Preserving the Independence of the Inshore Fleet in Canada's Atlantic Fisheries

Public Consultations - Iqaluit, NT - January 29, 2004
Draft Summary

Overall Summary of the Session

• Discussion focused on how these policies would apply to Nunavut in the future as Nunavut continues to develop an inshore commercial fishery. All recognized that these policies are not applicable to Nunavut today but have the potential to stifle economic development.
• Nunavut is concerned over how a commercial fishery develops, in particular it needs a licensing policy that is flexible enough to allow for skills development, accommodates some form of joint venture with southern interests without allowing control of the Nunavut fishery by outside interests, and allows for financing arrangements. Concerns were expressed about the lack of consistency between DFO commercial licensing policy, communal fishing regulations, provisions of the land claims settlement and relationship with Hunters and Trappers Organizations (HTOs).
• Although there appeared to be support for the spirit of the owner-operator and fleet separation policies, there was concern that these policies in their present form should not apply to Nunavut as they may stifle the development of an independent commercial fishery in the Nunavut context.
• Trust agreements could be major impediment to development of the Nunavut fishery. Same financing issues exist and joint ventures may be key to developing the fishery. However, need constraints on what would be permissible to prevent the Nunavut fishery from being controlled by southern interests.
• Suggestion that a separate Nunavut fisheries licensing policy be developed because many provisions of the Commercial Fisheries Licensing Policy for Eastern Canada, 1996 (CFLP) are counter to the needs of Nunavut. Alternatively, CFLP could include an exemption for Nunavut, at least while fisheries develop. Nunavut interests see this as an opportunity to “do things right”.
• Agreement that a full discussion on these issues needs to be held with various Nunavut interests, communities, and Hunters and Trappers Organizations (HTOs).
• Other issues of concern for developing the Nunavut fishery were raised, such as lack of access to financing through DFO Aboriginal programming (AFS, AAROM); lack of science, research, small craft harbour funding, and other infrastructure.

Summary of Formal Written Submissions

Summary of round table discussion of the issues raised in the discussion document (trust agreements, owner-operator and fleet separation policies)

• It is hard to see how you could prove that a trust agreement exists. Fishers enter into these freely and most often the easiest way to get financing is through a processor – these agreements are not forced on anybody. But that being said, we know they exist; fishermen may say that they don’t want them, that it is the processors who do, but they still sign them.
• How does the owner-operator policy apply to Inuit or Aboriginal people? If I think about the Hunters and Trappers Organizations – would they be able to acquire licences?
• If someone were able to acquire a 65’ vessel and licence, they may not be able to skipper it - how does this policy affect these folks - can they hold a licence and hire a skipper? If this is what the policy means, we will have to decide if Nunavut wants these policies.
• I can see a landmine if you set up an Aboriginal individual who wants to get a vessel or licence, and enter the regular commercial fishery and then you say you have to be an operator on that vessel, but not if you’re part of a communal licence – this doesn’t seem fair.
• So, we are really talking about vessels less than 65 feet in length. We can go out and buy a large enterprise and an offshore licence and there are no regulations to stop us; but to buy an inshore enterprise and licences is a different issue as the Atlantic licensing policy applies today. Is that the policy we want here? Different issues apply to us.
• This is really a hypothetical issue for Nunavut at the moment. There is lots of interest in Pangnirtung in smaller scale vessels; winter fishing through the ice has been relatively successful, and they now have a processing facility. There is now interest in developing a small scale summer open water fishery. HTOs are often the lead in this kind of proposal - if they come to us for funding, to DFO for licensing a 45’ boat, what restrictions would be placed on these organizations? Would this policy restrict them?
• Although there is a lot of interest in developing an inshore fishery, very little capacity exists. Is there the potential for roadblocks if these communities express interest in inshore fisheries?
• There are currently no inshore licenses in Nunavut, but there is no doubt there will be in the future, and we must plan for that. Maybe the Nunavut Wildlife Management Board (NWMB) needs to take a close look at the policy.
• The owner-operator and fleet separation policies, and the Atlantic commercial licensing policy are based on the groundfish collapse; while they may be fine for Atlantic Canada because of overcapacity, we are trying to develop capacity in our fledgling industry. These policies are not in best interest of Nunavut in terms of our development here.
• In Nunavut we have the Land Claims Agreement that gives a definition of inshore which does not recognize the 65’ barrier; the inshore here is defined by distance from shore. The inshore here is defined as the fjords and out to 12 nautical miles; these operations are on a smaller scale, with local investment, running 3-4 months per year; there are provisions in Land Claims Agreement that deal with how this should develop.
• There is no doubt there is lots of work to do, but this represents an opportunity to do things right, to do things differently. If we were to make one recommendation, it would be to ask DFO to develop a licensing policy for Nunavut that takes into consideration owner-operator and fleet separation policies but would be a specific policy for Nunavut based on its unique characteristics, (remoteness, Aboriginal culture, community based approach to development, etc.) We should all work together (DFO, Nunavut government, NWMB, NTI and industry) to develop a policy for Nunavut that is in the best interests of Nunavut.
• For whatever reason, it seems people are holding on to these policies; people are complaining about the 65 foot limit, people are building larger vessels, the inshore shrimp fleet is not viable unless it is also fishing crab, etc There are major issues that don’t make sense in the Nunavut context but there are components we can take into consideration. We should look to develop Nunavut policy as a partnership.
• Another component that would have to be taken into consideration is when we expand, develop and extend our fishing season to fish in southern waters, or Nunavut interests acquire a southern licence and prosecute a southern fishery. As we move forward, we will probably have opportunities and the need to partner with southern interests but we will have to guard against takeover by southern interests through trust agreements. On the other side of the coin, if DFO does not allow trust agreements, this could preclude business partnerships with southern interests that could lead to lack of development opportunities. We will obviously need some kind of exit clause.
• We have to be very careful here, particularly on trust agreements, because Nunavut is still trying to figure out where the inshore fishery is going; if we are not careful, our industry could be totally controlled by southern interests. There are already moves underway to do that and we certainly don’t want to be taken over by southern interests. The most sexy word today is “joint interest with Nunavut” – we must make sure that it is in Nunavut’s interest.
• Maybe we should think about amending current licensing policy to make it more relevant to Nunavut so that it does not hamper economic development.
• Licences held here are communal; we have to recognize community interests. There are many young entrepreneurs who want to get in to the fishery, but have a problem with capacity, how does an individual in Clyde River, for example, get involved? There is no harbour, no marine service centre, no infrastructure in place, even if you had a boat, you would have nowhere to put it and nowhere to service it.
• We really need to discuss this in detail throughout Nunavut. The biggest obstacle we face here is investment and it is likely there will be lots of joint agreements in place, in the form of trust agreements. How do you protect against that? Financing should be based on a viable fishing plan, but when you can get money in 24 hours quickly from down south, what are you to do? No one will lend money to purchase an enterprise if there is no licence attached – it is the licence that is worth the money.
• There is no question, licences are issued on an annual basis, but when was the last time DFO took back a licence? Some banks will lend money based on how long the fisherman has held the licence but not many are willing to take the risk.
• There are some avenues available to finance an enterprise through NTI, and the Nunavut Credit Corporation, and there are some hunter/harvester support programs, but this is on a very small scale. DIAND may have grant programs, but it is very difficult for anyone to invest in the inshore today because of the lack of infrastructure, such as harbours, marine service centres, knowledge of what is out there and then there is the weather. DFO forgot about Nunavut in terms of research and science; we are managed out of Winnipeg and this creates major problems as their interests are not ours. They aren’t cutting programs on the Great Lakes and the Prairies – they are cutting small, remote programs and not putting any money into Nunavut. We do not have access to other programs such as the Aboriginal Fisheries Strategy - which is discriminatory to Nunavut Inuit – or to AAROM, which is a great program, with great opportunities, but is not applicable to people with comprehensive land claim agreements.
• Where is DFO support for fisheries development? Take Small Craft Harbours - not one penny has gone into Nunavut - until we get support, we are really talking about nation building. If you consider the principles outlined in policy framework, all this is related to shared stewardship. Unless and until we get some infrastructure support, it will be difficult to develop our fishery.
• We need a level of flexibility to allow us to develop the fleet that is appropriate to Nunavut. We have not undertaken detailed discussions with communities to develop a vision for the fishery. We have this opportunity to develop a forward looking policy that will be important in the coming years. Flexibility will be key to ensure we can support communities and individuals.
• The fishery has great potential and is one of the bright spots for economic development in Nunavut, but there are very few people in Nunavut who understand the regulations, or even know they exist. It is hard to know whether or not to accept the policies. It is fair to say that the fleet separation policy makes a lot of sense, especially for the inshore, operating smaller boats. We will all have to work together to develop a policy for all vessels that is in the best interest of Nunavut. We will have to be careful or we could stifle the industry before it even gets started.
• It is hard to picture the structure of a regulation, particularly as it would relate to the Land Claims Agreement and the NWMB. We have to keep a level of fluidness and flexibility to use some discretion - we have the best interests of Nunavut at heart and have a process that works (article 5 of LCA).
• Right now, an Aboriginal person (or anyone else) can purchase a 65 foot enterprise and associated licences; all he has to do is find a willing partner, get financing, put a qualified captain on the boat, and go fishing tomorrow. These policies we are talking about only apply to the less than 65 foot fleet.
• In the case of Nunavut, we need to find mechanisms for mentoring and building capacity; professionalization is a barrier to that now. I believe there should be some flexibility to allow for on-board training until the person is qualified to run his own boat - no one will lend money without a person having core skills, but I don’t see anything in regulations to prevent that from developing today.
• Under current policy, the obligation is on an individual to be a core fisherman, and licences are only issued to core fishers – we don’t have any here. We need either a new licensing policy or a clause stating that Nunavut is exempt to allow it to develop its fishery.
• Regardless of whether we move to a separate licensing policy or an addendum to existing policy, a fair amount of consultation is required. A lot will depends on what sizes and types of enterprises we will have. We are at the right time to do this now - five years from now, the vessels will be there.
• The real issue is whether or not you allow corporations to buy a vessel less than 65 feet and allow people to operate them and the associated licences. We have to be careful that we don’t slam the door on entrepreneurs and be careful that southern interests do not take over our fishery.
• This is obviously a very complex issue, with flexibility being the key to whatever is developed. We have to ensure that whatever we do will work for Nunavut.