OP-ED: Adjacency must also matter in Labrador as northern cod stocks rebuild

When Northern Cod collapsed, coastal Labrador could have collapsed with it.

For the communities along the Labrador coast, from L’Anse Au Clair to Cartwright, the loss of cod meant more than the loss of a fishery. It was the loss of work, income, stability, and a way of life that had sustained our families for generations.

In the face of that loss, the Labrador Fishermen’s Union Shrimp Company Limited has helped keep those communities standing. Owned and operated by the harvesters of southern Labrador, our company used the shrimp fishery to create employment, reinvest in processing infrastructure, support local harvesters, and help more than 20 coastal communities remain economically viable.

Now the fishery is changing again.

Shrimp is declining. Crab is under pressure. Other species cannot carry the future on their own. At the same time, Northern Cod is rebuilding, with more than half of the biomass located in NAFO Division 2J, adjacent to Labrador.

That should be good news for Labrador.

But despite being closest to the resource, despite our history of dependence, and despite our infrastructure already built to process and market high-quality seafood, Labrador is still fighting for a meaningful share of the offshore benefits.

That raises a simple question: if adjacency matters everywhere else, why not in Labrador?

For decades, adjacency has been one of the defining principles of Canadian fisheries policy. Indeed, it is the foundational principle of the United Nations Convention on the ‘Law of the Sea’.

The concept is straightforward: the people and communities closest to the resource should benefit meaningfully from it. This matters because fisheries are not simply about fish; they are about sustaining local economies, preserving rural communities, and ensuring the benefits of public resources remain connected to the region most dependent on them.

Our request for 5% of the Northern Cod Total Allowable Catch is not radical. It is measured, reasonable, and consistent with principles that current and previous federal governments have claimed to support.

It would not destabilize the offshore industry. It would not require taking existing allocations away from others. It would simply give Labrador a meaningful role in the benefits created as the resource rebuilds.

Why does that matter? Because success in today’s highly competitive global seafood industry is no longer measured only by how much fish is harvested, but by who creates the greatest value from it.

LabShrimp generates that value by supplying premium seafood products to demanding, high-value markets across Europe and Asia. These exports contribute not only to Labrador’s economy, but to Canada’s trade performance and international reputation as a supplier of premium, sustainably harvested seafood.

In an era when governments speak constantly about export diversification, value-added production, and maximizing Canadian resource value, supporting companies that compete in high-end international markets should be viewed as a national economic priority.

That is why offshore cod cannot simply default to historical arrangements without question.

Too often, “history” is used as a shield against modernization or fairer regional participation. Yet many corporate structures used to justify current allocations no longer exist in their original form. Companies have changed. Ownership has changed. Markets have changed. The industry itself has changed dramatically.

What has not changed is Labrador’s adjacency to the resource.

People in Labrador understand that fisheries evolve. They always have. What is harder to understand is why our communities are once again being told to stand back while adjacent resources recover around us.

Without fair access, the long-term sustainability of our communities is under real threat. Denying Labrador a meaningful share in the rebuilding cod fishery does not support self-reliance. It increases the risk that communities with the capacity

to sustain themselves will instead face declining employment, outmigration, and greater dependence on public supports.

And for many people in Labrador, that feels unnecessary, unwarranted, and unconscionable.

If adjacency is important enough to defend elsewhere in Canada, it must also matter in Labrador.

Labrador residents are not asking for special treatment. We are asking for equal consideration under principles that governments and industry leaders have championed for years.

The federal government can now show that adjacency is more than rhetoric. As Northern Cod rebuilds, future access should reflect where the resource is, where capacity exists, and where long-term impacts are felt.

Labrador has shared its resources before. Now, with cod returning, we must retain a fair share for our communities.