Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Fisheries and Oceans
Issue 7 - Evidence, March 22, 2007
OTTAWA, Thursday, March 22, 2007
The Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans met this day at 11 a.m. to examine and report on issues relating to the federal government's new and evolving policy framework for managing Canada's fisheries and oceans.
Senator Bill Rompkey (Chairman) in the chair.
[English]
The Chairman: Good morning. At the request of Senator Watt, we are hearing today from officials from Fisheries and Oceans Canada. We will meet with the delegation from Nunavik next Thursday.
John Davis, Special Advisor to the Deputy Minister on Species at Risk Act (SARA), Fisheries and Oceans Canada: Senators, with me are Mr. Mike Hammill, who represents the science group in Fisheries and Oceans responsible for marine mammal biology, and Mr. Patrick Vincent, from Quebec, who is interested in and works in the area of fisheries management. We understand that the focus for the committee this morning is the full question of beluga and perhaps Eastern Arctic. We will try to cover the points you want to think about without overwhelming you with a long presentation. I will talk first about the Species at Risk Act and how that relates to the beluga issue.
The Species at Risk Act is a new piece of legislation that was fully implemented in June 2004 and was designed to protect and to restore populations of species in Canada that are in danger of becoming extinct. The process is led by the Minister of the Environment, who is responsible for the Species at Risk Act overall. The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans is the competent minister for aquatic species under the legislation, so the Minister of the Environment works closely with the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans with respect to aquatic species matters. The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans provides advice to the Minister of the Environment with respect to be those aquatic species.
The whole process of SARA is driven by the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada, COSEWIC. This is an arm's-length committee from government which provides advice in the form of assessments to the Minister of the Environment regarding endangered species. COSEWIC typically conducts an assessment on something of concern and would then tell the Minister of the Environment whether the committee has classed a species as threatened, endangered, of special concern, something that is starting to become of concern, not of concern, not endangered, or extirpated, which means no longer found in the wild in Canada but found elsewhere. COSEWIC carries out these scientific assessments on the basis of bringing together the information that they can gather; and a lot of that information comes from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and other sources.
COSEWIC typically commissions an assessment that will be written for the committee and then voted on, and then advice comes forward from the committee to the Minister of the Environment. That arm's-length process from the COSEWIC committee drives the overall SARA process. Sitting on COSEWIC are species experts, many from universities and academia. Also, provincial and federal representatives take part in that process, so it is not totally arm's length from government but it is definitely not directly run by the Government of Canada.
When those species assessments come forward under the Species at Risk legislation, the Minister of the Environment takes them. Typically we will do a process of consultation prior to the assessments entering the formal decision-making process under the legislation. If it is a complex species that affects many Canadians spread over a wide geographic area, perhaps with implications for First Nations people, we may take a longer period to do the pre- consultations and often we carry out socio-economic assessments as well to make sure that the implications of listing something are understood, both from a biological perspective — how endangered the species is and what the science is — but also from the standpoint of what the impacts might be on different groups, users and Canadians who are affected. That can take a number of months. Then, once something starts into the Governor-in-Council decision- making process, that is prescribed in legislation. It is a nine-month process. Part-way through that, the ministers would agree on a recommendation to Governor-in-Council as to whether something should or should not be listed. They could decide to send it back to COSEWIC for further elaboration. About five months into the nine-month period, the Canada Gazette publishes a recommendation that says, ``This is the way the Governor-in-Council is thinking of going. We will list this species or not list it or send it back.'' There is a 30-day public comment period within the nine months that the Governor-in-Council has to make a decision on listing. If the Governor-in-Council makes no decision, listing is automatic. When something is listed under SARA, it appears on Schedule 1 of SARA.
An aquatic species is automatically protected, so there are prohibitions against possessing, catching, harming or disturbing an endangered species that is listed as threatened or endangered.
Many concerns then come from various stakeholder groups: What does it mean when something is listed? Can I continue to hunt this species? Can I continue to catch that fish? What are implications? What will be the implications?
A species as endangered has to have a recovery strategy prepared within one year. The recovery strategy lays out the threats and then says how the minister proposes to address those threats. Typically under a recovery strategy for a fish species, we may do things like reduce the fishery. We may have a hatchery program to create more fish. We may want to engage in some habitat improvement for spawning areas. We may wish to control predators. Those are the typical things. For a whale species, you would look at other threats, such as hunting, perhaps entanglement in fishing gear, concerns about collisions with vessels, and how we might work with mariners to redirect the shipping traffic.
There are a number of things that can be done under recovery strategies. These are typically put together by a recovery team that has the key knowledgeable people, stakeholders and various players. Sometimes these are international teams, for example, with the right whale in the Atlantic or the leatherback turtle. We work with the U.S. authorities and with the public as well.
Many of the concerns around SARA relate to the impacts of listing. What are the socio-economic impacts?
I wanted to explain a situation with respect to the beluga, which is of interest to this committee. In 2006, five beluga populations were identified by COSEWIC as being of concern. Those were the Eastern Hudson Bay beluga, classed by COSEWIC as endangered; the Ungava Bay population, classed as endangered; the Cumberland Sound population, classed as threatened; the Eastern High Arctic/Baffin Bay population, classed as of special concern; and the Western Hudson Bay population, classed as of special concern.
In classifying those beluga populations, we had to work through a process with the Nunavut Wildlife Management Board because there is a land claims process in place in Nunavut and the land claims agreement specifies that they need to be involved if we are considering listing those species. We have embarked on a process to try to harmonize how SARA works with the requirements of the land claims agreement. We are meeting with representatives of the Nunavut Wildlife Management Board to develop a process where at the front end we would go through the necessary steps to respect the land claim agreement and at the tail end of the process, once we had worked very closely with the Nunavut Wildlife Management Board, we would move forward with the SARA process.
This harmonization effort is ongoing. We hope to take a proposal this spring to the Nunavut Wildlife Management Board, the Minister of the Environment and the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans about how we would harmonize these processes. Consequently, we recommended to the ministers not to pull the beluga populations into the SARA process now but to let us respect this harmonization approach. We recommended deferring consideration of listing of the five beluga populations at this time until we finish the process with the Nunavut board. We still continue to manage and protect the beluga working through the Fisheries Act. We have the Fisheries Act as complementary legislation, which is helpful.
Senator Watt, that is the explanation for why those five beluga species did not get listed; it is to respect the harmonization process. We think the process will be a good model for other wildlife management boards that are in place or being put in place in Northern Quebec and other places for the future. We have a positive working relationship with the board and there is receptivity to this harmonization. I am hopeful that that will sort itself out very well. We are very much aware that we have to work closely with the boards — SARA requires it — and with the hunters' and trappers' associations and with all of the processes that respect bringing in the knowledge of the people to these decisions that affect the people when there are few other opportunities to engage in harvests and to deal with the local knowledge that needs to be part of this whole question as well.
That is the context of SARA and the explanation for not listing beluga. I will pass this now to Mr. Hammill, who is the science specialist with respect to beluga.
The Chairman: Before we go on to Mr. Hammill, could somebody explain to us where the southern line of Nunavut is? Where does Nunavut's jurisdiction stop? We know that Senator Watt's area is affected.
Senator Watt: The only thing I can go by is the latest offshore island negotiations that have been completed recently. I believe that is the line used. I am not sure how many miles it is from the mainland out into the ocean. I do not have that information with me, but the scientific experts probably have that information at hand and they might be in a better position to explain it to you.
The Chairman: The reason I ask is that we have to be clear about what land claims we are talking about.
Senator Watt: Nunavut and Nunavik.
The Chairman: Both have land claims that have been settled?
Senator Watt: Yes.
The Chairman: It is immaterial then where the dividing line is; is that right? Negotiations are going on with both areas that have land claims?
Mr. Davis: Perhaps I can clarify that. I talked about those five beluga populations relative to the Nunavut Wildlife Management Board process that is in place. My understanding is that a similar process taking place in Nunavik is being concluded and a wildlife management board will be set up under that process. The kind of harmonization with the Species at Risk Act that I talked about might help with any new management board that is created.
The Chairman: Is the process in Nunavik yet to be concluded or has it been concluded?
Senator Watt: On this particular issue, dealing with the border, on the Nunavik side there is a quota but on the Nunavut side there is no quota at this point.
The Chairman: I want to be clear. Who are we dealing with? Who has a land claim and who does not?
Senator Robichaud: I also am not clear on that.
Patrick Vincent, Director, Resource and Aboriginal Fisheries Management Branch, Fisheries and Oceans Canada: The Nunavik Inuit Land Claims Agreement was signed in November 2006. It is supposed to be adopted by our Parliament during this session and it should come into force in April.
The Chairman: We have one claim that has been accepted and one claim that has not been accepted.
Mr. Vincent: It is almost signed.
The Chairman: I have no doubt it will be but it is not signed now. I just wanted to clarify.
Mike Hammill, Head, Marine Mammals Section, Fisheries and Oceans Canada: In Canada we have several land claims. There is a Western Arctic land claim that involves the Inuvialuit, which is basically the western part of Victoria Island, the western part of the Northwest Territories. The Nunavut land claim involves the eastern part of the old territories, the Keewatin Region, Baffin Island. Then there was a shared jurisdiction with some of the islands, Hudson Strait, Eastern Hudson Bay. A new land claim was signed maybe a year ago that involves Labrador. Another land claim has just been signed by the people in the Nunavik land claim; that basically involves Northern Quebec and the waters adjacent to Northern Quebec. Another land claim is now under negotiation involving parts of James Bay. This issue deals with the offshore component.
To switch back to the science, I am a marine mammal scientist at the Maurice Lamontagne Institute in Mont-Joli, which is near Rimouski on the Gaspé coast in the Quebec. My presentation is found in the pictures before you and can be divided into three chapters. The first chapter expands on Mr. Davis' information regarding the populations, including a little bit on the idea of separating populations. The second chapter is about interaction with the people in the North and how we carry out our work. The third chapter deals with how animals are counted in Northern Quebec and the survey design that we use.
The first slide shows the beluga whales in the water. The second slide is a map of Canada. The red areas indicate where the beluga are separated into different populations in Canada, and noted at the same time is a rough idea of population size.
As Mr. Davis indicated, the Cumberland Sound population has been identified by COSEWIC as threatened with a rough population size of 2,000 animals. There is a quota on this population and the quota is 41 animals per year.
The populations of Ungava Bay and Eastern Hudson Bay have also been identified by COSEWIC as endangered. There is an approximate population of 3,100 animals in Eastern Hudson Bay and less than 200 animals in Ungava Bay.
There is a small population in the St. Lawrence River, which is also listed as threatened. It is the most southerly population in the world. That population is currently around 1,000 animals.
The population in Western Hudson Bay has been identified as of special concern. That arose largely because it had not been surveyed for over a decade and there were concerns about harvesting because we did not know much about the population.
Two other populations which are not of interest to COSEWIC are the High Arctic, about 20,000 animals, and another in the Beaufort Sea area of about 39,000 animals.
Looking now at the pie charts, I do not intend to give you a lesson in genetics because I do not understand it very well myself. It is a very complex field. At the same time, the idea behind the diagram is that not all beluga are equal. Beluga can be separated into different groups. The groups are separated in these pie charts such that the groups that are predominated by the red all belong to the same stock. That is the Eastern Hudson Bay group. It shows up as a unique group.
One unique beluga group is found along Western Hudson Bay and, at certain times of the year, near the Belcher Islands, which are called Sanikiluaq on your map. Those whales can be separated out from the Eastern Hudson Bay whales. They are represented by the blue area. This map is based on where the animals are located in the summer.
Using genetics, we can separate them out into two main groups. During the winter, those animals migrate into Hudson Strait, which is the area between Northern Quebec and Baffin Island. In that area they mingle together and over-winter together.
The next slide, the coloured whales, is an idea to simplify the pie charts. The Western Hudson Bay whales show as blue, with a population of 57,000 animals or more. The Eastern Hudson Bay animals show as red, with about 3,100 animals. The lone whale shown in Ungava represents a population of less than 200. This is how the whales are separated out in the summer.
During the fall, usually in the month of October, those animals begin to migrate into the Hudson Strait area where they are then hunted. Animals are streaming in from a very small population and from a very large population. All the whales are white and they all mix together. Hunters find it very difficult to distinguish between eastern and western whales. The people in Hudson Strait ask us, ``Why are you trying to restrict our hunting? There are lots of animals.'' We have a big challenge to explain that we are trying to protect a very small group of animals that spend the summer in Eastern Hudson Bay. That concept is hard to understand. Often when I go to meetings, even with my Fisheries and Oceans Canada colleagues, they come out without having really caught the whole idea. You can imagine that trying to explain it to people who are not scientists can be a bit complicated.
Much of our activity and our information is based upon assistance that we receive from the Inuit. Many years ago, we identified a problem with beluga in Eastern Hudson Bay and the Inuit told us, ``You are not flying your surveys properly. You are just staying on the beach. You should go offshore.'' We did that and it resulted in an increased population estimate from 200 animals to 3,000 or 4,000 animals. That was in the 1980s.
The Inuit also told us, ``You fly over. How can you say you have a good count? Those animals are diving.'' We responded by putting satellite transmitters on the animals to try to develop correction factors for the number of animals that are underwater when we fly overhead.
The satellite telemetry was also a benefit in giving an idea of where the animals are swimming. Do they stay on the coast or do they go offshore? We tagged animals at Little Whale River, Nastapoka River, which is near the community of Umiujaq on Eastern Hudson Bay. We learned that during the summer the animals spend a large amount of time offshore, but when they migrate, the migration is very coastal. They tend to follow the coast up along Eastern Hudson Bay, around the corner in Hudson Strait. We were surprised because we thought the beluga spent the whole winter in Hudson Strait, but some are spending the winter down along the Labrador coast.
The next slide shows boxes representing satellite data from the previous page and the uplinks or the locations where we obtained the satellite signals. It attempts to put the data into a schedule to show where the animals are during July, August and September; that is the black box. The red box shows that many of the animals have moved up into the Hudson Strait area or are staying in the northeastern corner of Hudson Bay. The yellowish box shows animals way down on the Labrador coast during January, February and March. That is where those animals are spending the winter.
It is interesting what we pick up when we talk to the people. One of the very first things we learned when we were talking with them in the 1970s and 1980s was that the beluga are yellow in the spring and then they become white. We could not understand that but, based on those conversations, we went out to study what process is happening there. We developed the idea that beluga are the only cetacean species that undergoes a molt; it sheds its skin. The Inuit have known that for a long time, but we were able to look at it in microscopic detail and to describe the process.
As I explained earlier, the Inuit said you are not getting the diving animals and you have to fly offshore. The next slide shows where we fly now. The idea is that we changed our surveys in response to their input.
In this figure, Quebec is green. We have a series of panels — three on the top and three on the bottom. The panels on the left show Inuit information where we have been working with the Nunavik Research Centre in the last couple of years, looking at information from the traditional knowledge base and trying to see how we agree or disagree with what we have from other data sources.
If we look in the top left corner, in Summer TEK, we see that the distribution of beluga whales is very coastal. We see the beluga whales extend throughout that whole Hudson Bay arc, but they also extend up into the northeastern part of Hudson Bay and there are whales all through the southern Hudson Strait.
If we look at the satellite telemetry, which are the two panels to the right, we see that beluga whales are going far offshore. How do we interpret this? One thing is that the Inuit are coastal hunters generally, so, as a sampling scheme, they do not have access to the offshore animals and they are not picking them up. However, the satellite telemetry is a very punctual sampling scheme and it is very local. We get the idea of animals spending time in the Hudson Bay arc but, even though we have done a few surveys, we are missing some animals that are further up along the Hudson Strait. That is something we need to address further in our research.
If we go into the winter TEK, on the bottom left, traditional knowledge says that animals are over-wintering in that southeastern Hudson Bay area and in James Bay. Yet, the satellite telemetry shows very clearly that the animals leave this area completely, move into Ungava Bay and then move down the Labrador coast. Both sources of information are very interesting. Both sources of information show what we call in science a ``sampling perspective'' or a ``sampling bias.'' The people are there all winter. They are the ones who are picking up the information that the whales might be there.
The question is what stock do they belong to? Do they belong to the Eastern Hudson Bay whale stock that we are worried about or do they belong to a group of whales that spend the summer in James Bay? That is a question we must ask. At the same time, because the hunters cannot get out and hunt in the same way during the winter due to short days and difficult traveling conditions, they are not picking up the idea that many of the animals they see in the summer do move out and do move off the Labrador coast. We know that some of the animals that we have identified genetically as belonging to the Eastern Hudson Bay group do migrate out of the area. At the same time, some animals stick around. What is the actual source or stock discrimination nature of the animals that spend the summer?
There are a few other examples of how we work with the people but I will go on to the third chapter, so to speak.
How do we look at trying to get abundance? How do we evaluate this population in relationship both to SARA and to our management objectives? To evaluate this population we carry out aerial surveys. In the last aerial survey, people from the community of Kuujjuarapik were on board to help us in the counting. That information is then incorporated into a population model with information on harvests and mortality to give us the trajectory. That information is used to provide advice to the fisheries managers to help them make recommendations on quotas.
From the historical data, the population in Eastern Hudson Bay may have been as high as 12,000 animals. That estimate is based on reconstructing the population, which comes from the Hudson's Bay Company logs. They always kept very good notes on the numbers of animals or at least the number of half-skins they traded or the oil they recovered. That information is converted into number of whales.
If you have a rough idea of how many whales you have today, you can go back in time to get an idea. This information is based only on harvests at two rivers. It does not include the subsistence hunt or harvests that may have occurred elsewhere.
This may be a conservative estimate, but the population at one time may have numbered as many as 12,000 animals. Today the group of animals that spends the summer in Eastern Hudson Bay has a population of 3,000 animals. For COSEWIC and also for Fisheries and Oceans Canada, that is a concern. Over time, we would like to increase the population to 8,000 animals at least. That would give us more room to manoeuvre. At that point, we could say we have a more healthy population and we could look at increasing harvest rates.
How do we count these animals? That is on the last slide. The original idea to go offshore came from the Inuit. They said, ``You are not counting enough of the area. You have to look elsewhere for the animals.''
We developed an extensive sampling program. Each one of these lines that goes out from the shore in Eastern Hudson Bay takes 45 minutes to one hour to fly, flying at a speed of 150 knots. We are going out very far. The type of aircraft we use is also shown in the picture. This area fits very well with what we see with the satellite telemetry. The animals that we are equipping with transmitters spend the summer in this area. They stay pretty well within the grid that we are covering during our surveys.
Our surveys are extensive. That does not mean we could not improve them, but we cover a very wide area. We also extend the surveys into James Bay and Ungava Bay. We have had problems in our Ungava Bay surveys because the numbers are so few that the whales are difficult to detect.
We have a big problem when we come back to the Inuit and say that we did not see any whales in our surveys. That is not to say that there are none there, but the number of animals is too small for us to detect. However, the people are going along the coast in summer. They see the whales and they say, ``Your surveys are no good. You are telling us there are no whales in Ungava Bay.'' It is hard for to us to explain that we are not saying there are no whales in Ungava Bay; we say the population is so small that we cannot detect them with this survey design. In order for us to detect an animal with this approach, there would have to be a population of at least 200 animals in Ungava Bay. We conclude, then, that the population is less than 200 animals at the surface.
I will stop there and let Mr. Vincent continue with more details on the management approach.
[Translation]
Mr. Vincent: Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to talk with you today about Nunavik beluga management.
The Nunavik beluga is, without a doubt, a species of primary importance for the Inuit population of Nunavik. It has been part of this people's diet since the Inuit arrived here and it continues to be a very important source of protein in their diet even today.
This is true especially because of the often very high cost of food from the south, which has to be imported into Nunavik. The traditions surrounding the beluga hunt that have been passed down to the generations are an important part of Inuit culture, and preservation of this knowledge and these traditions is part of this people's wealth.
That is why, to an extent, major efforts have been made to strike a balance between the dietary and cultural needs of the Inuit with regard to the beluga, and the sustainability of these stocks in Nunavik.
Fisheries and Oceans recognizes the knowledge and needs of the Inuit of Nunavik, and must combine those realities with the resource's ability to renew itself. The challenge is particularly great because we must combine the traditional knowledge of the Inuit with the scientific and biological knowledge generally used to establish authorized catch rates.
How can these two realities be combined? A beluga co-management committee called LUMAQ was established. It is made up of a representative of the hunters of eastern Hudson Bay, a representative from Hudson Strait and a representative of the communities of Ungava Bay. Also sitting on the LUMAQ committee are the president of the Hunting, Fishing and Trapping Association (HFTA), a representative of the Kativik Regional Government, and a representative of each of the following: the Sanikiluaq Hunting and Trapping Association, Nunavut, Tunngavikique Inc. and the Qiqitaluk Wildlife Board. The committee is co-chaired by Makivik and DFO, but the department does not have the right to vote. This nuance is important, because the minister is ultimately responsible for conservation of the resources and, within the current legislative framework, is unable to delegate that responsibility.
The LUMAQ committee was formed in 2004 and meets once or twice a year. Its primary responsibility is to establish the elements of the management plan. A beluga management plan has existed in one form or another since 1985. The current plan is for three years, that is, for the years 2006 to 2008 inclusively. It sets up the context, including traditional knowledge, scientific advice, conservation measures and total allowable catches (TACs) for each hunting area.
The committee members are therefore able to comment on the scientific advice at meetings and then communicate their positions regarding beluga management. Once the plan has been established, it is normally the responsibility of the LUMAQ committee members to communicate it to their communities. In addition, DFO will officially communicate the management plan and specific measures. This communication will be done to the hunting associations — notices to hunters and/or news releases — Makivik, Kativik, the mayors of the communities and the media in order to ensure the broadest media coverage possible. We generally do interviews with local medias, local radio stations and Nunatsiaq News.
The major challenge faced by the Inuit has to do with the eastern Hudson Bay and Ungava Bay stocks. These two stocks are considered endangered by COSEWIC. Recovery plans have been established that allow hunting in Hudson Strait.
Normally, when a species is considered threatened, in danger or extinct, no harvesting is allowed. Here, the recovery plan allows harvesting because what is involved is a subsistence hunt. Too much hunting in the strait would not allow for recovery of these two stocks. The TAC was set at 135 belugas a year, but, at that rate, recovery could take up to 100 years.
Also, the eastern Hudson Bay and Ungava Bay areas must remain completely closed to the hunt. As you can see, out of concern for conservation, we are entering into conflict with Inuit needs in the areas of food and tradition. This conflict is heightened by the fact that the beluga population of western Hudson Bay is estimated at over 50,000 animals. We are aware of this, and it is in this spirit that we are trying to find alternatives with the Inuit representatives. The management plan therefore provides for an accessible quota at Long Island and in James Bay. We realize that distancing the hunt from the communities creates problems.
Also, a hunt was authorized in 2006 around the Ottawa Islands under certain conditions. Finally, hunting may also be done at Sanikiluaq in the Belcher Islands under certain conditions and with the agreement of the local hunters. Moreover, DFO remains available to work with the Inuit representatives to establish a bowhead whale hunt in Hudson Strait in order to find alternative food sources and sources of necessary protein.
How can strict conservation measures be reconciled with a subsistence hunt based on a people's traditional knowledge? It is not easy, and the Inuit and DFO have had to invest great effort. I would like to cite a few examples of collaboration that, I believe, deserves this committee's attention. I would place the various activities in four categories: communication, awareness and education; information for scientific analysis; collection of hunting data; and monitoring of hunting activities. I will list a few of these for you.
In terms of communication, awareness and education, I mentioned the LUMAQ committee, but I should also mention that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, along with experts, undertook several tours into communities in order to speak about the management plan and conservation measures, and, especially, to listen to the various community members.
There is currently another tour taking place throughout 14 communities. The purpose is to meet with all the communities' hunter associations to discuss the management plan, discuss and exchange information on the scientific issues, and discuss solutions to bring the parties together.
In terms of communications, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans recently developed a guide to traditional hunting and Inuit traditional knowledge. This project was done in collaboration with the Avataq Cultural Institute, and with the participation of the HFTA and the mayors and elders of five Nunavik communities, that is, Umiujaq, Inukjuak, Salluit, Kangiqsualujuaq and Kangirsuq. After those meetings, a guide to hunting was developed that took Inuit traditional knowledge into account. That gave the elders an opportunity to hand down their knowledge to today's hunters.
Furthermore, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, with the collaboration of the Department of Natural Resources and Fauna. . . .
[English]
The Chairman: We do have some time constraints, so I wonder if you could conclude quickly. What you are into now is cooperation with the local community. I think we have had a lot of the information that we need to ask questions.
[Translation]
Mr. Vincent: I will not go through the whole list because I believe you have the document and we can refer to it later to provide you with the details of other activities that were undertaken.
Everyone collaborated in an attempt to include Inuit traditional knowledge into decision-making. The last collaboration that I would like to tell you about deals with the collection of hunting data and the monitoring of hunting activities. Agreements were reached with the Kativik Regional Government in order to include Inuit multidisciplinary officers and renewable resources officers in the monitoring of hunting activities and the collection of hunting data.
Much remains to be done for there to be true co-management, but I am convinced that we are all on the right path. Efforts will have to continue, as the new Nunavik Inuit Land Claims Agreement, which relates mainly to management of marine resources, clearly establishes the rights and responsibilities of each party within a new framework to ensure sound management of resources for present and future generations.
[English]
The Chairman: Thank you very much. You have been very helpful.
Senator Baker: I congratulate the witnesses on their information and the hard work they undoubtedly do in their positions.
I would ask Mr. John Davis if he is related to the John Davis of 16th-century fame after whom the Davis Strait is named.
Mr. Davis: Not to my knowledge, senator.
The Chairman: The mapping has been not improved since.
Mr. Davis: Nor am I related to the John Davis who was the first person to land on Antarctica.
Senator Baker: You are definitely not that person?
Mr. Davis: No.
Senator Baker: Here is the confusion that somebody is left with after listening to all of this information. Mr. Hammill referred to it when he said that in meetings even officials from Fisheries and Oceans Canada are confused by explanations about the populations of the beluga. Even the officials cannot understand why the department is so restrictive and demanding of compliance concerning the populations.
We understand from listening to you that, by your logic, because there are a million whales over in the western part of the bay but only two whales over in the eastern part of the bay during the summer, when they all mix together in the wintertime one is not allowed to kill any whale.
That was the logic that Mr. Hammill was putting to the people. He is nodding his head yes. That is why we are confused. The committee is confused.
Mr. Hammill, why is your estimate at 20,000 animals up in the High Arctic, which is north of your area, when the DFO said on June 6 in their publication Underwater World, for all the world to read, that there were 40,000 animals there? Has the population gone down by 50 per cent since the last estimate was made, Mr. Hammill?
Mr. Hammill: No, the population has not gone down. I will have to check the publication because, in some cases, the number reported is the number actually seen. In other cases, the number is corrected for diving animals. I would have to check that out.
Senator Baker: Yes, I think you gave the surface count, whereas the count in Underwater World is 40,000 when 20,000 are seen on the surface. The logic is that there are another 20,000 under the water.
Mr. Hammill: That is correct.
Senator Baker: That publication was put out by the Fisheries and Oceans Canada, your department, updated June 6, 2006. That is your writing, is it not? Did you supply those numbers to Underwater World?
Mr. Hammill: Yes, and I think the 20,000 comes out of a COSEWIC document.
Senator Baker: There we go. We have more whales than people there. If there is a threatened species around, looking at it logically, in numbers, perhaps it is the people, from the evidence in the clippings supplied to us by Senator Watt, especially, and in Senator Adams' information as well. Senator Watt supplied us with the newspaper articles about your department helicopters going in amidst a ceremonial feast of the beluga whale, landing right next to the whale, ruining the meat of the whale and frightening men, women and children and then the department laying charges against them. I do not know how many kids have been charged yet but it looks that way.
The newspaper article says that they face fines of $50,000 or a year in jail if convicted by summary conviction or five years in jail and a $250,000 fine if by indictment. Those are the COSEWIC rules and I think the same rules apply to the Marine Mammal Regulations. Prior to this meeting, the committee was discussing the need for a subcommittee to be formed to look into these charges.
Mr. Hammill, you have been cross-examined in court proceedings concerning the Marine Mammals Regulations. Your name appears in case law, in Quicklaw. Do you not recall being in court? Your affidavit was presented in court for a Marine Mammals Regulations prosecution and then you were cross-examined on your affidavit.
Mr. Hammill: That has never occurred to me. I was not called as a witness. I was required to be present to comment on safety issues related to the harp seal hunt, but I have never been before the court.
Senator Baker: Your affidavit has been there?
Mr. Hammill: I have presented an affidavit.
Senator Baker: I would like each of you to comment on this: There are huge populations of beluga whales, 57,000 in Hudson Bay and another group of 3,100, and in just the James Bay section, 6,000. There you could see 3,000 on the water and 3,000 under the water. There are over 60,000 beluga whales just in Hudson Bay that all migrate north, as you said a moment ago. They all go north to where these local people are being charged.
Senator Watt explained to me that charges have been laid recently against the Inuit people. I can understand your frustration in trying to explain it to the Fisheries and Oceans Canada people. How can you explain it to senators? It defies logic.
Mr. Hammill: One point that got missed in the presentation is that the Eastern Hudson Bay is currently closed to all hunting by the Quebec Inuit because that group of animals is very small. They must go down to James Bay to get the animals or they must travel to Hudson Strait. Every time someone in Hudson Strait kills the one or two animals that summer in Eastern Hudson Bay, communities such as Umiujaq will not be able to hunt. We are trying to increase the Eastern Hudson Bay population of whales. We are trying to protect that group.
One group of people is being told they cannot hunt while their friends in Hudson Strait continue to hunt. Otherwise, they will never be able to hunt. We go to Hudson Strait and the local residents say, ``We have all these animals swimming by. We did not understand or realize that they came from two different areas or they are from two different populations.'' That is where the confusion is arising.
Senator Baker: At the beginning, we used the suggestion of a million animals here and two animals there. No one, then, is allowed to hunt at all for fear of killing the two animals. That is very difficult to explain to ordinary people.
Mr. Hammill: I agree, sir.
Senator Baker: It is probably so illogical that it does not garner any authenticity as far as logic is concerned in the real world.
Regarding my final question, we looked at the regulations in Alaska and in Greenland. Senator Adams' beluga whales in the North migrate over to Greenland. The beluga on the other side of the Arctic go to Alaska.
Senator Adams: They go right up to Russia.
Senator Baker: We looked at those regulations and they are not as strict as those in Canada. The Alaskan regulations say an Alaskan native person who resides on the coast of the Arctic Ocean may take any marine mammal without a permit if such taking is for subsistence or for the purpose of creating and selling authentic native articles of handicraft and clothing. Greenland has approximately the same regulations. I understand we have the same exemption, under the Marine Mammals Regulations, for beneficiaries defined as persons who are under land claims, like James Bay. However, we do not have the same thing in the Species at Risk Act.
How do you explain to people in those areas that the whales are going off to Greenland and Alaska where there are liberal killing regulations and nobody will be charged with anything, yet the killing of those same whales in Canada could land someone in court? That does not seem logical to us. Do you have any comment?
Mr. Hammill: The Cook Inlet beluga is closed to all hunting as of this year because that population is going downhill drastically. That is an Alaskan herd population that currently numbers 300. The Greenland harvest has raised so many international flags that they are in the process of putting in a quota system on their hunt as well.
Senator Baker: They will put in a quota system in Greenland?
Mr. Hammill: Yes, they are trying to put that in. Obviously it requires some discussions on their part.
The Chairman: I have a supplementary question. If the whales are far away, has anyone thought about a system to bring the Inuit to the whales that are inaccessible to them? I ask that question because the same thing has happened before with other species. It has happened on land, with the Innu in Labrador, where they fly in to shoot caribou using a subsidized transportation system. The same thing was done in Northern Labrador with species that were inaccessible to the Inuit. Maybe that is over-simplifying the issue, but if it can be done with other species, has thought been given to working on a system that could bring the Inuit to the whales?
[Translation]
Mr. Vincent: That type of program was established in 2002-2002-033 and even this year, in 2006. We knew that the closing of the zone east of Hudson Bay and the Ungava Bay zone, given the problems with respect to the number of belugas that remained, would force several communities to travel very far in order to be able to hunt.
Therefore, at the request of the Inuit and Makivik, we set up a program that would assist hunters in accessing the zones further away for hunting. However, it is not as simple as saying that we will simply help hunters' travel and will cover their costs; some zones are in areas managed under other treaties or in other jurisdictions.
The Inuit must therefore ask permission, for example, from Nunavut or Sanikiluaq, to hunt on their land. That involves rather lengthy procedures. Makivik could probably expand on that.
There are other problems with this approach: Inuit hunters prefer to hunt near their communities. Safety and costs must also be taken into account. We can help with the costs, however, safety is much more difficult to manage.
Nevertheless, one of the advantages of this approach is that it gives us information on hunting in other areas. This information can then be used by the scientists, who can use the DNA, for example, in order to find out where the belugas that are being hunted come from and how old they are.
[English]
Senator Adams: I have questions about the beluga study at Nunavut and Nunavik. I will start with a question for John Davis around Hudson Bay. I have seen the picture here of killer whales on the front of the report from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. The population is growing in Hudson Bay quite a bit now and killer whales are eating many beluga whales.
Someone in your department should put some equipment in to study how many killer whales are eating beluga in Hudson Bay. The people do not want to go too far out on the sea and the killer whales will bring the beluga whales in closer to the shore. Will the department study that question? Is it true that you study the killer whales?
Mr. Davis: I will ask Mr. Hammill for specifics. Generally, we do a lot of work on killer whales. Particularly, we worked a lot on the West Coast with the southern residents. The northern populations in British Columbia are very low in numbers. In that case, COSEWIC did make a recommendation that the killer whales be listed under the endangered species legislation and they were. There is a recovery strategy now being developed for the killer whales there.
Your question deals with what is happening in the Arctic with respect to these populations; is that right?
Senator Baker: On a point of order, as I understood Senator Adams' question, he was asking about the predation of beluga by killer whales. In other words, he is suggesting we get rid of the killer whales and not preserve the killer whales as you were suggesting.
Mr. Davis: I was suggesting that there is a lot of work done on the West Coast where we look at the preservation, but I was going to ask Mr. Hammill to talk about the specific work going on with the killer whales in the North, which relates to your predation question.
Mr. Hammill: The number of sightings has increased. This information is provided to us largely by the hunters along the west coast of Hudson Bay. We have only initiated research on killer whales in this area. We do not know their diet. We do not have a good idea of numbers. We are deploying hydrophones because that is the best way to get an idea of where the animals are and where they move around and to get a rough idea of abundance. We are very early in any attempt to understand what is going on with killer whales in Western Hudson Bay.
Senator Adams: Thank you. We understand. We call them ``aarluk,'' killer whales. Eat the whales.
My second question is on the study of beluga between Resolute and Lancaster Sound. That is very deep water and a lot of open water up there. Do you study the narwhals and stuff like that, too, in the Arctic Bay area?
People are hunting whales up there, too, in Lancaster Sound. Perhaps not many migrate that far. This document shows close to 70,000 beluga right now. Have you not studied that area yet? Are there no whales up there? I remember, four or five years ago, several families from Arctic Bay went up there on the ice, hunting and trapping. We had a First Air plane that picked them up and brought them back home.
Is your report is not quite finished yet?
Mr. Hammill: No, sir, that diagram is more of a schematic. It is not meant to show all areas. It just shows there is a group of whales in the High Arctic. We also understand there are narwhal there. The people who spend much of their effort studying whales in that area are actually based in Winnipeg at the Freshwater Institute. They have been surveying all through Lancaster Sound, Prince Regent Inlet and down for bowhead, narwhal and beluga.
Senator Adams: I am glad you mentioned about the Freshwater Institute; it has a headquarters in Nunavut. What happened to the Inuit, last fall, was that 14 whales were trapped at Beaufort Sea. According to the people of the community, those 14 whales were trapped. I do not know long it takes to get through to you with phone calls, perhaps five or 10 minutes or perhaps it takes a week to get a response.
The local hunters and trappers say that those whales can survive only about a week. They slaughtered the whales because the whales had no way back out to open water. Do you have some idea what will happen in such a case in the future? Will the Department of Fisheries and Oceans be equipped to answer? That happened in the High Arctic, in the Igloolik area.
Do you study the problem of trapped whales? The number of whales is increasing every year because they are protected, so more can become trapped and not be able to find open water.
Mr. Hammill: Are you referring to the Husky Lakes incident, in the Western Arctic, the Beaufort Sea?
Senator Adams: It happened in the Igloolik area in the High Arctic and up around Grise Fiord the year before. About 24 whales were killed by polar bears because the water was not quite big enough and they just got slaughtered.
Mr. Hammill: The Husky Lakes incident involved a lot of exchange between hunters and trappers and Fisheries and Oceans Canada, mainly our Winnipeg colleagues. I do not know the final total of whales that they did kill. Initial reports had upwards of 70-odd whales in that area of the Husky Lakes. The geography of Husky Lakes is extremely complex and has only one tiny opening. There was concern about whether whales could find the opening on their own or if they could be driven out. The decision was to wait and finally the decision was made to take some animals. There seemed to be fewer animals at the end than according the initial impressions. To go into more detail, I would have to check with my colleagues.
Senator Adams: I also sit on the Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources Committee. We passed a bill three or four years ago to protect certain species. What has been happening since we passed that legislation? Criminal charges were included in Bill C-5 for killing at-risk species. What effect has that law had?
Mr. Davis: Are you talking about the passage of the endangered species legislation? It comes up for parliamentary review in June 2008, so we are getting to the point where there will be debate over those sorts of things.
Senator Watt: I have too many questions that I would like to put to you, but we do not have enough time. I would say there is a need to set up a subcommittee to get to the bottom of this once and for all. Otherwise, the scientific side and the traditional knowledge side will never be satisfied.
Senator Baker: Good idea.
Senator Watt: I have been involved in the deliberations on this issue for quite some time. I have also witnessed certain transactions take place between the Inuit and the scientific communities. I am not totally encouraged by what I have seen. I would like to cover two areas quickly. You talked about that committee as having a responsible role in management aspects, but you must understand that one piece of the legislation is still coming. Hopefully that will be passed soon. We do not even know whether that act will come through in the near future. Until that legislation gets passed and implemented, you will not have an instrument in place for examining all the aspects involved. My recommendation today is that the quota established for Nunavik be eliminated until the new law is put in place, because you are only getting one side of the information. You are not getting the information on the Baffin Island side. You said yourself that there is a certain amount of confusion. At the same time, we are also putting people at risk.
To speak on another area very quickly, $40,000 is being made available by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans to assist the people to go into an area a long distance from their communities by boat. Those people are taking a risk. You are putting the people into a position of endangering themselves. There have been a number of very close calls already. That has to be re-examined and we need to come up with alternatives. More safety aspects must be taken into account.
Let me stop there because I am fully loaded with the concerns that I have. I do not think it has been handled properly right from the beginning. I also have some grievance with the act itself because I do not think it is balanced between scientific knowledge and traditional knowledge. It talks only about ``taking into consideration.'' It is not mandatory, so it is not balanced. I have been told by the people in the North that the scientific community is not listening, that they have a deaf ear for the information that the Inuit people are trying to present.
I do not want to be too critical, but at this point I feel it is time for me to make this statement. This is not the correct way to handle this issue, because you do not have all the information you need to make the intellectual decisions. For that reason, I think you should eliminate the quota until such instruments are in place to deal with the issues.
The Chairman: I take that as a statement, Senator Watt.
I am very sympathetic to the idea of the subcommittee. I suggest we wait until there is a government representative present. We do have a meeting next Thursday. Perhaps we could deal with that issue then. There is no government member present now.
Senator Robichaud: That is the best time to do it.
[Translation]
We are talking about the populations west and east of Hudson Bay. What is the relationship between these populations and between them and the belugas that are off the coast of Greenland? Are they completely different populations?
Mr. Hammill: They are completely different. There is no mixing between the Hudson Bay belugas and the Greenland belugas, nor is there any with the Cumberland Sound belugas.
Senator Robichaud: There is no connection with the 39,000 that was quoted?
Mr. Hammill: No. There is a connection between the Beaufort Sea belugas and the belugas that spend summers off the coast of Alaska, but this does not apply to all the groups because there are two or three groups there. This is a unique population that mixes to a small extent with that of Alaska, but which does not mix with the belugas from the High Arctic and the belugas further east.
Senator Robichaud: What is the difference between the belugas to the west of Hudson Bay and those to the east of Hudson Bay?
Mr. Hammill: This has been determined based on DNA analysis. We have identified occurrences of certain DNA codes in the belugas on the west coast of Hudson Bay and we have identified other codes that are only found in the belugas on the east coast of Hudson Bay. This would suggest that the belugas off the eastern coast of Hudson Bay do not travel to the west coast of Hudson Bay but rather stay in their own area. Therefore, if all the belugas off the east coast of Hudson Bay are eliminated, they will not be replaced by other belugas and there will be a vacuum. That is what we are currently concerned about.
Senator Robichaud: I understand, but can hunters distinguish between the two?
Mr. Hammill: No, because on the outside both are white and therefore identical. But we have noticed that this is an animal that always goes back to the same place and never changes its habits.
Mr. Vincent: I would like to point out that we set a quota of 135 animals in the Hudson Strait because we had estimated that 20 per cent of the whales travel through the Hudson Strait when they migrate and they are considered as part of the whale population to the west of Hudson Bay. That is why the quota is 135.
As soon as that quota is reached, naturally we close the hunt in those zones and any subsequent hunt becomes illegal. The quota is therefore based on the proportion of belugas from the east of Hudson Bay that migrate with the population from the west of Hudson Bay into the Hudson Strait.
Senator Robichaud: In fact, these belugas are from the same species. The differences are not apparent to the human eye and genetic research is necessary to establish whether they are the same or different. Am I not correct?
Mr. Hammill: Yes.
Senator Robichaud: Then why has the scientific community chosen to distinguish between these groups?
Mr. Hammill: Because we want the inhabitants of the three communities on the east coast of Hudson Bay, that is, Inukjuak, Kuujjuarapik and Umiujaq, to be able to hunt belugas in the future. If they eliminate the belugas that are visiting for the summer, those belugas will not be replaced by other belugas.
Senator Robichaud: You say that they will not be replaced?
Mr. Hammill: Yes, because the population is limited. You can take a certain percentage of the beluga population but if you exceed that limit then you run the risk of eliminating the entire population.
Senator Robichaud: Do the groups mix? During the winter the belugas migrate into the Baffin and Ungava Straits. When they come back, do they split up such that all the belugas that came from the west coast go back to the west coast and those from the east coast go back to east coast?
Mr. Hammill: Not during the summer. No, they split up in the summer, as if some were going to Florida and the others to Louisiana, for example. It is the same principle. They split up, but not in an organized fashion. If one population is higher on one coast, it does not send signals in order to send some of their members to the other coast. One group may develop faster than the other, which may continue to diminish in number. Therefore, young Inuit run the risk of no longer being able to hunt the belugas near their community, in some of their small villages. They will have to travel hundreds of kilometres in order to have access to the belugas. The problem is that the less you hunt, the faster you lose the knowledge required to hunt. Eventually that tradition is lost.
Senator Robichaud: We have been talking about the customs, tradition and lifestyle of these inhabitants. Are you telling me that the eastern population is currently in danger, that it is diminishing?
Mr. Hammill: According to COSEWIC it is in danger.
Senator Robichaud: Are the communities themselves demanding that the stocks be protected?
Mr. Hammill: No. They do not like the idea of closing the zone, but they do comply with the quotas. They have been very respectful of the quotas to date. They do not like it and we can understand why.
Senator Robichaud: I also understand; I would not like it either if I were living there.
[English]
The Chairman: I do not want to be facetious, but we have somewhat the same problem in Newfoundland with blueberries. The question there: When are blueberries green? Response: When they are red.
Senator Baker: I have one little thing to clarify. Senator Adams claims that killer whales or orcas eat beluga. Each of our respected witnesses do excellent jobs in their positions. However, our excellent scientist Mr. Hammill just claimed that Fisheries and Oceans does not know for sure that killer whales eat beluga. That is very important, because there are more killer whales in the North, according to Senator Adams. I would like Mr. Hammill to explain why the department does not know whether killer whales eat beluga. That is the statement you made, I believe.
Mr. Hammill: There are two kinds of killer whales; one eats primarily fish, especially salmon; another eats primarily marine mammals. In Hudson Bay, the killer whales could be eating narwhal or beluga or bowhead whales. In fact, we have good evidence that they are eating bowhead whales. However, we do not have knowledge of what percentage of their diet is bowhead.
I could say that they probably do eat beluga. Is beluga whale an important component in their diet? I cannot tell you that.
Senator Baker: That is kind of like the seal question.
The Chairman: We will close this part of the meeting but the issue is far from closed with us. We will have another meeting on Thursday. You will be hearing from us again. In the meantime, if you want to be in touch with us, feel free to do so. Thank you for coming and for enduring all our questions.
Senators, do not leave yet. I want to deal with the two budgets that you have in front of you. The first budget is for moneys we will need if and when we get the Fisheries Act. There is a hoist motion in the House of Commons. Frankly, I do not see why.
I would like to have a look at the bill. We do not have it yet, but when we do get it we will need to travel. This is the budget for traveling to conduct hearings on the Fisheries Act. It is for $398,000, which is a modest request when you consider what the Defence Committee gets. I would like to have your approval of the budget.
Senator Adams: I so move.
The Chairman: Motion by Senator Adams, seconded by Senator Baker. Carried.
The next budget is for a special study that we will do on the West Coast and particularly on Lake Winnipeg regarding the inland fisheries. We will travel there.
Senator Robichaud: I so move.
The Chairman: Moved by Senator Robichaud. Seconded by Senator Baker.
Carried.
Senator Johnson is not present but she has seen it. These budgets came from the steering committee.
[Translation]
Senator Robichaud: Earlier there was mention of a subcommittee that would examine the issue that we have been considering today, but I see no budget for this. If we were going to focus on this study, then, according to what I heard Senators Watt and Adams say, some travel would be in order for the purpose of visiting these communities and speaking to these people. Should we not be planning a trip?
[English]
The Chairman: We should. I will ask the clerk to look into that and to develop a budget. I do not know what other directions we can give now. We will discuss it in the steering committee.
The committee adjourned.