;

FISH Committee Report

If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at accessible@parl.gc.ca.

Committee Report

INTRODUCTION

On April 1, 1999, Nunavut will officially become Canada's third territory. As we draw closer to this date, the federal government is committed to a smooth transition and is providing Inuit with the tools to assume their new responsibilities. The determination of Northerners to achieve their longstanding goal of self-government has been strong and the creation of a new territory is a momentous achievement, every step of which is being watched with envy and respect both at home in Canada and across the world. What started as a dream many years ago, is finally becoming a reality for Inuit.

In the spring of 1998, the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans traveled to Nunavut as part of its commitment to visit all regions of Canada. This visit provided members with the opportunity to gain a deeper understanding of the lifestyle and culture of Canada's Inuit, in particular the ways in which tradition plays such an important role in all aspects of their lives. Inuit are primarily a marine people who have always depended on the resources of the land and sea for their survival. The importance of their ties to the land and sea are evident in Inuit carvings, legends, clothing and customs. As the modern world encroaches on their traditional environment, Inuit are responding to the challenge by maintaining the balance with nature that their ancestors attained while adapting to the use of modern technology such as the computer.

While visiting the communities of Baffin Island, members were impressed by the deep passion displayed when fishermen and other witnesses spoke about the sea and its resources. The people of Nunavut displayed a strong attachment to the land and sea which was evident in all members of the community from the children playing in the streets to the elders who paid scrupulous attention at the meetings from the backs of community halls. All members of the Committee were in agreement that Inuit do indeed have unique needs and that they as a Committee and as individuals would do everything possible to bring their voice to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and to the people of Canada.

Many issues were touched on, but several important themes were raised in every community:

Turbot and shrimp quotas must be distributed more fairly and in accordance with the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement. In all other regions of Canada, access to the resource is based on the key principles of adjacency and historic attachment; however, these concepts appear to have been abandoned when quotas were allocated to Nunavut. Establishing a fair and consistent policy with respect to access to resources in accordance with the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement is imperative.
It is vitally important to conserve resources and maintain the viability of fisheries so that future generations will be able to enjoy a lifestyle similar to that of their ancestors. To achieve this goal, Inuit believe it is vital to make the best use of their traditional knowledge combined with information from sound scientific research. Inuit wish to utilize modern technology to harvest the bounty of the sea while adhering to environmentally sensitive policies and procedures.
In order to ensure the protection of resources, community members would also like to see a stronger presence from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. Community members are anxious to work together with the Department and the federal government to achieve common goals.
There is also a pressing need for improved infrastructure in many communities. Such development would allow Inuit to maximize the benefits from the fishing industry and would also allow them to capitalize on other important opportunities for economic development.

The people of Nunavut are ready and willing to work with the federal government to accomplish common goals including, better communications, more research, improved conservation, greater employment opportunities, and infrastructure in the remote communities of Canada's North. This will in turn lead to increasing self-reliance and better socio-economic conditions for Canada's Inuit.

Turbot Quotas, Allocations and Licensing in Davis Strait

A major issue raised by a number of witnesses during the Committee's visit to Baffin Island was the disproportionately low share of the total allowable catch (TAC) of turbot 1 in the Davis Strait fishery (NAFO Subarea 0) allocated to Nunavut. According to figures presented by the Nunavut Wildlife Management Board (NWMB), Nunavut's share of the TAC for Subarea 0 in 1997 was only 24.2%, even less than the 27.3% Nunavut received in 1996.

Despite NWMB representations to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans for an increase in Nunavut's share, the NWMB did not expect the situation to improve. The Department had already indicated that it was satisfied with the status quo and had no intention of making any meaningful changes to allocations in the fishery.

The history of fishing for turbot in Davis Strait is relatively short. Inuit fishermen began fishing for turbot in this area in 1986 and were the only Canadian fishermen to record turbot catches in the Strait up to 1990 when Canada instituted a "developmental" fishery. This allowed some Canadian companies to hire foreign vessels to fish large quota allocations. Nunavut was excluded from the developmental fishery 2 until 1992 when it received a small allocation.

In 1993, the government introduced a Competitive Quota to the Davis Strait fishery; however, this quota has been and continues to be available only to holders of Atlantic groundfish licences from Newfoundland and Nova Scotia. The Minister has refused to issue even a single licence to residents of Nunavut. Furthermore, the competitive quota has increased faster than any other part of the TAC, almost quadrupling from 500 tonnes in 1994 to 1,908 tonnes in 1997.

As a representative of the Qikiqtaaluk Corporation pointed out, the majority of the quota for Subarea 0 has been allocated to companies from outside Nunavut. Without permanent groundfish licences, Nunavut fishermen are restricted to Subarea 0. Thus, while outside companies and fishermen enjoy access to the waters adjacent to Nunavut, Nunavut-based companies have no reciprocal access to fishing areas outside Subarea 0. This issue is important for the economic development of Nunavut. As the NWMB pointed out, the acquisition of permanent groundfish licences in combination with an increase in Nunavut's share of the Davis Strait turbot fishery would provide adjacent Nunavut fishermen with the economic certainty to purchase their own vessel(s) to harvest turbot in Davis Strait.

The low allocation of turbot quota to Nunavut appears to be contrary to the provisions of the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement (NLCA). The 1993 NLCA established a new legal regime, which is mandated and protected not only by statute but by the Constitution. It requires the Minister, when making commercial fishing allocations in Canada's 200-mile fishing zone beyond the Nunavut Settlement Area (NSA), to give special consideration to the principles of adjacency and the economic dependence on marine resources of communities in the NSA.

The NWMB representative argued that adjacency is a fundamental principle underlying the allocation of quotas throughout the Atlantic fishery and one to which the Department itself has documented adherence in a report entitled Historic Resource Access/Provincial Share Groundfish Summary Report. By contrast, even though the turbot fishery in Division 0B is directly adjacent to Baffin Island, 73% of this fishery is currently allocated to fishermen from southern Canada. In the view of the NWMB "the treatment of the Nunavut Inuit is a glaring anomaly in the application of the principle of adjacency."

The Inuit of Nunavut are very dependent on marine resources. Twenty-six of Nunavut's27 communities are located on the coast. As the NWMB explained, the marine environment adjacent to Nunavut is as important to Inuit as offshore areas are to any coastal people in other parts of Canada or indeed in the world.

The NLCA gives the NWMB primary jurisdiction over fisheries management, including the establishment and allocation of quotas, in the Nunavut Settlement Area, which includes the Canada's 12-mile Territorial Sea off the east coast of Baffin Island. In the area known as Zone 1 3 under the NLCA, the Minister retains the authority to set and allocate quotas. However, according to the NWMB, the NLCA has made two crucial and mandatory changes to the way the Minister must manage the Arctic fisheries in Zone 1. These are that:

The Minister must seek and consider the advice of the NWMB on the management of the fishery; and,

The Minister must exercise discretion in allocating quotas within the 200-mile fishing zone so as to benefit Nunavut Inuit.

The NWMB has recommended to the Minister that the Davis Strait turbot allocations to Nunavut be significantly increased. They have proposed a four-year schedule that would see a phased-in increase in the Nunavut share of the TAC rising to 80% in the year 2001. The NWMB has also requested two groundfish licences that would be no more restrictive as to area, species, season or gear than licences granted to southern fishermen who fish in the north. To place this in context, the Board pointed out that there are approximately 5,275 groundfish licence holders who have the right to access turbot anywhere along the Atlantic coast, including the waters adjacent to Nunavut. No Nunavut fishermen currently have access to turbot, or other groundfish under the competitive quota either, in the waters directly adjacent to Nunavut or elsewhere.

Six weeks before the 1997 federal election, the Minister decided to increase the Subarea0 TAC for turbot by 1,100 tonnes, 90% of which went to fishermen outside Nunavut. This decision was made against the advice of the NWMB, the Fisheries Resource Conservation Council (FRCC) and the Minister's own officials. In May 1997, Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated (NTI) filed a judicial review application in the Federal Court for the Minister's decision regarding turbot quotas for the Davis Strait fishery to be set aside. On 16 July 1997, Mr. Justice Campbell of the Federal Court handed down a decision that strongly supported NTI with respect to NWMB advice and recommendations, the granting of unrestricted groundfish licences for Nunavut and priority consideration for Nunavut Inuit.

Following the election, the new Minister responded by reducing the TAC to 5,500 tonnes, slightly increasing Nunavut's share to 25.4%, approximately equal to its 1994 share but still almost 2% lower than its share for 1996. The Minister continued to refuse to issue an unrestricted groundfish licence, without providing an explanation. At the time of the Committee's visit, NTI had filed an application for a judicial review of this re-determination by the Minister. The Minister had also filed an appeal of the initial decision.

At the time of the Committee's visit, the 1998 decision on turbot allocations in the Davis Strait fishery had not been announced.4 According to the NWMB, departmental officials had already indicated in a December 1997 meeting with the NWMB that the Department deemed Nunavut's share to be fair and rejected the possibility of issuing licences to Nunavut "equal" to those issued to southern fishermen fishing in the north.

The NWMB's characterisation of the Department's position is summed up in the following paragraph:

This intransigent attitude is clearly unjust. It ignores the history of substantial Inuit involvement in the Davis Strait fishery; it ignores the Department's practice throughout the rest of the Atlantic Groundfish fishery; it ignores stated DFO policy regarding adjacency; it ignores the Federal Court's decision on the matter; it ignores the NWMB's advice and recommendations; finally, and most disturbingly, it ignores several constitutionally-protected provisions of the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement, most notably, Section 15.3.7.5

In its submission, the NWMB recommended to the Committee that it:

Urge the Minister to make a commitment to a process of fundamental change in the Davis Strait fishery, commencing with the 1998 allocations;

Assess the 1998 Davis Strait allocations to determine whether the Minister has commenced such a change and report on this to Parliament; and,

Continue to monitor and report on the Department's management of the Davis Strait fishery for the duration of its mandate.

The Committee agrees with the Nunavut Wildlife Management Board and other witnesses who recommended a significant increase in the allocation of Davis Strait turbot allocation in Subarea 0 to Nunavut. The current allocation of only 27% of the total allowable catch of turbot to Nunavut appears to be contrary to: the letter and spirit of the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement; the 16 July 1997 decision of Mr. Justice Campbell of the Federal Court; the principles of adjacency and historic attachment as practised in other regions of Canada, and any concept of basic fairness and equity.

Recommendation 1

The Committee recommends that the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans immediately enter into negotiations with the Nunavut Wildlife Management Board and other Nunavut stakeholders to increase Nunavut's share of the David Strait turbot allocation to a level consistent with the practice throughout the rest of Atlantic Canada as documented in the report Historic Resource Access/Provincial Share Groundfish Summary Report. The Minister should demonstrate his commitment to equitable treatment of all Canadians by making every effort to ensure that phase-in of the increase begins no later than the 1999 season.

The Committee agrees with witnesses that the situation where thousands of southern Canadians have been issued competitive licences for Division 0B while none have been issued to Nunavut fishermen is unfair. If southern fishermen are to have access to the waters off Nunavut there should be comparable reciprocal access for Nunavut fishermen to other areas.

Recommendation 2

The Committee recommends that the Minister issue at least two groundfish licences to Nunavut fishermen that are no more restrictive with respect to area, species and other conditions than licences held by southern fishermen fishing in the waters off Nunavut. However, the Minister should also take any necessary measures to ensure that the granting of such licences does not increase the overall fishing effort.

Shrimp Fishery

A representative of the Qikiqtaaluk Corporation (QC) raised several concerns regarding the northern shrimp fishery. In 1987, the Qikiqtaaluk Corporation was issued with both a northern shrimp licence and a joint licence shared with the Makivik Corporation of Nunavik. These licences are fished by Maritimes-based companies in long-term joint ventures in return whereby the QC receives royalties and Inuit from the region are employed on the offshore trawlers. The licences allow QC to fish in all eight shrimp fishing areas (SFAs).

The benefits for the region of this arrangement are significant. In the 1997 season, 85 Inuit were employed on the offshore trawlers, earning $2.4 million in wages. The Corporation, however, faces significant increases in operating expenses. These include access fees, which have increased from around $2,000 in 1995 to over $200,000 in 1998. In addition, the shrimp industry is required to pay for DFO observer coverage. Qikiqtaaluk Corporation pointed out that these fees directly reduce the take home pay of everyone involved in the industry. The Corporation asked for access and other user fees imposed by the government to be revisited, in light of the federal government's balanced budget.

The Corporation also faces major costs for air transportation of crew members. Due to their remoteness and lack of other transportation options, the 85 Inuit crew must travel by air to the Maritimes, resulting in costs of between $250,000 and $300,000 each year.

The Committee agrees that the rapid increase in access fees is cause for concern. Although the Department's policy is to set access fees at a modest proportion of landed values, they may in reality represent a much greater proportion of net revenues after other operating expenses including other cost-recovery charges have been taken into account.

Recommendation 3

The Committee recommends that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans review its policy on access fees for Nunavut and other Atlantic licence holders to ensure that access fees are commensurate with the ability to pay, taking into account expenses including other cost-recovery charges.

The other major issue for QC was increased access to SFAs. In 1996, QC and five other Nunavut and Labrador-based groups formed the Northern Coalition. The Coalition had recently submitted a proposal to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans for increased participation in the Northern Shrimp Fishery. This proposal was based on the advice of Northern Shrimp Advisory Committee (NSAC) for substantial quota increases of shrimp in SFA 4 and SFA 6. The Qikiqtaaluk Corporation's position is that the members of the Coalition, being adjacent to these SFA's, should have priority access to these quotas. The Corporation emphasized the importance of the shrimp fishery to the North and the role it could play in northern development. The Corporation also noted that although the fishery had been developed in the waters directly adjacent to Labrador, Baffin Island and northern Quebec, Coalition members had been excluded from the quota increase for SFA 6 in 1997.

Groundfish Conservation Issues

In each of the three communities visited by the Committee, witnesses expressed concern about "ghost fishing" by lost gillnets and related groundfish conservation issues. Witnesses in Pangnirtung stated that they would like to see gillnets banned in Davis Strait.

The competitive turbot fishery in Division 0B is prosecuted using gillnets in very deep water at depths up to 2,000 m. The rate of loss of these nets has raised concerns about ghost fishing and the possible entanglement in the nets of marine mammals, such as beluga and narwhal. The Mayor of Broughton Island estimated the number of nets lost at 300 out of the approximately 8,000 nets cast off the shores of Baffin Island.

In Pangnirtung, the Fisheries Resource Officer told the Committee that not only were increasing numbers of fishing vessels leaving nets behind in Davis Strait, but large ships were also dumping their garbage there.

The NWMB expressed additional concerns about the use of gillnets. The practice of leaving gillnets in the water for up to eight days results in a low-quality catch, high discard rates and a high shark by-catch. Moreover, they said, that the minimum mesh size of the gillnets was too small, resulting in the capture of excessive numbers of immature female turbot.

Both the NWMB and the FRCC have made specific recommendations to the Department to address these problems. Some of these recommendations are based on new technologies that are being developed in the Maritimes to monitor and control gillnets. According to the NWMB, however, the Department has not acted on these recommendations.6 The NWMB recommended that DFO undertake a research program to determine the extent of conservation problems associated with the deepwater gillnet fishery and that it implement the recommendations of the NWMB and the FRCC.

The Committee is encouraged by the Minister's announcement of mandatory tagging gillnets in the Davis Strait turbot fishery, further experimental work on the use of net locators, and the implementation of observer coverage on the gillnet fleet. However, the Committee is still concerned by the potential harm that may be caused to turbot stocks in Davis Strait by over-reliance on this technology.

Recommendation 4

The Committee recommends that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans encourage the use of gear types other than gillnets in the Davis Strait fixed-gear fishery, particularly the use of long lines.

Recommendation 5

The Committee recommends that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans enforce regulations that limit soak times for all gear including gillnets to a maximum of72 hours in order to ensure a high product quality and to minimize waste.

Recommendation 6

The Committee recommends that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans support further research to determine the extent of the "ghost net" fishing problem in Davis Strait area. Depending on the severity of the problem the Department should consider a ghost net retrieval program or additional measures such as biodegradable components in the nets.

In Iqaluit, a representative of the Qikiqtaaluk Corporation noted that turbot stocks in NAFO Subareas 0 and 1 are shared between Canada and Greenland. He urged that there should be no further increase in the overall TAC without a solid scientific basis. He also told the Committee that it is common knowledge that Greenland fishermen are overfishing in their own waters and that they are also fishing in Canadian waters. Supporting this allegation is the fact that Canadian fishing vessels have retrieved certain types of fishing gear in Canadian waters that is not used by Canadian companies. Another witness in Pangnirtung reported sightings of foreign vessels from Pangnirtung and Broughton Island.

Recommendation 7

The Committee recommends that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans increase funding for research and stock assessments in Division 0A. The Department should consider cooperating with Greenland in research programs in Subareas 0 and 1.

Recommendation 8

The Committee recommends that any access to Division 0A turbot should be limited to Nunavut fishermen and that access to this area should by governed by the precautionary principle until such time as the sensitivity of stocks in this area has been determined.

Marine Mammals

Witnesses in the three locations visited by the Committee explained the importance of marine mammals to the Inuit culture and lifestyle. The Inuit are a marine people who have survived for centuries largely by harvesting marine mammals such as seals, walrus, beluga and narwhal and using them for food, clothing and tools.

Witnesses stressed the difference between the sealing tradition of the Inuit and that of southern sealers. Seals are not hunted in Nunavut for commercial reasons but for subsistence and no part of the seal is allowed to go to waste. In the past, the sale of sealskins provided an income that was an important part of the economy of many parts of Nunavut and this income was used to finance the hunt. In the mid-1980's, however, the market for sealskins collapsed, largely as a result of the efforts of Greenpeace and other environmental organizations. As a result, many hunters can no longer afford to continue to hunt and must rely on government handouts instead.

Witnesses were aware of the adverse publicity that has dogged the seal hunt in Newfoundland. They believe that they have been unfairly tarred with the same brush although their hunt is conducted differently. A witness in Broughton Island asked the Committee to make a clear distinction between the way sealing is practised in Nunavut and the way it is practised in the south.

The Nunavut Wildlife Management Board (NWMB) was critical of the International Whaling Commission and similar forums, which, it said, have become dominated by anti-hunting interests and are no longer concerned with the conservation and sustainable use of marine mammals. The NWMB favours regional management regimes among countries that have a real interest in the conservation of marine mammals. The NWMB has participated in the Canada/Greenland Joint Commission on the Conservation and Management of Narwhal and Beluga and has advised the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans that it favours full Canadian participation in the North Atlantic Marine Mammal Commission (NAMMCO).

Recommendation 9

The Committee recommends that Canada fulfil its responsibility for the cooperative international management of migratory marine mammals by participating as a full and active member of the North Atlantic Marine Mammal Commission (NAMMCO).

Residents of northern communities are very concerned about conserving the stocks of marine mammals on which they depend. Detailed, up-to-date knowledge is essential for the sound management of these stocks. Overharvesting threatens their sustainability while underharvesting results in lost opportunity. At the present time, the status of many marine mammal stocks is virtually unknown consequently restrictive harvesting regimes have been implemented. The NWMB asked for greater effort on the part of DFO, which has a mandated responsibility for marine mammals, to support research into marine mammals in Nunavut.

Recommendation 10

The Committee recommends that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans increase its research efforts on marine mammal stocks in Nunavut and adjacent waters to a level that will permit determining sustainable harvest levels with an acceptable level of confidence.

Residents of Nunavut are aware of the high-profile nature of marine mammal hunting and the negative publicity that has often accompanied the seal hunt in Newfoundland. The NWMB emphasized that it is important that marine mammal hunts be seen to be conducted to the highest standards of conservation and humanity. They pointed out that DFO has the responsibility for monitoring marine mammal hunts and enforcing quotas and non-quota limitations. However, they have only 2 fishery officers in the 27 communities of Nunavut, too few to fulfil this responsibility effectively.

The Committee agrees that the harvesting of marine mammals is a sensitive issue and that the hunting of marine mammals must be both carried out and seen to be carried out with the highest standards of conservation and humanity. The Committee further agrees that it is impossible for only two fishery officers to effectively fulfil DFO's obligation to monitor these hunts and enforce quota limitations effectively for all of Nunavut's 27 communities and its vast territory.

Recommendation 11

The Committee recommends that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans significantly increase the level of monitoring and enforcement of all fisheries, but particularly those of marine mammals.

The Committee recognize that the concerns addressed in recommendations 10 and 11 are related to, although not necessarily limited to, the chronic understaffing of DFO's Nunavut Area Office. This issue is specifically addressed in recommendations 20 and 21.

In Broughton Island, witnesses wanted to know whether Nunavut hunters were hunting the same narwhal stock as Greenland hunters. At issue were the different management regimes in the two jurisdictions. According to witnesses, Nunavut hunters are limited to a quota of 50 narwhal, a quota that has not changed in the last 15 or 20 years, despite growth of the narwhal population. Witnesses questioned why the Canadian quota is so limited, pointing out that Greenland hunters are not subject to a quota.

In Pangnirtung, a witness explained that store-bought food is very expensive. Local people live off beluga and narwhal, which are sold in the stores. They said that hunting does not deplete stocks of these mammals, which are well regulated.

Pangnirtung has been chosen as site of the 1998 bowhead whale hunt, which is being pursued under the Land Claims Agreement. Residents were aware, through the news media, of opposition to the hunt, particularly in Europe although opponents have never made representations directly to the people of Pangnirtung. A witness explained that bowhead are not depleted and that only one bowhead would be taken in the hunt. There was no intention of depleting the stock or threatening its extinction. Plans were being made to use the meat, blubber and bones. He said that residents did not want opposition to the hunt and asked for assistance to counter any opposition. Committee members declared that they supported the hunt and offered their assistance to promote better appreciation of the importance of the hunt.

Pangnirtung Fishery

Pangnirtung Fisheries Ltd. operates a small fish processing plant, processing mostly turbot, in Pangnirtung. Most of the turbot processed by Pangnirtung Fisheries is "frozen-at-sea" turbot caught by Canadian trawlers hired by the company. The remainder of the turbot is obtained from a winter fishery conducted through the ice by local fishermen. Catches from this fishery are variable as they depend on the ice conditions. Poor ice conditions during the past season prevented a large number of fishermen from going fishing. Had conditions been better, as many as 100 to150 more fishermen in the community would have been able to fish and, the Committee was told, the quota would not have been sufficient.

There was strong support for allocation of the majority of the turbot quota to Nunavut residents. As one witness said, people who have a lot of money should not be coming to Nunavut to fish, the harvest should be for the people of Nunavut. The Secretary-Treasurer of Pangnirtung Fisheries told the Committee that the 1,500 tonne quota for Nunavut was no longer adequate and that a quota of 5,500 tonnes was needed.

Operating costs for Pangnirtung Fisheries are high making it challenging for the company to compete. According to the Manager of Pangnirtung Fisheries, the cost of airfreight from Pangnirtung to Boston is $1.05/lb compared to $0.10 from the south of Newfoundland and$0.05 from Nova Scotia and Quebec. Freight costs greatly reduce what the company can pay fishermen. In addition, the length of the airstrip in Pangnirtung limits the amount of production that can be transported out on any one aircraft. Not only is air the only mode of transportation but there is only one airline. There is therefore, no opportunity to seek competitive pricing on freight rates.

Difficulties have increased due to low prices for turbot and declining government support. The Company, however, has continued to hold on to its market by producing a very high-grade product. Another potential resource in the area is Arctic char, which are found in the lakes around Pangnirtung. Although Arctic char is highly prized around the world, the plant cannot compete with salmon. Subsidies for both transportation and fishermen were suggested as ways to help support the turbot fishery.

Recommendation 12

The Committee recommends that the appropriate departments of the federal government work together to find solutions to the problem of high freight costs facing companies operating in Nunavut in order that they can compete with southern companies on a more level playing field.

A gear replacement program for the winter hook and line fishery was also proposed as a way of assisting fishermen. The winter fishery is hard on gear, which can become snagged on the rocky bottom or be dragged away by Greenland sharks.

Recommendation 13

The Committee recommends that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans consider implementing a gear replacement program for the Pangnirtung turbot fishery that would reduce the cost of gear to a level comparable to that paid by southern fishermen.

Pangnirtung, like Broughton Island, is growing quickly and many young people want to take up fishing; however, the start-up costs to enable a young fisherman straight out of school to get fully geared up for the winter hook and line fishery were estimated to be in the range of $20,000 to $30,000. Although the residents of Pangnirtung would like to make more money from fishing, they are aware of the fragility of the Arctic environment and are concerned about the danger of depleting stocks. They want to ensure that the resource is preserved for future generations and are therefore committed to preventing overfishing. The Fisheries Resource Officer told the Committee that Pangnirtung would like to have its own fishing vessel, of moderate size compared to those responsible for depleting stocks in other places.

The Manager of Pangnirtung Fisheries informed the Committee that the turbot fishery uses about 13 tonnes of bait each year of which 60% is young char. Using the char in this way raises concern for the conservation of the fragile Arctic char resource and may not be the most economic use of this resource. The balance of the bait used is young turbot that could otherwise be sold to the plant for $1.20/lb. In either case the bait is expensive and tends to discourage greater participation in the winter turbot fishery. The Manager indicated that making bait available at southern prices would encourage more people to become involved in the fishery and would give fishermen a better return on their catches.

Recommendation 14

The Committee recommends that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans investigate means of making alternative sources of bait available to the fishermen in Pangnirtung at prices comparable to those paid by southern fishermen.

A summer hook and line fishery was mentioned as a possible long-term goal; however, it was pointed out that this would require boats large enough to negotiate the ice and wind conditions in Cumberland Sound. Another long-term development goal for the community was proper wharf facilities. A wharf would help the fishermen who could use their own boats and gear and would also be a boon for tourism in the area.

The Secretary-Treasurer of Pangnirtung Fisheries complained about the lack of information available in Inuktitut, especially on the offshore fishery. Making information available in Inuktitut would enable local small businesses and organizations to benefit from programs of which they were currently unaware. He added that a small company like his does not have the resources to provide materials in Inuktitut or pass on information.

Recommendation 15

The Committee recommends that the federal government and in particular the Department of Fisheries and Oceans make critical information regarding fisheries available to the residents of Nunavut in Inuktitut.

Two topics identified as priorities for research were the status of stocks in Cumberland Sound (especially the movements of those stocks into Davis Strait), the status of stocks in Division 0A and the determination of whether this is a spawning ground or a sanctuary area. Witnesses indicated that if Division 0A is a sanctuary, it should not be fished.

New Fisheries

The waters off Baffin Island have a number of marine resources, including crab, Icelandic scallops, skate and grenadier that have potential for development. Nunavut residents want to ensure that these resources are sustainably harvested. They believe that research is needed to evaluate the status of stocks and determine sustainable harvest levels.

The Mayor of Broughton Island explained how the community has initiated the development of a local clam fishery with minimal assistance from government finances. The project is still at an early stage of development and there is a need for a feasibility study to determine its sustainable yield. He emphasized the need for funding to ensure that opportunities are taken to harvest this valuable resource. Even more important, he said, was a system of management to ensure that proper harvesting methods are employed.

Kivalliq Land & Sea Resources Ltd. outlined its interest in developing a scheme to harvest the abundant kelp resources found along the west coast of Hudson Bay. The major obstacle to development is the low harvest quota currently set by DFO.

Recommendation 16

The Committee recommends that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans implement a program to investigate developmental fisheries and, where such fisheries have the potential to be economically viable, to carry out stock assessments to determine sustainable harvest levels. This could include a survey of the kelp resource in the area of Hudson Bay between Arviat and Repulse Bay.

Environmental Issues

Contamination of marine and terrestrial wildlife by toxic contaminants such as PCBs is a major and growing concern for northern residents. Many of the toxins originate from former military installations such as old DEW line sites, of which the Committee learned there are eight in the Baffin Region. Other contaminants are airborne pollutants from southern regions. Since these contaminants become more concentrated as they pass up through the food chain, they put northern residents who depend on "country foods" at high risk.

In Broughton Island, which is close to former military dumping grounds on Durban Island and Padloping Island, the Chairman of the Hunters and Trappers Organization called for environmental studies on mammals and the sea floor to determine how much damage had been caused by waste dumped by the military. He observed that contaminants are more easily detected on land than in the marine environment, where there is no way of knowing whether something is contaminated. Witnesses also cited the garbage dump at Broughton Island as an environmental concern.

Witnesses urged that everything possible be done to minimize the negative effects of toxic pollutants, including properly cleaning up the old DEW Line sites.

Science

Science was an important issue in each of the three communities visited by the Committee. Marine resources form the basis of the economy and the culture of the people of Nunavut. Witnesses emphasized the importance of having a sound, up-to-date information base in order to manage both marine mammal and fishery resources effectively, ensure conservation and avoid the risk of overharvesting. Because the knowledge base is inadequate for many species, the harvesting regime may be overly conservative, resulting in the loss of harvesting opportunities for residents.

A number of fishery resources such as scallops, skate, shrimp, crab and grenadier, have the potential for development; however, residents are reluctant to develop fisheries for these species without research to evaluate stocks and provide a sound information base on which to manage them wisely. Research is also needed to answer important questions about turbot including the possible movement of Cumberland Sound stocks into Davis Strait, the status of turbot stocks in Division 0A, and whether the latter is a sanctuary. Another important issue was the migration of marine mammals, and particularly whether Canada and Greenland share the same narwhal stocks.

A number of witnesses spoke of the relationship between modern science and traditional knowledge and stressed the importance of understanding both. Most viewed the two types of knowledge as being complementary, rather than in conflict. Traditional knowledge does not hold all the answers and may not always be accurate. At the same time, modern scientific research can be much more effective if it is guided by traditional knowledge. Without the input of traditional knowledge into scientific studies, researchers could be looking in the wrong place, at the wrong time or be not even asking the right questions.

A witness in Iqaluit stressed that funding was needed to document traditional knowledge that would complement scientific knowledge. He clarified that it was not solely a matter of documentation but also of explaining the significance of hunting and harvesting, which is very different in Inuit and southern cultures. To illustrate, the witness described a situation that had arisen in 1990 over the harvesting of belugas, which had resulted in a confrontation between hunters and the RCMP. Though a committee had been set up in 1990, it had been difficult to start work when both sides were angry. At the end of four years, they arrived at a co-management plan complementing the Land Claims Agreement.

A number of witnesses complained that they had not received reports on scientific studies that had been carried out or that some reports did not contain enough information. As an example, witnesses in Broughton Island described a study in 1968 or 1969 where hunters had been asked to provide scientists with the lower jaws of seals. Most of the hunters had participated, but the reason for the study was never explained and the results of the study were never reported.

Recommendation 17

The Committee recommends that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans support an initiative to document the traditional knowledge of the people of Nunavut in order to complement any Department of Fisheries and Oceans research.

Recommendation 18

The Committee recommends that, before Department of Fisheries and Oceans scientific studies are carried out in Nunavut, scientists consult with residents to explain the purpose of the study and to seek input that might help in the design of the study.

Recommendation 19

The Committee recommends that, when a study has been completed, the results of the study be made available to the residents of Nunavut, especially to anyone who participated in the study. If for some reason a study cannot be completed, that also should be made known as a matter of courtesy.

DFO Research in Nunavut

The NWMB raised a number of specific issues related to DFO research in Nunavut. Their main complaint is that the complete inadequacy of resources allocated to management-related science in Nunavut forces the Board to make management decisions with inadequate or no information. They must therefore apply a level of caution to management decisions that may result in an unnecessary loss of harvesting opportunities.

Forty-two wildlife stocks were identified for priority research at the second annual Research Priorities Workshop hosted by the NWMB. According to the NWMB, the "knowledge gaps" that hinder the co-management efforts are most severe for 17 of those species that fall under the DFO mandate.

The NWMB noted that it provides annual funding in support of research to DFO and other government agencies through its Wildlife Research Trust Fund. In 1998-99, out of a total NWMB allocation of $765,000 to three government departments, DFO will receive $312,000 to conduct eight research projects. According to the NWMB, this amount substantially exceeds the Departmental funding of $207,000 identified in support of these projects.

The NWMB reported that the Division 0A turbot exploratory fishery has, for the past two years, been conducted almost totally at industry expense. DFO participation is limited to data analysis and report writing. The NWMB told the Committee that it is not aware of any other case in Canada where such a research survey is being funded and conducted almost completely by industry.

According to the NWMB, the local DFO office is critically understaffed. At the time of the Committee's visit, it had had only one technician, out of a total complement of staff of five biologists, for the previous eight months. All research is carried out from Winnipeg by staff who sometimes have little first-hand knowledge of the area and are limited in their ability to work closely with local communities.

The NWMB said that it is willing to work with DFO but DFO needs to make a real and substantive commitment to put a real and reasonable level of resources into fisheries research in Nunavut. This would include bringing the Area Office up to full staff complement and increasing the level of fisheries research in Nunavut.

Recommendation 20

The Committee recommends that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans increase the capacity of the Nunavut Area Office to carry out research and stock assessment in Nunavut.

Status of DFO Nunavut Area Office

The NWMB pointed out that the DFO Nunavut Office in Iqaluit serves the entire Nunavut Territory. Nunavut has the largest land area and coastline of any jurisdiction in Canada (approximately 2 million square kilometres) and its residents are primarily a marine people who are very dependent on the harvest of the seas, rivers and lakes. DFO has not lived up to its responsibility as a co-management partner with the NWMB.

The NWMB representative pointed out that, out of a supposed staff compliment of 12 persons, only 6 positions were currently filled. Some positions had been vacant for up to three years with little apparent effort being made to fill them. Only two Fisheries Officers serve the entire territory.

In Broughton Island, the need for an adequate number of DFO personnel to monitor and manage a vast area the size of Nunavut was raised. It was suggested that increasing the number of DFO officers from 4 to 12 would be effective and would also provide greatly needed employment opportunities.

It was pointed out that, under the NLCA, government retains the ultimate responsibility for the management of wildlife in the NSA. The NLCA anticipated an increase in Departmental capacity in Nunavut, with the Department being allocated implementation funds to cover these increases.

Pointing to the fact that most of the serious resource management issues facing the NWMB are fisheries-related, the NWMB representative noted the Board's increasing frustration with the Department's lessening capacity to provide information, carry out consultations, and implement Board decisions. He emphasized that the NWMB is finding it increasingly difficult to make progress without the participation and commitment of its co-management partner.

In addition to recommending that DFO bring the Nunavut Area Office up to its full staff complement, the NWMB recommended that DFO account publicly for its spending of Nunavut implementation funds. A Pangnirtung witness also recommended that the DFO Office should have more Inuit employees and that the Department as a whole should be better educated about Inuit lands.

Recommendation 21

The Committee recommends that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans make a genuine effort to bring the Nunavut Area Office up to its full staff complement as soon as practical and that it encourage the recruitment of Inuit and other permanent Nunavut residents to fill staff positions.

The Committee further recommends that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans provide a full and detailed accounting of its spending of Nunavut implementation funds.

Social Issues

The Mayor of Broughton Island described the rapid growth of the community. In 1994, the population was 501 of whom 36% were under 15 years of age. Over the next 13 years, the population was expected to grow by nearly 30%, to 655 in 2011. The unemployment rate of 29% in Broughton Island is nearly two and half times the national average and higher even than the regional average of 22%. Social assistance payments for Broughton Island grew by 200% in the 6 years from 1990 to 1996. The Mayor stressed the importance of exploring potential employment opportunities for members of the community in the fishery and seizing them wherever possible.

The principal of the school in Broughton Island underlined the importance of the fishery in providing students with a sense of hope that would encourage them to stay in school. Some students had been involved in the research work on the clam fishery. It was important to the culture that students learn traditional skills in the school system. One example of this was a kamik-making course provided by the school. The principal urged the Committee to encourage the development of fisheries, as this would greatly assist the community.

Although residents of Broughton Island have access to e-mail, the cost of getting online to the Internet provider in Iqaluit is prohibitive. The possibility of the installation of an optical fibre cable within the next few years would allow full access and even permit video conferencing.

Referring to potential new fisheries and groundfish licences, one witness said that every new dollar that comes in reduces the need for social payments: "Good solid work where people earn money is the natural answer to social problems." He explained that the obvious solution to social problems is to stimulate the economy in Nunavut.

In Broughton Island, a witness raised an issue concerning the government of Nunavut that would come into force in about a year's time. Information available suggested that government infrastructure would be distributed among the communities of Nunavut with the major facilities being located in larger communities. The witness stressed that sharing in government infrastructure was very important to the economic development of smaller communities such as Broughton Island and asked that this be taken into consideration.

Infrastructure

Witnesses in each of the three communities visited by the Committee talked about the need for improved infrastructure, particularly port and wharf facilities. In Iqaluit, the representative of the Qikiqtaaluk Corporation pointed out that there are no port facilities in Iqaluit other than the breakwater. Because of the lack of proper facilities in northern Canada, Canadian ships have to land in Greenland, which has several good harbours at high latitudes. He suggested that there was a need to look seriously at establishing proper docking facilities north of the 60th parallel as commercial traffic increases in that area.

Because larger trawlers cannot tie up in Iqaluit to land fish, fish caught in Nunavut waters is shipped to centres such as Nain and Cartwright in Labrador for processing. The MLA for Iqualuit suggested that this would not be necessary if Iqaluit had a better harbour.

In Broughton Island, the Mayor suggested that, as a result of its proximity to fisheries resources in both Baffin Bay and Davis Strait, as well as low tides, Broughton Island was ideally suited to the development of an infrastructure to support fisheries. The current facilities are only sufficient to accommodate freighter canoes. It would be cost-effective, he explained to land fish in Broughton Island, while fishing vessels could be supported with essential services such as refuelling and fresh water. The Mayor explained that he had visited communities in Greenland, such as Christianshaab (now called Qasigiannguit) that had very good port facilities; similar port facilities in Broughton Island would also be good for the people of Canada. Acknowledging that infrastructure could have both positive and negative impacts, the Mayor stressed the importance of exploring in detail all aspects of such a development.

The Manager of Pangnirtung Fisheries pointed out other advantages of better transportation facilities that included: cuts to transportation costs generally; improved transportation of foodstuffs into the community; heavier airlifts in and out of the community; and, encouraging outside fisheries to use the facilities to sell fish, resupply their vessels, get medical attention or simply take a break in a Canadian port.

Recommendation 22

The Committee recommends that the Government of Canada support the development of transportation infrastructure in Nunavut communities. This includes improving airstrips and also wharves and harbour facilities where fishing can provide much needed economic development.

1 Reinhardtius Hippoglossoides, also known as ``Greenland halibut."

2 The "Developmental Fishery" became the Foreign Charter Fishery in 1996.

3 Zone 1 is the area of sea east of Baffin Island, outside Canada's Territorial Sea and inside the 200-mile Exclusive Economic Zone. Zone 1 coincides with most of NAFO Subarea 0.

4 On 9 June 1998, the Minister announced allocations for the Davis Strait turbot fishery for the 1998 season. The TAC remained unchanged at 5,500 tonnes. The Nunavut allocation remained unchanged at 1,500 tonnes. The competitive allocation to Canadian groundfish fishermen remained unchanged at 1,500 tonnes. The 2,500 tonne allocation previously provided as the Foreign Charter Allocation was provided as Company Allocations to the same companies that had received them in 1997.

5 Section 15.3.7: Government recognizes the importance of the principles of adjacency and economic dependence of communities in the Nunavut Settlement Area on marine resources, and shall give special consideration to these factors when allocating commercial fishing licences within Zones I and II. Adjacency means adjacent to or within a reasonable geographic distance of the zone in question. The principles will be applied in such a way as to promote a fair distribution of licences between the residents of the Nunavut Settlement Area and the other residents of Canada and in a manner consistent with Canada's interjurisdictional obligations.

6 In response to the concerns of the NWMB and others, the Minister announced on 9 June 1998, mandatory tagging of all gillnets in the Davis Strait turbot fishery, continued experimental work on the use of net locators, and the implementation of observer coverage of the gillnet fleet.