. It was a tool to bring the relevant parties together to discuss key issues related to fisheries development and to work together to help the fishery move forward in Nunavut. It is an ad hoc group consisting of the four bodies. We provide support and advice where recommended, whether to the Baffin Fisheries Coalition, Pangnirtung Fisheries or any other group related to or interested in getting into the fishery. It is an ad hoc board that has been very effective in the last several years.
[Interpretation]
Senator Adams: In the presentation given by the hunters and trappers organizations they noted the shrimp and turbot fisheries. What amount of money are the royalties bringing in?
[English]
Mr. Bonnell: I am not sure if I understood the question. Was it what are the royalties that are currently granted in the offshore fishing industry?
Senator Adams: Yes, for the last three years.
Mr. Bonnell: That is something that is known to the group in question, whether the hunters and trappers or the Baffin Fisheries Coalition. They would have that information. Royalties could range widely. It is quite low for shrimp now because of poor market conditions. Turbot is better these days because the market is fairly good. I would not know exact figures, but royalties could range anywhere from $400 to $700 per metric ton for turbot, depending upon who the contractor is, what are the requirements, how many people are working on the boat, how much product has to be landed in Pangnirtung or any other number of questions. We would not know that ourselves, because the group has that information, but that would be a ballpark figure as to what groups would be getting right now in terms of royalties.
Senator Adams: A few years ago, I remember the minister coming to the Fisheries Committee, and I asked whether, in the future, we would have a fund for the people and equipment in the community. He told me in the committee they would only give you 27 per cent royalties. That was supposed to go to the fishermen. Did the government tell you how the policy works, or does the Nunavut government say you can allocate it to the community HTO or any organization? Is that the way it is set up right now for the royalty money coming in from the government?
Mr. Bonnell: If you are talking about allocation, that would be more of a question for the Nunavut Wildlife Management Board. My only comment on royalties is the one I made earlier, on the need for Nunavut to move toward ownership, away from royalties and away from having to negotiate deals that may or may not be in the best interests of various communities. That is where this industry has to go, and where it is going. I am not sure about allocations. Perhaps the NWMB could answer that question.
Ms. Wheatley: When we evaluate the applications from a Hunters and Trappers Organization, HTO, or Regional Wildlife Organization, RWO, ownership is one of the high-ranking priorities, as is existing organizations. There is a list. The priorities come out of the land claim agreement. Certainly, if we had two applications from the same community, one supported by the HTO and one from an individual, then the one with the HTO support would rank higher because it benefits the community as a whole.
Senator Hubley: I would very gladly turn my question time over to either Senator Adams or Senator Watt, because they certainly keep the northern fishery and all northern issues very much before our committee.
I would like to welcome you and thank you for coming. I would also like to welcome the students. To have a group of young people come to listen in at one of our committee meetings is a rare pleasure. I hope you find it interesting. While it is hard not to give advice to young people these days, if I had any to give, because I am certainly older than you are, it would be to never forget where you came from.
Having said that, I do not have a long list of questions because Senator Adams and Senator Watt are very much in tune with the situation.
My interest is in the resource that you have in the fisheries and the benefit it should bring to your people. I have listened quite intently and heard you mention training programs a number of times. I believe it was the minister who gave us the number of people who were involved in different aspects of the fisheries — 40 to 50 in one, 50 to 60, and 50 to 60, which comes to about 170 people, plus many involved in the Arctic char fishery. It does not seem like a large number of individuals.
There were so many things here. Number 4 indicates that a trained, northern-based workforce is obviously key to the successful development of the fishing industry and to the benefit of all the people in Nunavut. I could not agree more. With your infrastructure presently so lacking, I am wondering what your strategies are. What could we put in place and what recommendations could we make so that you will have a reasonable infrastructure and the people in your communities will be the first to benefit from the resources that you have?
Mr. Bonnell: Training is a key issue we face. My first answer to you is that we do the best with what we have. We lack the infrastructure, but we recognize that a trained workforce is essential.
I will give you one example in the offshore fishery. Back in June of this year, the Baffin Fisheries Coalition put on a training program in partnership with Nunavut Arctic College and with the Marine Institute of Newfoundland as the delivery agent. They put 20 people through a training program. I believe anywhere from 12 to 14 of those are employed right now in the offshore fishing industry.
While our numbers are not great, if you look at economies of scale, it is really progressing quickly and there is tremendous potential for the future. The Baffin Fisheries Coalition, in particular, is about to put in a major submission to HRDC to look at a long-term training program, which is essential.
Those are some of the key issues. As you have said, basic infrastructure such as harbour facilities and a core science budget are the essentials of fisheries development. Some would say that on the harbour side, it is a form of nation building still to be completed in our northern environment. Without that, it will be difficult to move forward and fully develop the benefits from the resource. The training programs are in place and developing. We will see further results and further successes from them.
Mr. Alex Campbell, Deputy Minister, Nunavut Department of Sustainable Development: Madam Chair, one of the things we glazed over in the presentation is the economic development strategy that we have developed over the past two years. I think honourable senators have copies of that strategy. It is the government's attempt to bring the different sectors into some perspective on where we want to take the economy of Nunavut in the next 5 to 10 years.
One thing that should be pointed out is the collaborative effort in developing that strategy. There were 24 organizations involved. One of the sectors, of course, was the fisheries sector that we are talking about right now. We will be developing a strategy around that as well.
We agree with you that there is a lack of infrastructure. We have made that point here; 100 jobs, 200 jobs, are significant for Nunavut, with a population of 28,000 people, many of them young. Any seasonal or permanent jobs that we do achieve through our strategies are certainly a bonus for our efforts.
One of the things that will help the cause in Nunavut is the very reason why we are sitting here, and that is to convince you to make recommendations to the government to increase the quota allocations for the resource. That is number one.
The next one is infrastructure development. Senator Watt asked what amount of money is needed. We are probably looking at about $50 million for infrastructure investment alone to get the industry going. Those are the kind of figures that we are looking at just in the fisheries sector.
We are looking at long-term investment by the government. We do not have the infrastructure right now. We do not have the trained workforce. We need to develop that capacity, and that is the main thrust of our presentation tonight.
Senator Hubley: Can I ask how you would spend the $50 million? I will give you a minute to think about it.
You did mention that small craft harbours would be $3 million a piece. You looked at $10 million. Then there is the purchasing of vessels, and that is an expensive proposition. Exactly how many vessels would you purchase, and what size? Does your proposed small craft harbour accommodate every size of vessel?
Mr. Campbell: No.
Senator Hubley: We are talking about a small craft harbour right now. Even the freezer trawlers will not be able to come into any of your ports. That is another part of the industry, is it not?
Mr. Campbell: That is correct. You have highlighted the small craft harbours. We are proposing three immediately. There are other communities in Nunavut that would require that infrastructure. There are the vessels that we talked about. Seventeen million dollars is the estimate for purchasing one.
Senator Hubley: How many vessels would you need?
Mr. Campbell: We are looking at one at the present time.
Mr. Akesuk: We also only have one meat processing facility. We would like to build several more in smaller communities. That would be a big benefit to them. The unemployment rate is very high in many communities in Nunavut. That is why we are very interested in the fisheries sector and making sure we succeed in the future in order to benefit the people who need jobs, and the young people who are graduating for whom there are no jobs available. It is a major investment that we will work on to make sure we have jobs for the people.
Senator Hubley: I could not agree more. If you have the richness of the resource, it would be nice to benefit from your share of it. Being able to process some of it, at any rate, would certainly provide jobs for your communities. That then builds communities. If you have healthy communities, you have a healthy population.
Mr. Campbell: We are also trying to lessen the dependency on the public purse. The more resources available, the more development initiatives provided for Nunavuumiut, the less we will depend on the government and the rest of Canada. That is the bottom line.
The Deputy Chairman: We have reached the end of our time, but by agreement, we will have one short question for each of you.
Since 1992, the Aboriginal Fisheries Strategy has provided over $326 million in commitments, with $78 million under the Allocation Transfer Program, which has provided for licence allocation, vessel gear and whatever. Ninety vessels have been transferred to or purchased for Aboriginal communities. The federal government has deemed Nunavut groups ineligible for these funding programs.
Cathy Towtongie, the president of the NTI, indicated during her appearance here in September that this is an area that Nunavut is pursuing, so I am interested in hearing about your strategy to gain some of these benefits.
Mr. Bonnell: I could comment on that. We have raised this issue with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans on many occasions in the last three years, as well as the need for us to be included in the benefits of the Aboriginal Fisheries Strategy, and in particular, the Allocation Transfer Program of the Aboriginal Fisheries Strategy. That program involves buying out quota transfers and support for Aboriginal groups in Atlantic Canada. It has been very effective. The Department of Fisheries and Oceans has said we do not qualify for this program because we have a land claims agreement in place.
You have probably heard from a number of people already who we do not agree with that. There are articles of the land claim agreement, specifically 2.7.3, which states nothing in the agreement shall affect the ability of Inuit to participate in and benefit from government programs for Inuit or Aboriginal people. That seems fairly clear; however, that program has not been open to Nunavut. We are talking about that frequently now. We have met with and talked to Nunavut Tunngavik about it. It will be looked at in greater detail, given the need, where we are trying to go and the fact it has been very restrictive for us to this point. We have said that if we do not qualify, they should put a program in place that does fit our standards. However, the need is just as great.
As for quota expansion, it is hard to determine what we need unless we have the resources in place. We need security of resource before we can invest; and it is hard to place a dollar value on what we need right now in terms of those sorts of programs. We need the security of resource before looking at investing in a program. The Allocation Transfer Program of the Aboriginal Fisheries Strategy would be very well suited to that.
Senator Watt: This will be a difficult question. I will try to condense it, but I am sure that a long answer would have to be provided.
We are hearing you say, ``Look, we are here and we have the resources. We have a deal with the country. We do not want to continue to be dependent upon the government handouts. We want to be able to develop our resources. The government will have to make a decision. You continue to keep giving us more money for infrastructure needs, while at the same time you are also giving us a quota.'' The other angle of what you are saying is, ``Give us a sufficient quota. Let us take that quota, go to the financial institutions and leverage the necessary dollars to put up the infrastructure.'' Is that what you are saying?
Mr. Akesuk: Yes, it is.
Senator Watt: It is either one or the other.
Mr. Akesuk: Yes. As I said at the end of my speech, ``Take away your harbour facilities, port facilities and marine service centres, which we do not have in Nunavut.'' Even though we do not have those, and the other provinces and territories do, we are trying to do our very best to ensure that our fishing industry succeeds in the future. If we were to have access to the programs that are available to other provinces and territories, we would probably have a very good fishing industry. Without these programs being available to the territory of Nunavut, it is very hard for us to succeed. We need these programs to be open to us to have a successful fishing industry in the future.
Senator Watt: Thank you.
[Interpretation]
Senator Adams: I would like to ask you a question, Mr. Kovic, about the report that you gave — that there are nine members of the NWMB, and there are about 17 people on your board here. When you meet to do the quota allocations, what do you do?
Mr. Kovic: Thank you, Senator Adams. The committee looks at past allocations given. As I mentioned, they look at the different things that have been done to date. There is really no other way, when we are allocating quota, than to go by the guidelines that have been set for us.
Senator Adams: From Nunavut, do they agree to your needs, to the things that you request? Do they agree to what you are asking for, such as for DFO applications?
Mr. Kovic: I am not sure what question you are asking. Is it the tonnage or the quotas?
Senator Adams: The tonnage. Is that enough?
Mr. Kovic: The tonnage for turbot and for shrimp is set by NAFO, and then we start to look at allocating it out. We have been mentioning that we do want more allocations; we do want more quotas. After NAFO has given us the studies on what can be fished out there, and they give the tonnage to us, we then take it from there and allocate quotas.
Senator Adams: My next question is about the three communities that have faxed to us this document about Division 0A. I do not think you have much control over the 4,000 metric tons. The communities here, and the eight adjacent communities, want 1,000 metric tons each — Pond Inlet, Clyde River and Qikiqtarjuaq. If they do request these things from you, would that give you more power in being able to allocate?
Mr. Kovic: Senator Adams, I only saw this application as I walked in tonight. I cannot respond at this time. We need to look at this as a board before we can answer these. We have talked about the Baffin Fisheries Coalition and their three-year plan for the 4,000 metric tons. Tonight we have talked about the 4,000 metric tons given to the Baffin Fisheries Coalition for the next three years, and there are no other quotas to be allotted. There was also mention of new quotas. Unless new quotas are given out, we would have to take quotas that are already allocated to other people, and we cannot really do that.
Today, as we are trying to increase our economic development, it is very difficult to take from existing quotas already given out. We cannot really give quotas to new fisheries that are coming out to either fish turbot or shrimp unless new quotas are given to us. This is what we need for the new fisheries emerging in our regions. We need to see the quotas in 0B increased. If the quotas that are not reached in the adjacent areas are allocated to us, then maybe we can give them to the new fisheries.
Mr. Akesuk: To add to that, the 4,000 metric tons that we are talking about in sector 0A are all being caught. The allotted quota in that area is being caught. It is up to 3,800 metric tons in this sector. This has been successful. A long time ago when these allocations were first being given out, these quotas were given to non-Nunavut fisheries.
As the Government of Nunavut, we need to buy from other quotas. This is the buyout that I am speaking about — if the Newfoundland fisheries that go out to 0B have not reached their quotas, we would buy from them. Even though this is in our waters, the quota is allocated to them. We need to look further into this to see what we can do in the future — to look at buying out the quotas from other fisheries. The Government of Nunavut needs to work together with the Government of Canada on this for future goals to be accomplished. We would like to work with this Senate committee in this matter for the success of Nunavut.
[English]
Senator Adams: Those people come from Nunavut. They may not come back for another year.
[Interpretation]
When does that three-year agreement begin?
[English]
I thought Mr. Kovic said the agreement on the quotas for 0A was for three years. They could not allocate any others; it would break the rule because they had set up a three-year agreement for that quota of 4,000 metric tons. When did that start — is that a year ago or last year?
Ms. Wheatley: I believe this was the third year of the Baffin Fisheries Coalition agreement. I believe the initial agreement with the Baffin Fisheries Coalition was to work together for three years. There was a guarantee of renewability. Things are looking good — we have to discuss what happens after this, but certainly the intention has been to keep it together.
On your previous question about the 0A and the quota there, adjacent to 0A is 1A on the Greenland side; and the initial research done in 1999 in 0A resulted in a recommendation for 0A plus 1A of 4,000 metric tons of turbot. From the beginning, the recommendation from the Nunavut Wildlife Management Board and the Nunavut Fisheries Working Group has been that the majority of that should be harvested on the Nunavut side.
However, in all of our discussions — because we participate in the Canada-Greenland bilateral meetings — Greenland has insisted it wants to take 50 per cent. They did do some research in 1A at the same time as the second round of research in 0A, and the combined amounts resulted in a recommendation of a quota of 8,000 metric tons for 0A plus 1A. There is very little history of Greenland fishing in 1A, but since these new findings, they have done some. However, they are insisting each year that they will claim 50 per cent of that, even though they have come nowhere near harvesting that amount — and that is probably what is restricting things right now.
Although the majority of the resource, from the research, appears to be on the Canadian side, it is being split 50-50 between Canada and Greenland. The Nunavut Wildlife Management Board has recommended to the minister that Canada fight for a greater share, but that has not happened. It has been a consistent recommendation, and, therefore, one of the other places, potentially, through the international discussions, to go after.
Senator Watt: For clarification on the point that Senator Adams asked in regard to 4,000 metric tons of turbot — 100 per cent — taken out of, let us say, 0A, if I understand correctly, this is an experiment, a four-year deal. Is it a three-year or a four-year deal, using that area for experimental purposes? What is the duration of that agreement?
Mr. Bonnell: If you are referring to whether it is an exploratory fishery or a commercial one, this is the third year of an exploratory fishery. The results are good, the catch rates are good, and it has been relatively successful. Therefore, I think that over the next several years this will progress into a full-fledged commercial fishery. However, at this time, it is still exploratory.
Senator Watt: There is no deadline.
Mr. Bonnell: Not to my knowledge; but DFO has its process, so once it feels it has enough information on which to base the permanent quota to make it commercial, that decision will be made. I am not sure when, but it will be some time in the future.
The Acting Chairman: On behalf of the committee, I would like to thank you for the clarity with which you presented your issues to us. I believe I speak for all members of the committee when I say that we will put your concerns forward. I believe that you are on the right track to making your territory a viable one that can take its place in the Canadian economy. I am confident, with the young people that you brought here tonight sitting in the room, that you have a bright future, and I want to thank you all for the time you took to be here.
The committee adjourned.