Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Fisheries and Oceans
Issue 7 - Evidence, March 29, 2007
OTTAWA, Thursday, March 29, 2007
The Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans met this day at 10:47 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: Honourable senators, the main purpose of our meeting today is to continue our deliberations on the issue of beluga whales and the people who hunt them. I will be welcoming our guests later on. Before I do that, I will deal with a few housekeeping items.
We have received a letter from the minister in response to our Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization, NAFO, report, which was very positive. He has accepted most of our recommendations and is acting on them. We can take a lot of credit as a committee. We have made a difference. I will circulate the letter. We just received it yesterday.
We have not moved our report in the Senate. It would probably be timely to do that. I could speak today, if we have time, or we could leave it until we come back after Easter.
Senator Baker: Mr. Chairman, today Senator Watt and Senator Adams wanted to make a speech in the Senate concerning a motion that Senator Adams has on the Order Paper relating to the fishery in the North, specifically relating to the beluga whale. Perhaps you could postpone your address until we come back. That would allow us a better opportunity to get on the schedule to make that speech on behalf of the representatives here today before the committee.
The Chairman: I see the deputy chair nodding. We always want to accommodate Senator Adams and Senator Watt. Agreed.
We are here today to continue our discussions on beluga whales. We have with us the delegation from Nunavik. We have Mr. Novalinga, Mr. Oovaut, and Mr. Aullaluk. They will make presentations, as well as Mr. Kalingo. We welcome you to the Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans. We have heard, as you know, from officials. We have had a session with them. We now want to hear from you. That will not be the end of our deliberations. Today is not the end of our examination, but it is a very important aspect of our examination. Please begin.
M. Paulusi Novalinga, Puvirnituq, Nunavik, Quebec, President, Nunavik Hunters, Fishermen and Trappers Association: Thank you. I represent the Nunavik Hunters, Fishermen and Trappers Association. I am here to stress that the beluga whale is in no way endangered. Traditional knowledge has acknowledged that. There is a big concern in our region because people have been accused of over-harvesting the beluga. As we speak, they have a court record. They have been prosecuted for over-harvesting the beluga.
We, the Inuit of Nunavik, are hurt and concerned by the fact that some of our hunters have been charged for over- harvesting the beluga whale on our traditional hunting grounds. For the first time in history, we have been prosecuted for harvesting an animal that we have always used for food and survival. We are shocked, since we have been using the beluga whale since our existence.
The beluga whale is an important food source and was, in the past, used for leather, clothing and even medicine. It has been known to be good for our health, containing fatty acids such as omega-3, which good for the blood system and heart.
In health records from 20 years ago, there were no cases of diabetes on our coast. Then quotas were imposed on the beluga whale. Today, there are 40 cases on our coast. It is caused by not having enough traditional food. This is known. Mostly eating store-bought food is the cause, and our doctors can prove that.
It is even more confusing since our people to the north, namely Nunavut, have absolutely no restrictions on their harvesting. The fact that Nunavut is also our traditional hunting area makes it even more unacceptable.
All the beluga in the entire Hudson Bay migrate to Nunavik nine months of the year. Therefore, it is unacceptable for us to be told that the beluga is declining in number. That is not the case. In fact, their numbers have been known to increase. In the summertime, they go to feed and to calf all over the Northern Coast, but each year they come back to Nunavik for a nine-months period. Therefore, we do not accept the fact that we are depleting the numbers of beluga.
We have always had our own rules, even though they were not written. They came from grandfather to father to son. We were taught to take care and respect life, and that is what we have always done.
Therefore, we feel the people of Nunavik are being unfairly treated in this matter. Thank you.
Eli Aullaluk, Mayor of Akulivik, as an individual:
[The witness speaks in his native language.]
Thank you. We are privileged to be able to be present in this gathering.
I am a hunter. I depend on country food. I will tell a little story. When I am in the South, country food is normally not available. Therefore, I have to go to the restaurants and eat steaks and lasagna, and then, unfortunately, I always need to have Rolaids on hand.
I would like to tell a story about my experience last September and October concerning the beluga hunt. My name is Eli Aullaluk and I am Mayor of Akulivik. This is my third term in office and elections are coming up later this year. Who can tell what will happen? Ever since there were gatherings within organizations in Nunavik concerning beluga management plans, I have been in support of it because I want to preserve their population for generations to come.
Shortly after Fisheries and Oceans Canada informed the communities this past summer that the allowable catch was reached in Hudson Strait, I sent an email to Ms. Danielle Baillargeon of Fisheries and Oceans Canada on August 28, 2006 to ask if she would advise us of any possibility to harvest the beluga. She never responded to my request.
During the summer, finally thinking of Nottingham and Salisbury Islands in Hudson Strait, I consulted, in person, the offices of the Nunavik Hunters, Fishermen and Trappers Association in Kuujjuaq, and a while later, President Paulusi Novalinga in Puvirnituq. Both times, there were no objections for me to harvest from the said islands as they were outside the boundary stipulated in the Beluga Management Plan.
As my instincts to hunt the beluga grew stronger, I contacted other people, such as Mark T. Gordon of the Kativik Regional Government, KRG. He did not give definite answers on two occasions but mentioned that the Hudson Strait was closed for harvesting the beluga.
On October 12, 2006, I emailed Mr. Michel Tremblay of Fisheries and Oceans Canada to ask him of the possibility of harvesting on Nottingham Island and/or the adjacent Salisbury Island. He never gave me an answer but did email me on October 18, after we had left for the beluga hunt.
On October 17, I received a call from a fisheries officer, Mr. Norman Nadeau, from Ivujivik. He was studying the situation of the possibility of beluga hunts in that area. He told me that he would call Fisheries and Oceans Canada in Quebec City and would get back to me shortly when he had the information as to whether I could hunt. He called me later that day with good news: I could go ahead and hunt. The discussions took place between Fisheries and Oceans Canada and Nunavut Wildlife Management Board that I would have time to hunt the beluga on Hudson Strait at Nottingham and Salisbury Islands for about one week because the beluga harvest would close there on October 22 at midnight. It takes about two or three days to travel there by boat.
We had about five days left. When we received that information, we left by boat the next day. We got to Nottingham Island the same day, but, due to bad weather, we were stranded in the community of Ivujivik for at least three or four days.
Fisheries and Oceans Canada officers were in Ivujivik at the same time, so my boat captain and I had a chance to visit with them, along with the Mayor of Ivujivik, Mr. Adamie Kalingo, who is present today. We had a discussion with them about our harvesting concerns. The officers were very polite and understanding as we discussed with them our need to harvest for our survival.
In a couple of days, we sailed along the coastline of Nottingham Island, spotting new beluga. After that, we crossed over to Salisbury Island, which is northeast of Nottingham Island and about a two- to four-hour trip. For almost two days, we sailed throughout the western coast of that island, spotting nothing. We spent one night on this island in a very icy anchorage because it was on the verge of freezing. We were a little scared.
We started heading back to Nottingham Island on October 26. Later, after anchoring on this island, I consulted Eli Angiyou, a renewable resources officer in the Akulivik Regional Government. I called him by satellite phone that evening. I asked him to consult Fisheries and Oceans Canada in Quebec City to ask if it would be possible to harvest six beluga whales in Ivujivik, which was then closed to the beluga hunt.
We suggested that the catch, if any, would be deducted from the next year's quota, as it states in the three-year management plan agreed upon for 2006-08. Again, I called Eli Angiyou after we reached Ivujivik the evening of Friday, October 27, but he gave me the news that he had a telephone conversations with Fisheries and Oceans Canada officials earlier and that they absolutely declined our request.
We left Ivujivik Saturday, October 28, to head back home through the crowds of beluga passing through Ivujivik, but we did not go after any of them because we were not allowed. We finally reached home at Akulivik on Monday after stopping two nights along the way because of the weather.
Thinking about this trip — the past trip, the present trip — afterward, it was, to our mind, a horrendous one and very dangerous. At this time of the year, especially when we are a lone boat, we are in danger when taking such a trip to distant sites to catch a beluga whale, if any is available.
Seeing all this and thinking about it, we met with a few hunters in our community, as well as some elders, on November 1, to discuss the concerns about the beluga whale. At this gathering, no one, including myself, objected to anyone harvesting the beluga whale from our immediate area at the time.
After this gathering, the hunters harvested four beluga whales the next day, to everyone's joy and satisfaction. There was to be a community feast because the new Anglican pastor, who is now from our community, had just arrived. As a result of that, we had a feast. The community of Akulivik could not have been happier at the time, even though we were not allowed to catch any beluga in that area. Our Hudson Bay coast is closed for harvest.
This is the message I wanted to send out. The quota is hurting us.
I believe about six persons caught the beluga whales that I mentioned, and I understand they have been charged. They might go to court, much to our dissatisfaction. It hurts us. I hope those charges will be dropped, as it is our tradition and livelihood. We need it to survive.
Johnny Oovaut, Mayor of Quaqtaq, as an individual: My name is Johnny Oovaut. I am 44 years old. I am the mayor of a whaling community of 315 people. I am a recovering beluga consumer — like a recovering alcoholic.
People often probably wonder about our practices because they are used to seeing whales in the Vancouver aquarium. I notice that animal rights' groups like to make animals cute, such as polar bears, but polar bears are quite dangerous. They do not smile like we do.
They probably wonder why we consume the nice beluga whale. We wonder why people consume snails, for example, or grasshoppers.
My community was established because of the whales. My ancestors were able to hunt mammals such as seals, walrus and whales from the land. In the fall, the winds start to blow from the North, so it was quite easy to harvest from the sea even if they did not use a boat. That is why that community was established, because the whales passed through that area.
I remember attending my first whale hunt, which was on the ice flow edge. We were often scolded by the hunters for walking on the ice because the whales have very acute hearing. It was very exciting when the whales appeared, so sometimes we forgot about the warnings and we walked. Then we would get scolded by the hunters.
I shot my first whale when I was 12 years old, with my father's gun. It took quite a few shots, but I finally got one. That is how long I have been hunting whales.
I live about 500 feet from the sea. In the fall, in October and November, they usually come at about 12:30 p.m. — at lunchtime. I know because I often see whales when I am having lunch. Then I cut my lunch short to go to hunt them.
I am trying to make the point that we have quite extensive knowledge of the whales. We can almost tell you to the week when they will arrive in our area. That is how long we have been there.
There is archaeological evidence that the Inuit have existed in my particular area of Diana Bay in the Hudson Strait for 3,800 years. I would also like to mention that Corporal McLean, in the 1940s, went to Ungava Bay to meet with the Inuit people. He observed that the Inuit had accumulated wisdom from having lived up there for so long.
My people in my community have many expectations of me from this trip. We are looking for people that can help us, people that will treat us fairly. Three of the hunters in my community have been charged with breaking the law. Unfortunately, I do not know what law has been broken.
I do not know under what jurisdiction Fisheries and Oceans Canada has to come to our community to charge those men. They are quite unfair because those men had no legal representation. We do not know who to call; we do not know what law we broke; we do not know what the penalties are, and that is how they are treating us. They treat us with very little respect.
In 1985, there was a survey completed. They said that there were 200 whales left in Ungava Bay. As recently as last year, they were still saying that there are 200 whales. I wonder; they are not dying off, and they are not reproducing for 20 years — how can that be?
The Inuit live up there. We live out in the tundra. We feel the environment; we feel the animals around us. With the effects of global warming, we have seen strange insects coming up North; for example, the horntail wasp, which belongs in a wooded area. We do not have a forest. The raven has been coming up North. We have no trees where we live. What is that raven doing up there? We started seeing dolphins coming to our area. Normally, we do not see them. We have beluga whales. We have narwhales once in a long while, bowhead whales, killer whales and minke whales but never dolphins.
Elephant seals have come up during the last two years. Someone shot an elephant seal. Those mammals are not normally up there.
Those three men have had no information whatsoever. I do not know what they were charged with. I asked them and they do not know. The only advice I gave to them was not to say anything. I told them that they will be questioned and that they should not say anything. I said, ``If you speak you will incriminate yourselves. The best advice I can give you is do not say anything for now because we do not know what you have been charged with.'' No one can answer me when I ask what court will prosecute them because the provincial court has no jurisdiction in federal matters.
Fisheries and Oceans Canada has made a management plan, and I have not seen any signatures coming from the Inuit side. I believe there was bad weather when they tried to have consultation trips, and the delegates were not able to make it to that community, so they just decided to implement their management plan without the approval of the Inuit.
Anyway, we have never really approved any plan.
They have asked us to take samples — take a tooth out and so on. We do that, but they have never given us any results. They ask the hunters to count the whales. They ask their renewable resource officers to count the whales. We are often scolded if we do not report. Inuit hunters do not count animals. We do not know what the point is. As I said, we can see, we can feel, if there are many or not. We are often scolded for not counting animals. We are not interested in counting. It is not our way. As Mr. Novalinga stated earlier, we respect animals. We do not torture them. We are not sport hunters. In fact, I cannot really understand why it is such a big thrill to get big antlers. For us it is sustenance. In my community, we have lost some of our traditions. We are bickering, and we are unhappy with each other. There is infighting now between the Inuit people because of the laws that have been introduced.
I went to the community of Arviat — which used to be called Eskimo Point in Nunavut, on the western coast of Hudson Bay — and I stayed with an old man. We were talking about hunting whales, and I asked the man, ``How many whales do you get here?'' He said, ``Oh, I got seven for myself.'' I said, ``What? We can hardly get that number for our community. How can you?'' We have been left wondering why they are allowed to hunt so many whales in Nunavut. We believe they are hunting the same stock. On the eastern coast of Hudson Bay, there are the islands of Sanikiluaq or the Belcher Islands. That community is under the jurisdiction of Nunavut, whereas the community just across from those islands is Holman. Whales are going right in front of that community and they are not allowed to hunt those but we believe those same whales are crossing to the Sanikiluaq Islands. They will harvest as many as they want. This is quite unfair.
In my community, when we hunt in June, we can reach our quota in one day, in about one hour or an hour and a half. That is how many whales pass through our community. Last year in the fall, the whales migrated for approximately two months.
Hunters do not go to the point now to wait for the whales because they were told that they are not allowed to hunt them.
This year's quota has been reduced because they said that it was in the agreement that if we overharvest, they reduce next year's quota. This is something I do not understand because we never signed the management plan. They decided unilaterally to do that.
Some of my people have expressed their desire to have a Burnt Church type of confrontation, but we have told them that we will talk. This is the way we will do it. We will talk. We will try to solve this by dialogue. Unfortunately, we are quite suspicious of Fisheries and Oceans Canada because when they say they have consulted with us, they never seem to take our point of view into consideration when they produce their policies.
I invited them one time to my community, and they came. In that meeting, we discussed how we wanted them to come to our community to have an orientation, for us to show them and educate them on how we deal with beluga whales. They agreed to come but they never came. They are always standing us up.
Our patience is running out. We have the legendary Eskimo patience, but it is running out.
I hope that circumstances will change. The community of Lake Harbour, Nunavut is not that far from my community, only 40 minutes by aircraft. I believe they are hunting the same whales also. I hope we will get some answers soon, thank you.
Adamie Kalingo, Mayor of Ivujivik, as an individual: Good morning. I came here yesterday — one day late — due to bad storms back home. It took me three planes to get here. I was originally planning to come here with a fellow Inuit who is a councillor, a lay reader, a boat captain and a housing maintenance man, all in one person. He speaks only one language. He wanted to speak very passionately about his beliefs on this very complex issue, but when I told him that we were just coming here to listen to the committee members talking about this issue, he declined at the last minute. I believe he wanted to let you know that we do not want this hunting to be discontinued. This is our ultimate goal.
The community of Ivujivik is very small. It is based on whaling. Archaeology will tell you that blue whales had been there. We see killer whales today. We see many types of whales, including narwhales. If you notice, the Arctic communities are along the sea coast, so our subsistence is based on fishing, as you call it — we call it our way of life. We are very close to the sea because we like seals. We like to eat the meat of the whale and of the three types of seals — the ringed seal, harp seal and square flipper seal.
Our language is intact. My community grew out of whaling, even though we were not always there. It was by the outside forces that the community grew, but we are, by nature, nomadic people. We still practice that today. We do not like to stay in one place very long. We are not vegetarians. The nearest tree is probably 900 kilometres from where I am. That tells you that I am in Arctic desert.
The sinew of the whale created our clothing. The women used it to sew our garments. Caribou were not abundant at that time in my village. They only came in the 1970s. That shows you that we know the movement of the animals. We know that they come and go as decades come and go. When we say that the beluga population is declining, we understand that sooner or later it will come back.
We are not very attracted to the southern aquariums. When we see whales in aquariums, we know that the animals are probably suffering. We would rather see them in their natural habitat.
When we talk locally in my village about the beluga issue, the phone-in show becomes alive by itself. If you were able to understand my language, you would hear people — even women — talking passionately about the protection of the hunting of the beluga. That is how important it is.
We have a research centre in the region, which will show you that we, as a people, are collaborating with you in researching the animals. We know they have contaminants such as DDTs and PCBs. We know these things. We know when an animal is sick. All of them are not completely healthy. We would like to continue researching that with you.
It was only, as far as I know, 13 years ago when Fisheries and Oceans Canada really started to collaborate with the Inuit on matters of beluga management. Even then, the complexity of the issue and the language that you use to deliver your message to the people is unilingual. You are not talking in our language. There is the issue of the language having to be translated into local dialect. I speak of many dialects, because each village has its own, and sometimes that can create confusion.
The volume of travellers in the Arctic with airplanes now is very high. We are travelling a lot. It took me, as I say, two days to get here. I almost did not come. I did not even know that we would be given this privilege to talk to you. As I understood it, we would be here as a listening audience. The very fact that we are here, in human form, shows you that we are very passionate about our opinion on this matter.
It is very complicated when it comes to management. We have the Makivik Corporation, which is dealing with the beneficiaries of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement. That particular agreement, when it was introduced by Robert Bourassa back in 1974, with his project of the century, the James Bay hydro-electric dam and his new big document. As my people read that, it did not really appeal to the villages of Ivujivik, Puvirnituq and Sanikiluaq. Even now, we have elders who are still not happy with the new form of government that is in place.
Now, the Atlantic walrus is a new discussion, all to do with fisheries. Again, we depend on that animal because it is huge and because it will sustain many families of the community. Again, we have to pull up our belts and talk over that matter in order to sustain that cultural activity.
The Hunter Support Program is a municipal activity with Quebec, which is also into fisheries in some ways, and they try to support the hunters the best way they can, but they can only do so much.
Then there is Mr. Novalinga with wildlife management. They do not have a big budget, but they have a big issue with birds as well as the fish in the lakes and the animals. We have the land holding corporations that are taking care of the local lands, and they have the power to give hunting licences to individuals who want to do that.
When they try to unite on this matter of the beluga, it is extremely difficult, and you are also at that table too. I do not know how we will unite, but I speak for my people when I say we do not want this hunting to die.
Thank you very much for giving me the time to talk to you this morning.
The Chairman: Thank you very much for being here, and thank you all for helping us with the situation and seeing your side of it. The senators will have questions, and they will direct them to individuals or to the group.
Senator Baker: Thank you for appearing before us today and explaining the details of the problem. We were briefed about the problem by Senator Watt. Senator Watt had given us newspaper clippings some time ago about Fisheries and Oceans Canada officials landing a helicopter in a community. The rotors caused dirt to spread over the meat of the beluga and frightened the people. This was a shocking thing for us to read about in a newspaper article. Maybe Fisheries and Oceans Canada and the helicopter pilot did not know what they were doing or maybe the pilot was new. As Senator Watt told us that there are many places for helicopters to land, given there are not many tall buildings or trees to hinder the process. Despite that, they landed in a place that ruined all the meat for the community. This was very shocking.
Senator Watt gave us many newspaper articles and pointed out the charges that some people would be facing because of the meat they had. Committee members know what the law is because some of us are responsible for passing law. When we realized that perhaps some community people would faced possible prison terms and big fines, we were shocked. I speak to this because I want you to know that committee members have known about this problem since it occurred. We have been concerned about it. Senator Watt has been very much concerned and involved in the matter.
I also serve on the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, where we deal with the law and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms that says that when you are spoken to by an officer, you have the right to immediate and free legal advice. Mr. Oovaut said that they have not even been told at which court they have to appear. You do not have lawyers representing you or anything. Therefore, the first thing that strikes me, as a senator, from the description of the events, is that your rights have been violated in a serious way. You are not just ordinary people out hunting for pleasure. The hunting is part of your life and your survival. You are under the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement. We recall that when the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement was passed, all of the peoples would be considered beneficiaries under the Marine Mammal Regulations of the Fisheries Act. We know that the Marine Mammal Regulations excludes you from certain provisions of it with respect to the killing of mammals for food; for example, the selling of seals. Newfoundlanders, where I come from, and Senator Rompkey's people in Labrador are charged with selling bluebacks, which are hooded seals. You do not see hooded seals in the North. You have harp seals, which have a white coat and, what we call, a raggedy jacket. The young hooded seal is called a blueback for about two to three years. Hunters from Senator Rompkey's riding in Labrador and from my riding in Newfoundland were charged 12 years ago with killing blueback seals; and it is still before the courts.
It will go up to the Supreme Court because Fisheries and Oceans Canada and the Department of Justice Canada will not let go of the matter because they have to satisfy the animal rights groups. When someone is charged, they will not let it go. They have the entire federal treasury to call upon for their lawyers to prosecute Labradoreans and Newfoundlanders — as they are doing with the hunters of the bluebacks. I tell this story so you are aware that we are concerned about the facts that Senator Watt has brought to our attention and to which you have now given testimony.
Two days ago, scientists appeared before the committee to testify. I was pleased because they were honest with the committee. They said that when they explained to the fisheries officers in your area why you had to have quotas, the fisheries officers shook their heads because they could not understand the logic of it. The chief scientist said that the fisheries officers from the community could not understand why hunters in the community have to be under a quota.
They produced charts for us that show that there are 60,000 whales in one place, another 20,000 whales in another place. They count them from an airplane and multiply by two. They count 10,000 on the surface and estimate that there could be another 10,000 under the water. They counted 58,000 in the bottom of Hudson Bay on one side, another 20,000 in Senator Adams' riding in Nunavut and 20,000 over here. Then they said that they counted 200 in a small portion of Hudson Bay. If the numbers are taken all together, there is no shortage of whales. There is no problem with the beluga whale population but, because those 200 mix with all the other whales and go into your communities, then if 200 whales are killed, it could be those 200 whales that they counted in the one small area in Hudson Bay.
Small wonder they were shaking their heads and not understanding the logic behind this. That testimony was given.
Additional literature was given to the committee about the great necessity of this food for the well-being of the people in the communities and the health benefits of the beluga. The vitamins and general nutritional level of the meat means you do not get the diseases and have the sickness that the white man got when he came to this land. The meat is necessary.
We have been given all that evidence. At the suggestion of Senator Watt, I will move a motion — given the testimony of Mr. Oovaut about legal advice — that this committee strongly recommends that the Department of Justice Canada immediately gives free legal assistance to every person charged; and that that assistance be made up of experienced defence lawyers who have dealt with the Marine Mammal Regulations. There are about 20 lawyers in Canada who have dealt with that area of the Fisheries Act.
Senator Watt is moving a motion — hopefully, rest of the committee will agree with it — saying that he recommends that the Department of Justice Canada and the Fisheries and Oceans Canada give you immediate legal advice.
When you were charged, I imagine you were charged under the Marine Mammal Regulations of the Fisheries Act, because there has not been a charge laid under the other act. Therefore, I expect it is for violation of a certain section of the Marine Mammal Regulations.
If anybody you know of is charged, on the piece of paper they give you, which is called an ``information,'' it says under what section of the act you are charged. I understand that you received no paper. How do you know that anybody has been charged under the act — or under any act?
Mr. Oovaut: Those men were brought to the local police station. They were met by Fisheries and Oceans Canada officers and were told they were charged. I asked one of the men last week if they had received any news or any calls, and they said they had received no papers, nothing.
Mr. Kalingo: The only paper we received from Fisheries and Oceans Canada stated, in a letter form, that seven individuals from my community were charged, but it did not specify under which act they were charged. It said they would be dealt with in a legal manner. That was shortly after they did the study in late October and early November; the letter arrived around December.
Senator Baker: Were the people, who know they were charged, interviewed by the fisheries officers about whether or not they killed the beluga whales?
Mr. Aullaluk: As I mentioned earlier, there is a possibility that several hunters from my home community have been charged because of that harvest last fall. As I was one of the people organizing that hunt, I think it would only be right that I be made aware if there was a charge to these hunters. No one told me about it. I feel I should know about it, as the mayor of the community and one of the people who organized the harvest.
Senator Watt: In order to allow people to hear you more — because I am very familiar with the matters you are raising — I only want to say is this was one of the most moving testimonies I have heard. I felt deep emotion, listening to it.
Mr. Chairman, I feel it makes sense for me to pass on this part. I prefer to have other people ask questions of these witnesses.
Senator Adams: I was shocked last week when we had some scientists from Fisheries and Oceans Canada, as Senator Baker mentioned earlier. Those people study the movement of beluga whales between the western and eastern parts of Hudson Bay, and how some of the herds are different.
Around the area where the witnesses live — the tip and the east coast of Hudson Bay — Senator Baker mentioned that only about 200 beluga whales pass through there. In the Churchill, Manitoba area, there are around 59,000 beluga whales. It seems as though a large part of the herd comes there, some from the West and some from the East.
They told us that those 200 beluga whales are declining every year, and that they do not mix with the other herd that goes to Churchill — those 59,000 whales. They said the two do not mix together and the herds come back to the same place every year. That is what they told me.
I went up to Churchill in 1953. I was there when we got the whale plant in Churchill. I used to hunt the whales on the weekend and make a little extra money at the whale plant. I got $1.50 a foot for the whales, selling them to the whale plant. At that time, the family came out and moved to Churchill with us.
Before we go back, I hope to get a copy of the information available from the scientists at Fisheries and Oceans Canada that shows the movement of the whales. Up around Lancaster Sound, in Resolute Bay, there are around 20,000 whales. In the Beaufort Sea, around Tuktoyaktuk, there are about 39,000 whales. In your community, there are only 200. Is it because they do not mix together?
Is it similar to the Canada goose? If you shoot the female, the male Canada goose never has another partner or family again. That is what we know as Inuit. I never heard that one herd of beluga whales does not mix with other herds.
Mr. Novalinga: To my knowledge — the knowledge I received from the elders — they do mix and they do migrate. The time when they do the surveys is something to be considered as well. They always pick the time when the whales are gone, and then we are not sure how many whales there are. When the whales have already migrated, they come and do the surveys. We do know the herds mix.
Senator Adams: We do not have quotas in Nunavut, but sometimes I run into wildlife people in Nunavut and people from Fisheries and Oceans Canada. You mentioned that Nunavut hunted under the regulations of the wildlife management board. Do you negotiate the quotas with Nunavut or with Fisheries and Oceans Canada? I would like to find out how the system of quotas works because we do not have that in Nunavut. Do you meet with the wildlife management board every year about shooting and harvesting? How and why you do that?
Mr. Novalinga: We do meet every year, sometimes twice a year, concerning offshore islands, especially those between Nunavut and Nunavik.
The officials say that from the surveys they did, they know the beluga go to their sanctuaries every summer. That is the knowledge they go by. The beluga come to Nunavik every winter and stay for nine months out of the year. Yet, the officials say that the whales are gone. They say they are in Ungava Bay — right now they are in the Ungava Bay, we do know that. Sure, they are gone in August when they do the survey. Of course, they migrate to their so-called sanctuaries where they stay for two months out of the year. Did I answer you properly?
Senator Adams: Yes. The question they need to answer before the cuts are made by Fisheries and Oceans Canada is how much of the herd is actually there. This should be determined in conjunction with the Nunavut Wildlife Management Board. I think that is what is happening now. You need to get this information between yourselves, the Nunavut Wildlife Management Board, without Fisheries and Oceans Canada. I know the chairman represents Fisheries and Oceans Canada. I believe the decision belongs to the Governor-in-Council and the chairman of the Nunavut Wildlife Management Board.
I know when policy is being set up for the land claims they consult the territory, and the board. I believe it should be done in the same way. If that was to happen now, it may be easier to negotiate having more quotas or to get away from the quota system. Who began the quota system? Was it the Fisheries and Oceans Canada or the Nunavut Wildlife Management Board?
Mr. Novalinga: I cannot really answer you. Who is responsible for making these rules? I wish somebody would tell me. Who is regulating us? That is the same question I am asking.
Senator Adams: Our land agreement says with harvesting, you must have quotas. Beginning with Bill C-5, I found out last week, after meeting with Fisheries and Oceans Canada with respect to the people being charged in Northern Quebec around Nunavik, we studied Bill C-5, that time it was about the beluga, the polar bears and woodland caribou in Manitoba and another species of caribou. At the time we were studying the bill and we did not find a cause to charge the person.
After I came back to my office, we had a copy of the bill, and we went through it. We found the clause saying that a person who kills an animal of an endangered species will be fined up to $50,000. When we studied the bill in the committee, those fines did not exist then. I do not know why those fines were included in the bill. The governor-in- council put that fine in the bill after we passed it in committee.
Mr. Oovaut: Senator Adams asked if there are negotiations. There seems to be a non-negotiable item, the beluga. I suspect Fisheries and Oceans Canada comes up North to tell their superiors that yes, they did go up North as they were supposed to, but the officials did not listen to us. We had round table discussions and they seemed to agree with us, but when Fisheries and Oceans Canada produce their papers, it is not what we discussed. They produced their own numbers.
Therefore, it is a non-negotiable item. I feel they are just trying to please their superiors.
Senator Johnson: Based on what you just said then, what role do you, the Nunavik Hunters, Fishermen and Trappers Association, play in the management and setting of quotas for the beluga? I know you are well aware that the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada, as far back as 1988, considered the Ungava Bay beluga to be endangered. Then they recommended against listing the Eastern Hudson Bay and the Ungava Bay beluga as endangered and at special risk. They wanted to consult with the Nunavut Wildlife Management Board first.
I would like you to straighten out what the communication and relationship is between you and the authorities who talk about and set the status of the species that you are hunting — or not hunting now?
To put it very simply, are you consulted? You said you were, but then you say you do not count animals. What is happening in terms of the consultation process if you do not agree with what they are saying about these species that are supposedly endangered?
Mr. Kalingo: Fisheries and Oceans Canada will hire a local person to determine the population of the species. However, even he does not feel very comfortable providing this information because there is no real trust between the government and the local people. He is caught in the middle between two ideas.
As Mr. Novalinga says, traditional knowledge tells us that we do recognize many species and many stocks, including the great land ones, which are huge, and those are the hardest ones to get. The way we see it, we see many different stocks and we recognize them with our traditional knowledge, which you seem to be missing. That is the information.
Senator Johnson: Therefore, you do not agree with any of what has been said about the endangered species and the numbers?
Mr. Kalingo: No. The way I understand the elders and the people, from what they see visually, the numbers do not add up.
Senator Johnson: Does anyone else have a comment?
Mr. Oovaut: Concerning consultation, management started in 1985. I have not seen a scientist once in my community since then.
Our comments do not seem to count too much. Mr. Mike Hammill was at our meeting one time in Kuujjuaq, and he was talking about how the whales in Nastapoka had been depleted. It showed that the same number of whales that he was missing were down in James Bay. During coffee break, I went over to him and I said, ``Mike, those whales you are missing are down in James Bay,'' and he agreed. I do not know why he has never mentioned that. I find that dishonest. I feel he should have reported what he said to me.
I also told him that their scientific knowledge is limited. They think only white whales reproduce, but young grey female whales reproduce. He did not know that. It was only after I informed him that he found out that they do reproduce. There has been very little consultation.
Senator Johnson: For the record and for our study — and I appreciate how you must feel — are you saying that the figures of the scientists on this whole matter of the beluga are not accurate?
Mr. Oovaut: Not totally.
Mr. Novalinga: We do not really trust the numbers that have been provided to us because the weather changes everyday. For instance, if they were doing a survey, flying over my area, Puvirnituq, half the time it is cloudy, and they cannot fly low, so they do not fly at all. They fly for three days out of every week, for instance. Everyone knows the beluga whale moves all the time. When they finally get a chance to take off again and do their survey, there might have been whales there five days ago and now they are 500 miles away. Also, whales are diving animals. They need to dive to feed. They dive all the time. They spend most of their lives underwater, out of vision. Therefore, the scientists are not accurate. There is no way they can be accurate.
Senator Johnson: The Fisheries and Oceans Canada officials said before the committee last week that major efforts are being made to strike a balance between the dietary and cultural needs of the Inuit with respect to the beluga and the sustainability of these stocks in Nunavik. According to the officials, Fisheries and Oceans Canada recognizes the knowledge and needs of the Inuit in Nunavik and must combine these realities with the resource's ability to renew itself. Based on that, does the three-year management plan underway between now and 2008 for beluga reflect, in your view, the traditional and scientific knowledge? I am assuming you are saying it does not and that what they are saying is inaccurate.
Mr. Kalingo: As I said earlier, we have several institutions, if you will, different organizations coming to the table, but they are in one place in one year. It is only afterward that the people back home learn about what had been discussed at that table. That is where the argument begins. It is extremely difficult for those committee members. They do not feel comfortable being at that table trying to work together. It is extremely difficult.
Senator Johnson: You can appreciate that we are trying to get a balance of views here. We are receiving totally contrary input from what we heard from the officials, for the most part.
Mr. Oovaut: We are not recognized as scientists. Because we do not have the diplomas or the university degree, our opinions do not count, even though what we do is quite scientific, such as the science of building an igloo. That is quite scientific, but it is not recognized because we do not have papers to show that we are qualified. We are not qualified, according to their standards. It is a one-sided view.
Senator Johnson: If you had total control of the situation, you would be hunting the beluga according to what you feel is best in terms of the numbers you take, based on your traditional knowledge of generations?
Mr. Oovaut: We have always hunted according to need. It is a sin to kill more than you need. Let me put it that way.
There is the story of a competition between a mosquito and a man. This man was so intimidated by this mosquito that he decided to preserve it and let it live during the wintertime. The man lost and he died, but the mosquito lived. This was to show that we are not to torture other species. We have to respect animals.
We feel strongly that we shall respect animals. We do not kill more than we need. We do not understand the concept of sport hunting.
Senator Johnson: Neither do I.
Mr. Oovaut: We do not understand the concept of sport fishing. It is always for the purpose of sustenance.
Mr. Novalinga: To add to Mr. Oovaut's comment, I cannot really answer your question, but we do have seasons for all animals. For instance, one species migrates, and when another one migrates, we stop using the first one. We never kill animals when they are calving or breeding or nesting. We may take a few eggs, yes, for a short period, but we know the animals, and there are seasons for each species that we harvest. For instance, the Canada goose is the first goose to arrive. We use them then. A couple weeks later, the snow goose arrives, and we will stop the harvesting of the Canada goose and we let them nest. We have our own regulations, which are unwritten. Therefore, they are not recognized.
As Mr. Oovaut said, we have no diplomas, but my dad was as smart as any scientist.
Senator Johnson: I grew up in Lake Winnipeg, so I know what you are saying. I understand. I believe we need to come to some kind of understanding with respect to the constant information we are getting in terms of the stocks.
Senator Baker: I have just one question, and then we would like to get to this motion by Senator Watt, unless the committee feels we should move the motion after.
The Chairman: I feel we should thank our witnesses for coming and then go in camera.
Senator Baker: The scientists before this committee did not say that there was a problem with the population of the beluga. That is not what they said to this committee.
In fact, they said to the committee that there was no problem with the entire population of the beluga. However, they claimed there was a problem with a little tiny section of beluga whales on the eastern shore of Hudson Bay. That is why the chief scientists, who appeared before this committee, said that when he gave briefings to fisheries officers, they came out of the meetings shaking their heads because they found it difficult to understand why they were so concerned about a small section of beluga that mixed with another large section of beluga and visited your coastline.
My question is to Mr. Aullaluk: Whether you kill a beluga today or tomorrow, this week or next week, what they did to you endangered your life, did it not? To be put in a boat out in the ocean to travel an additional distance is a great endangerment to the life of the hunter, is it not?
Mr. Aullaluk: Yes, exactly. I would say so because at that time of the year, October, it is dangerous, especially when we are a lone boat. Anything is liable to happen to our boat — it could break down. At that time of the year, the weather is windy and cold. It was considered afterward to be very dangerous.
Senator Watt: One point should be made. I have been part of this committee for a number of years, and I have been in the Senate for many years. We have used cameras in the committee room in hopes of educating Canadians. I feel we missed this good opportunity, Mr. Chairman. The moving testimony that was provided by the witnesses could have reached out to many Canadians — the voters of this country, who choose the government with their votes.
I am sorry that we are not organized enough to have the cameras to film the witnesses and their testimony presented today. It could have gone a long way to educate the public. I can only say that I am sorry it did not take place, and I am partially responsible for that.
The Chairman: We requested cameras, but they were designated previously for other committees. There is only so much technology available in the Senate. We did ask, but the request could not be fulfilled because the cameras were assigned to other committees beforehand. I thank the witnesses for appearing and being so helpful to us. This is not the end of our involvement, our discussions or our deliberations. We will want to pursue this matter and I want to give you that assurance. How we do it and when we do it will have to be determined. We will pursue it because we are not satisfied that we have explored this to the fullest.
Mr. Oovaut: If I may interrupt, I will comment quickly. For the stock in Ungava Bay, we have been asking Fisheries and Oceans Canada to study boat noise because whales run from such noise. Nothing seems to have been done yet. We say that the whales are not there because of the boat noise. Fisheries and Oceans Canada's policies for the Hudson Bay and the Ungava Bay coastal communities to hunt at another location has resulted in the death of one man when that community was forced to hunt in the James Bay area. One man died during that hunt and I believe Fisheries and Oceans Canada is responsible for that death.
Mr. Novalinga: To conclude our meeting, we have three items to stress to the committee on these matters.
First, eliminate the quotas until a proper instrument is in place with the balanced interests of all parties — Nunavut, Nunavik, and Newfoundland and Labrador.
Second, drop the charges. The baseline to establish quotas is the Aboriginal traditional knowledge — coupled, balanced and completed with scientific information. Scientific information must take into account the traditional knowledge and the basic need of people to survive.
Third, amend the Species at Risk Act, Bill C-5 in 2002, to reflect the right to survive.
The committee continued in camera.