Language selection

Government of Canada / Gouvernement du Canada

Search

Nunavut Fishery Regulations 2025 regional engagement workshops: Nunavut summary report

Nunavut Fishery Regulations 2025 regional engagement workshops: Nunavut summary report - Inuinnaqtun
(PDF, 957 KB) Nunavut Fishery Regulations 2025 regional engagement workshops: Nunavut summary report - South Baffin Inuktitut
(PDF, 1,320 KB)

Executive summary

The Nunavut Fishery Regulations Working Group (Working Group) completed the Policy Intentions Paper in December 2024, which proposes core concepts for the Nunavut Fishery Regulations. After sharing the Policy Intentions Paper with key rightsholders and stakeholders, the Working Group held three regional engagement workshops in Nunavut to seek feedback on the proposals.

The feedback received at the workshops is now being considered. Participants expressed their support and appreciation for the progress made by the Working Group, while sharing the challenges they face from lack of clarity around fishery regulations. Participants expressed support for new regulations that advance Inuit self-determination and management of Inuit fisheries. At the same time, participants emphasized the support their communities will need to help implement the proposed regulations, including training and modernizing reporting and monitoring methods to make them effective for the North.

The Nunavut engagement workshops provided a valuable opportunity to solicit feedback from rightsholders and co-management partners. The Working Group will continue to communicate and gather feedback from Nunavut Inuit as co-development of the Nunavut Fishery Regulations progresses.

Background

Although the Nunavut Agreement came into effect in 1993, and the Territory of Nunavut was established in 1999, fisheries are still managed under the same regulations (e.g., the Northwest Territories Fishery Regulations, the Atlantic Fishery Regulations, and the Marine Mammal Regulations) that are not entirely in line with the Nunavut Agreement and do not fully support its implementation. Thus, new regulations are needed to fully respect existing Indigenous harvesting rights, advance reconciliation efforts with Canada’s Indigenous communities, and create a modern set of regulatory tools to help manage fisheries sustainably in Nunavut.

The Nunavut Agreement affirms Inuit harvesting rights and establishes wildlife management systems governed by unique decision-making processes, with defined roles for the:

The new regulations will fully respect Inuit harvesting rights and wildlife management systems established in the Nunavut Agreement, as well as advance the co-management of sustainable fisheries and the conservation and protection of fish. The Nunavut Fishery Regulations are proposed to go beyond implementing the Nunavut Agreement to enhance Indigenous-led fisheries management, contingent on the signatories to the Agreement agreeing to necessary treaty amendments.

The proposed regulations are designed to meet the following goals:

  1. Minimize disruption to existing fisheries
  2. Supporting the development of new and emerging fisheries
  3. Aligning with harvesting rights and wildlife management systems established in the respective Land Claims Agreements

The Nunavut Fishery Regulations are being co-developed by the Working Group, which was established in 2018 and currently consists of Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO), NTI, Makivvik, the Government of Nunavut, and the Cree Nation Government. The Nunavut Wildlife Management Board, the Nunavik Marine Region Wildlife Board and the Eeyou Marine Region Wildlife Board participate as observers.

The Working Group co-developed a Policy Intentions Paper that outlines, at a relatively high level, the proposed policy for the future regulations, thereby completing a key milestone in the regulatory development process. Following the release of the Policy Intentions Paper, the Working Group organized and participated in regional engagement workshops in Nunavut to engage HTOs, RWOs, Inuit harvesters, and other Inuit representatives on this policy proposal and inform them of the next steps for completing the Nunavut Fishery Regulations. In Spring 2025, 3 engagement workshops were held, one in each of the Nunavut regions: Kivalliq, Kitikmeot, and Qikiqtaaluk.

The following report lays out the details of the regional engagement workshops and provides a summary of what was heard from participants. This report was prepared and approved by the Working Group.

Previous working group engagement with Nunavut Inuit

Engagement and collaboration with Inuit in the development of the Nunavut Fishery Regulations helps ensure that the proposed regulations will respect Inuit harvesting rights. In keeping with the co-management approach for the Nunavut Fishery Regulations, the Working Group engaged with impacted rightsholders and other stakeholders early in the regulatory development process. This on-going engagement provides opportunity to receive feedback and allows for comments to be considered prior to the final stages of regulation development.

In November 2018, the Working Group held a workshop in Iqaluit with representatives from the RWOs of Nunavut, and the Anguvigaq of Nunavik. The purpose of the meeting was to seek feedback on the scope, application, and content of the new regulations. Similarly, in 2019, the Working Group undertook an extensive community engagement tour throughout Nunavut to engage with HTOs and communities on the regulatory development process, policy concepts, and different components of the proposed regulations. In total, the Working Group visited 20 communities, except for Iqaluit, Sanirajak, Kinngait, Chesterfield Inlet, and Grise Fiord due to weather or logistical challenges. The information and knowledge shared at the 2018 workshop and the 2019 community tour was incorporated when drafting the Policy Intentions Paper.

Since these engagements the Working Group has continued to work on regulatory analysis, as well as developing key concepts such as Communal Fish Plans. In Fall 2023, the Working Group began developing the policy proposal for the Nunavut Fishery Regulations. The Working Group sent letters to HTOs and RWOs in June and October 2024, providing updates on the progress of the co-development of the Nunavut Fishery Regulations. In February 2025, the Policy Intentions Paper was shared with the same recipients. The Working Group did not receive feedback from these communications. Additionally, DFO and NTI presented updates at the Kivalliq Wildlife Board Annual General Meeting (AGM) in October 2024, the Kitikmeot Regional Wildlife Board AGM in November 2024, and the Qikiqtaaluk Wildlife Board AGM in November 2024.

2025 Regional Nunavut engagement workshops

In March and April 2025, the Working Group hosted three regional engagement workshops to discuss the Policy Intentions Paper with representatives from Nunavut communities. The goal of the workshops was to present an overview of the Policy Intentions Paper, answer questions from Inuit, and gather their feedback on the proposal. Key discussion topics included Communal Fish Plans, monitoring and reporting of fisheries activities, and the approach to transitioning existing fisheries management measures outlined in pre-existing regulations. Hearing what is currently working in communities and what areas require improvement was beneficial to navigating the transition ahead.

A 2-day workshop was held for each region of Nunavut:

(see Table 1 below for further details).

Working Group members co-facilitated the workshops and the Nunavut Wildlife Management Board attended as an observer. Each workshop featured both presentations and group discussions.

Regional Engagement: Communities and/or Organizations PresentFootnote 1

Kivalliq Region: March 5 and 6, 2025, Rankin Inlet, Nunavut

Kitikmeot Region: March 19 and 20, 2025Footnote 2, Yellowknife, Northwest Territories

Qikiqtaaluk Region: April 15 and 16, 2025, Iqaluit, Nunavut

What was discussed with participants

Below is a summary of the topics that the Working Group presented at the workshops:

Objectives of the Nunavut Fishery Regulations

The Working Group outlined the objectives of the proposed regulations, which aim to:

Key terms and concepts

The Working Group reviewed key terms and concepts that were used throughout the Policy Intentions Paper and in the workshop to:

Application of the regulations

The Working Group explained the proposed geographic scope of the regulations, which is the:

Summary of previous engagement on the Nunavut Fishery Regulations

The Working Group summarized the feedback and/or concerns voiced during the 2018 RWO and Anguvigaq workshop, and the 2019 community engagement tour.

New fisheries management tools

The Working Group provided an overview of the new proposed regulatory tools, which are intended to strengthen the implementation of harvesting rights and support co-management systems.

On Day 2 of the workshop, participants met in small groups to discuss the regulatory proposal, as well as encourage open dialogue and feedback. Working Group representatives sat with each small group to answer questions, note the feedback and to seek comments specifically about communal fish plans, monitoring and reporting, and licensing.

What we heard

  1. Nunavut Fishery Regulations scope:
    1. Overall, the reactions from participants were generally positive. It was noted by participants that current regulations (e.g., Northwest Territories Fishery Regulations) are a challenge for Inuit. Participants were pleased to hear the new regulations will fully respect their harvesting rights.
    2. Generally, Inuit participants shared that they would welcome not having to use a fishing licence.
    3. Many harvesters at the workshop indicated that the current regulations are unclear; it was suggested that implementing new regulations should include outreach and continued engagement and more Inuit participation is needed in the development of policy and regulations.
    4. Participants shared that their communities want the new regulations to simplify current processes and enhance access to fisheries for food security and economic development today and for future generations.
    5. Inuit participants expressed a need for more country foods including fish to feed their families. It was noted by a participant that fish purchases by Regional Inuit Associations from harvesters for redistribution to Inuit should not trigger the Communal Fish Plan requirement as this would hinder food distributions that improve food security.
    6. It was suggested that additional guidelines or policy documents would help in understanding the new regulatory tools presented (e.g., what to do in the event of conflicting rules in a Communal Fish Plan between communities and the region).
  2. Fisheries management:
    1. Participants raised concerns about the current approach to fisheries management in Nunavut. It was noted that licences and the process for opening new fisheries are overly burdensome, and the logistics of transporting catches are challenging.
    2. For existing fisheries and fish plants, participants expressed the importance to avoid disruptions. Communities do not want to change harvesting practices that are working well.
    3. Participants were supportive of playing an increased role in managing their own fisheries.
    4. Participants shared that they often manage their own fisheries through HTO bylaws or resolutions to support sustainable fisheries (e.g., closing waterbodies to fishing when decreases in fish abundance or size are observed).
    5. Participants suggested RWOs adopt a more coordinated approach to issuing tags. Unused tags could  be redistributed to communities in need.
    6. There was a general interest from participants in opening more commercial fisheries (e.g., whitefish, turbot, sea cucumbers, landlocked cod).
    7. While harvested fish are often consumed locally, participants noted  a desire to sell to different markets (e.g., mining companies, cruise ships, or outside Nunavut and Canada). It was noted that Inuit are aware of many waterbodies that could support new fisheries.
    8. HTOs at the engagements expressed a desire to be compensated for gathering monitoring and reporting data.
    9. It was noted by participants that some communities have experience with monitoring and reporting. For example, some participants reported that harvest calendars used during the 2004 Nunavut Wildlife Harvest Study worked well for Inuit. They suggested bringing the calendars back as a monitoring and reporting tool.
    10. Participants also expressed the need to modernize monitoring and reporting tools to allow for electronic reporting (e.g., through an app on phone or tablet), as standard methods (e.g., pen and paper) do not work well in Nunavut.
    11. Some participants stated they are reluctant to report their catch to DFO due to concerns that it may lead to additional regulatory restrictions. However, participants acknowledged the importance of monitoring and reporting to sustain fisheries for future generations.
    12. Participants noted that communities are open to further fisheries research and education on their waterbodies. It was recommended that attention is given to shallower or previously unfished areas, as they may offer new opportunities for commercial fisheries. Inuit are often already aware of promising new waterbodies.
    13. Participants in at least one small group said that where Inuit are expected to share   monitoring data with DFO, in turn DFO should  share all analysis of the data back in an accessible way and inform communities of the impacts of the monitoring data on fisheries management (i.e., DFO must commit to two-way communication).
    14. Inuit participants do not want their harvesting to be controlled by the government or by paperwork.
  3. Hunters and trappers organizations roles and responsibilities:
    1. Currently, HTOs at the workshop expressed they do not have the capacity for the additional workload and are already overworked. HTO’s indicated that more resources will be required to implement what is being proposed, especially Communal Fish Plans.
    2. Participants noted it will be important to ensure adequate resources (e.g., training, funding, employment) and systems are in place before the new regulations take effect.
    3. It was also noted that smaller communities or busier communities may need extra help.
  4. Collaboration:
    1. Participants expressed communities, especially the smaller communities, do not feel heard. They often have questions and find it difficult to get answers. Collaboration between HTOs, RWOs, and government will ensure rules are cohesive and work together.
    2. Participants noted that communities are often unaware of on-going research projects or activities in their waters, or the results of research projects and that they want to be actively involved in any studies conducted in the Nunavut Settlement Area. They indicated that they have often been promised research results but have not received them and more consistent messaging or presence is required from DFO.
    3. More engagement was recommended on the Nunavut Fishery Regulations including meetings in community to bring Inuit up to speed and to hear feedback from other regions.
    4. Participants noted that they would like DFO and NTI to attend local AGMs and meetings with other stakeholders (e.g., Arctic Co-operatives Limited) to update other community members on the proposed regulations.
  5. Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit:
    1. Participants felt that Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit is often not respected and/or recognized by government or researchers and they shared the importance of incorporating, valuing and prioritizing Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit. Participants felt that often, western science takes precedence over Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit and the knowledge of Inuit harvesters.
    2. It was noted that Elders are the holders of information and should be involved in fisheries management.
    3. Representatives highlighted the importance of changing the names of the tools presented in the Policy Intentions Paper to clear Inuktitut terms, including an Inuktitut name for Communal Fish Plans.
  6. Enforcement and compliance:
    1. Participants indicated that communities would like enforcement matters to be handled by someone in the community first, with support from the HTO, RWO and/or DFO for more serious issues.
    2. Participants suggested violations can be addressed through a progressive disciplinary process (e.g., verbal warning followed by a fishing suspension for repeat offenders) and that charging individuals should be the last possible option considered.
    3. Some participants noted concerns about the lack of Government of Nunavut Wildlife Officers in the territory.
    4. A few participants mentioned that their community had problems with fish snagging on rivers but that they were able to address it with help from Government of Nunavut Wildlife Officers. Wastage and poaching is also a concern in some communities.
  7. Other comments, questions, and concerns:
    1. Most communities talked about a lack of infrastructure (e.g., fish plants, community freezers to handle and package fish), limiting their ability to develop profitable commercial fisheries.
    2. Reliable and affordable air freight to transport fish is a limitation participants noted to creating economically viable fisheries.
    3. Participants expressed fish plants are not offering sufficient incentives to encourage commercial fishing from communities, while the cost of purchasing fish from fish plants remains very high.
    4. Participants noted that many communities that do not have a fish plant are interested in establishing one.
    5. Participants expressed concerns about pollution and lost, abandoned or discarded gear and are interested in the cleanup of local waterbodies.
    6. Concerns were raised about southern fish farms selling Arctic Char, leading to a loss of income for Nunavut. Participants questioned the broader economic impact of the increase in fish farming.
    7. Participants also recommended educating non-Inuit on traditional Inuit values and lifestyles to support the development and implementation of the proposed regulations. For example, Inuit show fish respect by handling fish properly, by eating even small fish caught, and if the fish are really too small, feeding them to dogs or burying them.
    8. Some participants noted a concern that food safety regulations and the associated requirements could be a barrier to commercial fisheries.

Next steps

The development and implementation of the proposed Nunavut Fishery Regulations will involve several more steps:

Conclusion

The Working Group would like to thank all those who attended and contributed thoughtful, open, and honest dialogue throughout the workshops. The Working Group learned a lot and will consider participants’ invaluable feedback as it continues to develop the policy for the new regulations.

Continued input from rightsholders is essential. We are committed to open, respectful and meaningful communication throughout the regulation development process, so if you or your community has further questions or would like to provide additional feedback, please contact us at DFO.ARCNFR-RPNARC.MPO@dfo-mpo.gc.ca.

Appendix A – Small group discussion questions

  1. Are you familiar and comfortable with formal monitoring and reporting programs like those currently established by fishing licences? If not, please share your questions or concerns.
  2. Are you interested in the idea of your community working with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans to monitor fisheries and marine mammals in your area?
  3. If yes, why? If not, what are your concerns, and can you suggest any ways to resolve those concerns?
  4. Do you see any challenges with the proposed approach to monitoring and reporting under the Nunavut Fishery Regulations?
  5. Do you think anything is missing from the proposed approach to monitoring and reporting?
  6. Can you suggest ways to help ensure harvesters monitor and report their harvesting activities?
  7. Do you have any questions or concerns about what has been proposed for the licensing regime under the new regulations?
  8. Is there anything about the current rules around fishing licences that you find confusing or that you think should change?
  9. What do the proposed changes to licensing mean to you as a harvester?
  10. Do you like what you have heard about Communal Fish Plans so far? Do you have any questions or concerns?
  11. Would you like your Hunters and Trappers Organization to have the option of requesting support from Fisheries and Oceans Canada to enforce Communal Fish Plans under the Fisheries Act? If yes, why, and if not, what are your concerns?
  12. Do you have any suggestions for what we could call Communal Fish Plans in Inuktitut?

Appendix B – Additional perspectives heard not directly related to the Nunavut Fishery Regulations

  1. Participants raised concerns about the destruction of culturally significant structures by mining companies, both near and within waterbodies.
  2. Similar to the 2019 tour, participants expressed concerns about non-local groups installing structures or devices intended to scare marine mammals away from Nunavut waters. Participants have asked for assistance but have not received any.
  3. Participants are concerned about the increase in environmental contaminants in their food (e.g., rising mercury concentrations in marine mammals). Consumption guidelines should be researched and developed.
  4. Additional concerns were raised regarding Polar Bears (e.g., insufficient tag allocations) and overharvesting of Caribou.
  5. Participants raised concerns about increasing marine traffic and expressed a desire for stronger protection of their waters.
  6. There was a request for the Government of Nunavut to reintroduce cultural teachings and Inuit knowledge-sharing into the high school curriculum.

Page details

Date modified: