THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON FISHERIES AND OCEANS
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Thursday, November 9, 2023
The Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans met with videoconference this day at 9 a.m. [ET] to examine and report on Canada’s seal populations and their effect on Canada’s fisheries.
Senator Bev Busson (Deputy Chair) in the chair.
The Deputy Chair: Good morning. My name is Bev Busson, senator from British Columbia, and I have the pleasure of chairing this meeting today.
Today, we are conducting a meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans. Should any technical challenges arise, particularly in relation to interpretation, please signal this to the chair or the clerk, and we will work to resolve the issue. Before we begin, I would like to take a few moments to allow the members of the committee to introduce themselves.
Senator Kutcher: Senator Stan Kutcher, Nova Scotia.
Senator Ravalia: Senator Mohamed-Iqbal Ravalia, Newfoundland and Labrador.
Senator Ataullahjan: Senator Salma Ataullahjan, Ontario.
Senator Francis: Senator Brian Francis, Epekwitk, Prince Edward Island.
Senator Cuzner: Senator Rodger Cuzner, Nova Scotia.
Senator Cordy: Senator Jane Cordy, Nova Scotia.
Senator C. Deacon: Senator Colin Deacon, rounding out team Nova Scotia.
The Deputy Chair: On October 4, 2022, the Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans was authorized to examine and report on Canada’s seal populations and their effect on Canada’s fisheries. Today, under this mandate, the committee will be hearing from the following witness for our first panel: Paul Irngaut, Vice-President, Nunavut Tunngavik Inc. On behalf of the members of the committee, I thank you for being here today by video conference.
I understand that Mr. Irngaut will be delivering some opening remarks. Following your presentation, members of the committee will have questions for the witness. Mr. Irngaut, you have the floor. Thank you.
Paul Irngaut, Vice-President, Nunavut Tunngavik Inc.: [Indigenous language spoken.] Good morning, honourable chairperson and members. My name is Paul Irngaut. I’m the Vice-President of Nunavut Tunngavik Inc., commonly known as NTI, which represents Nunavut Inuit under the Nunavut Agreement. Our mandate is to ensure that the constitutionally protected rights of Nunavut Inuit are respected, and that governments live up to their responsibilities in the agreement.
NTI’s mission is to advance the economic, social and cultural well-being of Inuit through the full implementation of the Nunavut Agreement. The Nunavut Agreement is the largest treaty in Canada, covering one fifth of Canada’s land mass, and it’s established as a resource co-management regime that guarantees the involvement of Inuit in wildlife management and decision making.
Nunavut Inuit are coastal people. We harvest seals like natsiq, or the ringed seal; ugjuk, or the bearded seal; and also qairulik, or the harp seal. Harvesting marine wildlife and the sharing of country food are at the core of Inuit culture. We have a vested interest in ensuring the sustainability of our marine mammals. We exercise our harvesting rights in accordance with the principles of conservation. As a result, Nunavut’s wildlife co-management system seeks the maintenance of vital, healthy wildlife populations capable of sustaining Inuit harvesting needs.
Seals are abundant throughout Nunavut. Seal populations have been — and remain — robust. For Nunavut Inuit, seal harvesting merges food security, food sovereignty, cultural continuity, health and community well-being, the Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit language and self-sufficiency.
Despite the repercussions of misguided trade bans and restrictions, we continue to harvest, eat and use seals and seal products. Inuit-sourced exemptions have failed to counteract the negative impacts of trade bans on the practices, lifestyle and livelihood of Nunavut Inuit. Accordingly, Nunavut Inuit must be involved in decision making — the Nunavut Agreement, which supersedes legislation and policies, further envisions a regime that recognizes and empowers Inuit systems of wildlife management.
NTI and Nunavut’s regional Inuit associations have been working together toward making this concept become a reality. The Pikialasorsuaq Commission, the Tallurutiup Imanga National Marine Conservation Area, the Tuvaijuittuq Marine Protected Area, the Qikiqtani Project Finance for Permanence, the Inuit Guardians programs, the discussions on a Southampton Island marine area of interest and the proposed communal fish plans for the Nunavut Fishery Regulations, among others, are examples of Inuit spearheading marine conservation efforts in areas and ways that make sense to us. This work demonstrates that Nunavut Inuit are taking concrete steps to protect Arctic marine habitats and wildlife.
In order to continue harvesting seals, we’re working to ensure that Nunavut’s marine environment can provide for our descendants, just as it has for our ancestors. We would be pleased to work with this government to this end. Thank you. Qujannamiik.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you very much for your presentation. There are a number of senators interested in asking questions.
Senator Ravalia: Thank you very much for your testimony. It’s very much appreciated.
I was wondering, sir, if you could share your perspectives on the impact of international regulations and market dynamics on the seal trade, and how they affect the Inuit communities’ ability to continue to engage in sealing activities.
Mr. Irngaut: Thank you, senator, for that question.
As you know, trade bans on seals have been in place for a long time. These were emotionally driven efforts by animal rights groups and also by non-governmental organizations, or NGOs. It had a huge impact on Inuit in the early 1980s, 1990s and up to today.
The harvesting of seals has not stopped, and it’s not going to stop. The by-product — which is what I’m wearing today — is one that we have been using for centuries. We would use it for economic purposes, too, with the cash economy that we live in today. It’s not going to stop. The bans had a huge impact on families who rely on income from seals. In the 1970s and early 1980s, it caused devastation to a lot of Inuit communities that rely heavily on the by-products of seals. It had some effects.
Senator Ravalia: Thank you for that response.
If we — as a group of senators working on this report — were to look at tangible ways to reverse some of this misinformation, would you be able to guide us with some kind of advice that you might have from the perspective of your community in order to make the globe a little more aware of the fact that the misinformation and disinformation have significantly impacted Indigenous communities?
Mr. Irngaut: Thank you, senator, for that question. In the past, when we had issues that came up that affected Inuit, especially in terms of economic activities in the North, and especially regarding discussions about the bans on different species, we have worked with our partners and the federal government, and we had gone to these countries that were proposing to have this listing of species banned for sale under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, or CITES. We have gone to those countries to talk directly with the governments, and that would really help the decision makers in those countries. Something like that would really help to educate the governments and the decision makers in those countries regarding the impacts it has on ordinary Inuit — not only Inuit in Nunavut, but right across our country — who rely on seals. Something like that would really help.
We did it when the U.S. was trying to impose bans on polar bears. We went down with the federal government and other Inuit organizations, and we talked directly with the Government of the United States and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Something like that would really help to educate, and also change the minds of some decision makers.
Thank you.
Senator Ravalia: Thank you very much.
Senator Francis: Thank you for joining us. This is kind of in line with Senator Ravalia’s question.
With regard to campaigns by animal groups, such as People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, or PETA, that spread misinformation about seal hunting — such as that seal pups are being hunted and clubbed to death — could you describe their political, social, economic and cultural impact on Inuit in Nunavut and beyond, and what other misinformation was spread?
Mr. Irngaut: Thank you, senator, for that question.
As we all know, these are highly emotional campaigns that these animal rights groups — like the International Fund for Animal Welfare, or IFAW, and PETA — have done in the past. As I mentioned earlier when I answered the other senator, we went directly to those people and we talked to them. We showed them the impact it has on ordinary Inuit families.
It’s easy for them to just open their fridge and have anything that they want, or go to a restaurant, or order online what they want. Inuit families in these small communities don’t have that option, so it had a huge impact on Inuit in terms of feeding their families. They will feed their families using the seal, and for the by-product that they used, they could get income from it in order to help get healthy food — it had a huge impact not only on Nunavut Inuit, but also on other Inuit in the country as well.
Senator C. Deacon: Thank you so much for being with us today. We have learned a lot about the harms in terms of some parts of the country where the ecology is being damaged because of the overabundance of seals, as well as the harms being done to communities and families because of the lack of country food and affordable food, and the lack of opportunities. Taking away these products takes away opportunities for communities and families.
We have to fight the disinformation. What are the most harmful pieces of incorrect information that you think about — that trouble you — which we can help to focus on reversing as best as we can with our recommendations?
Thank you, sir.
Mr. Irngaut: Thank you, senator, for that.
In Nunavut, we do not harvest the whitecoats, and the image that has been used is clubbing whitecoats. These are cute, white seals being clubbed; that’s the image that they have used in the past.
In Nunavut, we don’t hunt the whitecoats. We hunt the seals when they are much older or adolescent adults because they are the best source of meat. We really didn’t hunt the bigger adults because they are the breeding animals. We only hunted the seals that had left — well, they are still with their mothers, but they are big enough that they are able to look after themselves.
I think the image of the harvest on the East Coast really hurt our cause to some extent, but I just want to point out that we harvest seals to eat them, and the by-product, as I mentioned, is what helps a lot of the families in Nunavut.
Thank you.
Senator C. Deacon: Thank you.
Senator Kutcher: Good morning, Mr. Irngaut. I have the pleasure of seeing you two days in a row on two completely different topics. Do you remember our chat the other day?
Mr. Irngaut: Yes.
Senator Kutcher: It’s great to see you again — hopefully in person next time.
I have been listening to your discussion, and I know the chair will give me a few extra minutes. There is something called Brandolini’s law, which says that the amount of energy needed to refute nonsense — I’m saying a nice word — is an order of magnitude greater than it takes to create it. This is a major issue that we’re dealing with here.
Food clearly has cultural and historical identity and heritage issues, and you have helped us understand the importance of seals for Inuit heritage, tradition and food. It’s also an economic activity.
In regard to this issue with the European Union, or EU, and the ban there, can you help us better understand what the Government of Canada has been doing in a systematic way to address the ban? That’s the first question.
The second question is this: These countries that have bans have, as far as I know, signed on to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, or UNDRIP. Has any of that UNDRIP direction that our government is committed to, and that other countries have signed on to, been used as part of the response to the EU ban?
Mr. Irngaut: Thank you, senator, and nice to see you again, too.
Yes, to some extent it has been. We have tried to address the EU ban, but, as you know, we have no control over what they decide.
Under Environment and Climate Change Canada, we have worked with our government to have presentations in some capacity during certain hearings, like the CITES. When they were discussing the EU ban, it’s not only the ban that affects Inuit, but there are also other issues that impact Inuit harvesting of seals.
For instance, if you try to ban polar bears, which are the top predators in Nunavut, they eat a lot of seals, which is fine — I mean, they’re doing it naturally. But if you try to protect them too much, they have a huge impact not only on seals, but also on bird colonies and other species. There is a traditional Inuit saying: “Animals don’t grow in population” — it’s not great when there is too much of one species, especially top predators.
Even with seals or caribou, if there are too many of them, three things will happen: They will start eating their food source; they will start getting really thin; and then they will start getting diseases. Those things can happen in seal populations too.
In order to try to educate people in other countries, we have to go to them, and, with the support of our federal government, we can educate countries that are thinking of banning seals. Seals are a bit late with respect to education because governments have already banned their trade. It’s very difficult to reverse that decision once it’s done. Thank you.
Senator Kutcher: Thank you for that. We all know that countering disinformation requires an incredible amount of effort, deep pockets and a multi-faceted approach, targeting the various types of media, decision makers, influencers, governments, et cetera. Would it be of value to you and your community if the Government of Canada were to invest in developing a program targeting disinformation about seals, which would be wide-reaching, based on best principles for countering disinformation, and created collaboratively with you and other Indigenous communities?
Mr. Irngaut: Thank you for that question, senator. Yes, I think it would really help if we had a program through which we were trying to educate other people about seal products. We do that anyway with Nunavut Sivuniksavut in Ottawa. We have students that go to school in Ottawa and promote seal products. They go to other countries through student exchange programs, and promote our culture and our use of seals. They are doing a very good job of that, and it’s in Ottawa. They can be utilized as ambassadors to counteract all the misinformation that’s happening out there, and also promote Inuit culture and the use of seal products. Thank you.
Senator Kutcher: If I understand you correctly, the answer to that question is yes, that could be done, and though you are doing some great things — and thank you for sharing those with us — much more could be done if there were resources to help you do that better.
Mr. Irngaut: Exactly. You are right; it takes a lot of resources and money to do not so much promotions, but education about the way we live up here in Canada. Yes, I totally agree with you. Thank you.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you.
Senator Cordy: Thank you very much for being with us today, Mr. Irngaut. As others have done, I would like to speak about the misinformation that’s around, and we certainly hear it all the time in television, radio, print media and pictures in the newspaper. We know that it’s against the law to hunt baby seals, yet we see the pictures of the seal pups and the red on the ice, and that’s a very strong visual for Canadians to see.
I guess many of the anti-sealing groups have done a very good job of giving out misinformation, and we know that they are heavily funded. They get millions of dollars from anti-sealing groups and anti-sealing people from around the world — not just from Canada. We heard last week from one of our witnesses that the Government of Canada accepts these donations as tax receipts, so they will get some money back when they fill in their tax information, and they can use those donations. The comment by the witness, who was with us last week, was that these organizations give out false information, yet they say they are a charity. Perhaps we should be looking at that in our committee, and stopping that for the industry.
I’m following up on Senator Kutcher’s question and comments, and I am wondering if our federal government should be more aggressive in going after the misinformation that is out there.
Mr. Irngaut: Thank you, senator, for that question. I totally agree with you; we should have a joint information activity to inform other people about the misinformation that’s happening out there. I completely agree with you; more should be done. We can definitely help provide some material, but, when we work together with our federal government, we’re much stronger with the information that we have, and it would really help if we could have a joint incentive for getting information out there. Thank you.
Senator Cordy: Is there a federal government agency that works with Nunavut to help develop international markets for seal products, or does Nunavut just work on its own to develop those markets?
Mr. Irngaut: Thank you, senator, for that question. Yes, our government has a department that looks strictly at seal products and the marketing of seal products, but I don’t see it in the federal government.
In terms of tax laws, we would look into it and help you provide more information if that’s needed. But in regard to your question, our government tries its best, but it’s a small department. Yes, the misinformation is out there, and it’s very hard to sell a product that tugs at the hearts of people as a result of that misinformation. It’s hard to promote seal products.
Senator Cordy: I think you’ve hit the nail on the head. They are very good at disseminating misinformation and tugging at heartstrings. Thank you very much for that, and thank you for being here today.
Senator Petten: We talked about seals in general. You mentioned, of course, the whitecoats, and it’s illegal to fish those. What species of seal are the main seal fishery for you?
Mr. Irngaut: Thank you for that question, senator. The main seal that we harvest is the ringed seal. But we’re starting to see a lot more harp seals in our territory as the species is moving farther north, and it’s because the harp seal population has shot up on the East Coast after the ban. We’re starting to see them a lot more in areas where we have never previously seen them, and, of course, they eat a lot of fish, which is fine. They are natural predators. We’re starting to see a lot more harp seals, but the predominant seal that we eat is the ringed seal. Thank you.
Senator Petten: That’s my follow-up question to you. I understand that a couple of years ago, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada, or DFO, was looking at placing ringed seals under the Species at Risk Act, and I don’t know if that has happened or not, but I understand that part of it was because of the loss of sea ice, threatening the habitat of the ringed seals. I wonder if you could tell us a bit more about that.
Mr. Irngaut: Thank you, senator, for that question. Yes, we have been sounding the alarm on climate change for a very long time because we were the first ones to see the impacts of it.
A few years ago, when there was hardly any snow, we saw seals being born on the ice where there is no snow cover to protect them from polar bears. We’ve seen the impacts of climate change happening to seals.
In regard to your question of DFO wanting to list them as threatened, it was during that time when the push was done to list them as endangered. You have to really look at the population before you make any decisions, and do proper research on the seals before you make any decisions. If I’m not mistaken, some of the people who work at Environment and Climate Change Canada are the same people who, sometimes, promote misinformation.
I just want to be cautious of those. I’m not saying they’re all like that, but there were some who you could tell — when you talked to them — wouldn’t mind ending the harvest of any seals. That’s all I can say. Thank you.
Senator McPhedran: Thank you very much for being with us, Mr. Irngaut.
I want to explore with you a little bit more regarding what’s happening in real time in your communities in response to the agreement that is now about nine years old after the World Trade Organization ruling that, in fact, it was discriminatory for the European Union ban to be implemented in the way that it was at that time. From October 2014 with the agreement, we got the framework for cooperation to ensure that Indigenous communities are treated the same way as any other Indigenous communities seeking access to seal products in the market within the European Union.
Is this a success story, or has it made any difference at the community level? Tell us a bit about that, please.
Mr. Irngaut: Thank you for that question.
When they first started talking about seal bans, there were exemptions for Inuit. Exemptions are great, but they don’t work because the ban is already in place and there is no market.
You have to understand that we really look at our species and we’re conservationists. We’re always observant of our species. We see more and more seals in some areas, and they move to some areas, too. Because they move, some non-observers will say they’re disappearing, or they’re declining. But they’re just moving and following their food source.
With the exemptions in place, it was great, but it still had an impact on Inuit families in terms of the secondary income that they could get from the by-products. Yes, it still had an impact. Thank you.
Senator McPhedran: Picking up on that, exemptions don’t work. Using a legal framework, what would make a positive difference for your communities?
Mr. Irngaut: I think the positive impact to make in our communities is to have more opportunities for women, especially those who had these incomes taken away, in order to provide some kind of market for them with like-minded countries that can buy our products.
As I said, these exemptions don’t work because the market isn’t there. But even if we were to create some markets within our own country, it’s very hard to sell seal products in the south. Our government tried its best to purchase seal pelts before, but you can only sell so many to a small population in Nunavut.
If there were to be some markets outside of our territory, that would help some of the really poor Inuit communities, especially women who rely on this income. Thank you.
Senator McPhedran: We know that there is a spillover effect of the European Union ban into the United States, and that the restrictions are de facto very similar. Is it your experience that there are really no opportunities in the U.S. as well as in the European Union?
Mr. Irngaut: Thank you for that question, senator.
When we went down to the States with our federal government — the Department of Environment and Climate Change Canada — to speak with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, that’s the thing that we saw. I don’t know if it’s troubling, but the amount of influence that these bodies — NGOs — had on the federal government in the United States was very profound. When we talked to them in a panel setting with government officials there, we talked about the impacts that they had on Inuit. All they could say was “Inuit are exempt. We don’t want to impact Inuit or Indigenous harvesters.” But they did. They are impacting Inuit harvesters. It was very difficult to talk to them because the United States is very strong when it comes to other countries. It has a lot of influence. It was an eye-opener, but also very disappointing to see how much influence those NGOs had on their government. Thank you.
Senator Ataullahjan: Most of my questions have been asked, including the one about misinformation.
As I’m listening, and this is something that I mentioned before, I think lambs are also very cute, yet we continue to eat them. No one protests. I don’t understand what the issue is. As you said, very powerful groups have an interest, and somehow we haven’t been able to counter. I don’t know a good word to use — I don’t want to use “propaganda,” otherwise I might get attacked, but that’s what it seems it is.
As a person whose daughter lives in Iqaluit, she sat me down when I was there and spoke about seal harvesting, and how it has gone on for centuries and how important it is. She said, “Nothing is wasted, Mother. The material is used for tents and for clothing.”
Do you feel that the government has done enough to protect the sealing industry? Shouldn’t this be part of the trade negotiations that go on between the U.S. and Canada?
Mr. Irngaut: Thank you, senator, for that question.
I didn’t get the last part of your question, but I think we have to be very vigilant about organizations that start these movements. We have to be more proactive with our federal government to get the proper information out there.
We — Inuit — are conservationists by nature, and we will not deplete a species because it’s to our advantage to have them around. In fact, we have traditional laws where families — when we lived nomadic lives in camps, and even I grew up in a camp like that — couldn’t hunt in a certain place because the animals had to recover, especially seals, which are the main source of food for a lot of animals. We had laws that you did not hunt in that certain area for a number of years in order for the animals to recover.
And you’re right; nothing is wasted. We use everything. But governments definitely have to do more. The Nunavut government is trying their best, but we need to work with our counterparts — like the federal government — to do more and have more information provided to other governments.
Thank you.
Senator Ataullahjan: You briefly mentioned climate change. I know that you’re seeing the impacts of climate change in the Arctic. Can you tell us how it has affected the seal harvest?
Mr. Irngaut: Thank you for that question, senator.
Yes, climate change is happening — not just from the sun, but from the sea. The sea is getting warmer. It’s eroding the ice from below.
We’re starting to see that the currents are starting to get stronger, and because of these currents, the erosion from the bottom of the sea is happening more and more. That’s impacting some hunters going out to traditional areas where they know they can harvest seals. That’s an impact that we’re seeing due to climate change.
As you know, in the wintertime, sea ice is our highway. We go wherever we cannot go in the summertime because, as you know, we don’t have any roads up here. But sea ice is our highway to go to places where we can harvest other animals.
It’s impacting our harvest when we know we can’t go to a certain area anymore because of the ice conditions, and the ice is disappearing much faster and sooner these days than before.
Thank you.
The Deputy Chair: Before we move on to our second round, I have a question, if you can indulge me. I want to expand on a number of my colleagues’ questions.
You talked about misinformation being a big problem, and, certainly, I think we’re all witness to the kinds of things that we have seen in the past. You also made a very interesting comment around international markets — although everybody is reaching out, we don’t have a lot of control over that.
One of the things that has frustrated me in speaking with a lot of harvesters — we had the opportunity to speak to harvesters in Newfoundland and Labrador, and you alluded to it as well — is that there would be more harvesters if there were a bigger market. Although we have little influence overseas in the EU or even in the United States, is there anything you see that the Canadian government can do domestically that they’re not doing?
Senator Cordy mentioned a scrub-down from the Canada Revenue Agency on charities, and you mentioned your youth ambassadors, but are there departments that could be doing more domestically to bring reality back to the issue of the seal harvest, and the fact that the product is such high-quality meat and high-quality protein, which is something that the world and Canadians are screaming for?
Could you make a comment on that, please — whether you think we’re missing an opportunity, or if you know of any suggestions?
Mr. Irngaut: Thank you, senator, for that question.
As I indicated, we need to start working better with our counterparts, especially the federal government and Environment and Climate Change Canada, because they’re the ones that deal with the wildlife in Canada.
For the listing process that the federal government does under the Species at Risk Act — where they tried to list ringed seals — I think they should do more to inform our communities, and see what kind of research they have done in order for them to say that seals are endangered, especially when we haven’t really seen any research that has been done in the North. The federal government and Environment and Climate Change Canada need to inform Inuit and do more research if they have to.
We’re not against research, but excessive research can be detrimental to species as well. We need to have a balance and work with Inuit in Nunavut to come to conclusions because we have a lot of information that can help researchers too. We need to work together better, and this hasn’t been happening for a long time with our federal government, especially with Environment and Climate Change Canada, on seals. I’m not talking about other species because we have worked with them before, but, on seals, we haven’t really done any work on that.
Thank you.
The Deputy Chair: That was the second part of my question — whether or not there were extensive consultations, or attempted consultation, around the conservation efforts and the way of knowing of Inuit people around species.
Mr. Irngaut: On the species, yes, there has been some consultation, and they are obligated to consult Inuit if it affects Inuit under our agreement. Also, with our Nunavut government, they are obligated to consult Inuit. By working closely with those two governments, things can be done.
The more buy-in that you have from Inuit, the better it is for the species, because we need to work together to get the proper answers out there.
Thank you.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you very much.
Senator C. Deacon: Thank you, Mr. Irngaut. The incredibly respectful and patient way with which you relay facts — that have done so much harm to communities that you love — demonstrates to me that the Canadian government has to be much stronger in your defence because, culturally, you are respectful, evidence-based and balanced in everything you say, but those who are causing harm are the opposite. We must figure out ways to fight that on your behalf. That’s just an observation.
For the seal certification program, certifications only have value if those at the other end of the value chain appreciate the value of that certification, and, if they buy something that is certified in a certain way, it is representing a value that an alternative product doesn’t have.
Has that certification program been given any opportunity to succeed in the minds of consumers, even in Canada — in your mind — and what could we recommend to make sure that efforts have gone into that certification program to ensure that products are authentic, that they’re traditionally harvested, that there is respect to the environment and that the decisions that have been made for centuries are continuing to be made and practised? But I’m not certain that it is appreciated at the other end of the value chain, which is essential for the certification to work. Would you have recommendations along those lines where we could be potentially helpful?
Mr. Irngaut: Thank you, senator, for that question. Our government has done certification of seal products in Nunavut before. I think it’s still valid; I think that they still do it. But that certification, as you said, has to be appreciated by other people — the buyers. In that certification, there has to be information that clearly states that it’s harvested traditionally and sustainably, and that will really open the buyers’ eyes so that they say, “This is a product that we can back, and this is a product that we want.”
I know that our Nunavut government has done some certification of seal products — that needs to be more streamlined, and more information needs to be provided. There could even be a pamphlet to go along with it to explain that the product they’re buying would help Inuit families in Nunavut put food on the table, and also it’s harvested sustainably. That’s what we want in Nunavut.
Senator C. Deacon: I envision a QR code. People can use their smartphones and immediately see the benefits and the value. But I’m really focused on what the federal government can do because the federal government is responsible for international trade — and it has to go right across Canada and internationally. We’ve got to build the value of that certification. Thank you.
Senator McPhedran: I very much appreciated your reference to the impact on women artists and creators in your communities. I wonder if you could tell us if there is an active strategy in place to represent the particular concerns and interests of the women in your communities on this issue.
Mr. Irngaut: Thank you, senator, for that question. As hunters, we hunt the seal, and the seal provides meat for our families. The by-product, as I mentioned, is looked after by the women: They clean it; they dry it; they make products out of it; and then they sell the products.
Prior to the ban, we were able to sell the pelt as is. Now, because we still harvest a lot of seals, the by-products are being given to the women, and they’re making garments out of them. They’re making beautiful vests, like what I’m wearing, as well as the ties and the mitts. These are very warm products — it’s fashionable, yes, but practical as well. The practical ones keep us warm in the wintertime and in the spring.
We have programs that happen only in Nunavut where women have an opportunity to sell their products once a year, especially during Christmas. The mitts and other garments that they make are gone. People want them. But there needs to be more focus on the marketing of these products. If we could have, like the other gentleman said, a code or something that says that these are products made by Inuit women, and it’s done sustainably, that would go a long way, I think, in promoting the seal products that we have in Nunavut. Thank you.
Senator McPhedran: Isn’t that something that could be done now? Isn’t that something that your organization could be helping to get moving?
Mr. Irngaut: It can be done. It just needs to be well-thought-out. Of course, it’s going to take money to get these products out, such as the verification pamphlets and whatnot. It can be done.
Our organization can look into it, but when it comes to marketing outside of our territory, we need help from our federal government to promote it. That’s all I can say on that. Thank you.
Senator McPhedran: As a follow-up written submission, could you give us some specifics on the kind of help that’s needed in order to move ahead on this? You say that you need help — we’ve run out of time, but please provide a follow-up written submission to us, setting out more clearly exactly the kind of help that would be needed to make a difference and to really build momentum here, with a focus on women.
Mr. Irngaut: Yes, totally. We’ll provide it in written form because, as you say, we’ve run out of time. We’ll provide written information for you. Thank you.
Senator McPhedran: Thank you very much.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Irngaut, for taking the time to appear before this committee this morning. It’s been very informative. Unfortunately, we are out of time. Thank you again for your time.
For our next panel, we have the good fortune of hearing from Steven Lonsdale, Conservation Program Advisor, Marine and Wildlife Department, Qikiqtani Inuit Association.
On behalf of the members of the committee, Mr. Lonsdale, I thank you for being here today. I understand that you will deliver some opening remarks, and, following that, our senators would be very interested in asking you some questions. You can begin with your presentation if you are ready.
Steven Lonsdale, Conservation Program Advisor, Marine and Wildlife Department, Qikiqtani Inuit Association: [Indigenous language spoken.] Thank you very much for welcoming me. I’m Steven Lonsdale with the Qikiqtani Inuit Association, or QIA. We are a regional Inuit organization representing 13 communities with roughly about 16,000 Inuit. I have held many positions there, but I am currently the program advisor for the Marine and Wildlife Department.
My department is primarily involved in the implementation of the Inuit Impact and Benefit Agreement, or IIBA. The majority of my time is dedicated to the Tallurutiup Imanga National Marine Conservation Area IIBA, and the associated environmental Guardian program that we designed and deliver.
The Guardian program in the Qikiqtani region is called the Nauttiqsuqtiit program — loosely translated that means “the watchers, the protectors and the caregivers of the land.” Part of their job is to actively harvest seals to distribute to communities, helping resolve some of the issues around food security.
The work that I have done at QIA includes protected area development, environmental assessment and policy work that has specialized in Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit, or traditional knowledge, and community-based research. I was on the original working group for the feasibility study for Tallurutiup Imanga — back then, it was called Lancaster Sound. I was the project lead for a strategic environmental assessment on oil and gas for the Baffin Bay and Davis Strait, which was not a scientific environmental assessment; it was an environmental assessment based on traditional knowledge. It was from the Inuit world view.
As well, I am the lead for the research planning for our Nauttiqsuqtiit land guardians. In almost 10 years at QIA, I would say that the majority of my work can be boiled down to me explaining Western and bureaucratic ways to communities, and then explaining the other way: Inuit societal ways to non-Inuit. It didn’t really matter which file it was, or which issue it was, as it really boiled down to being a communicator. I think being bicultural has allowed me to embrace both sides, and enabled me to communicate back and forth in the best way I can.
I will do my best to communicate what I know about seals and sealing as it relates to where I live within the Qikiqtani, which is the northeastern part of Nunavut. My words are coming from an experience-based place, and I will do my best to communicate the accounts of community members. I have travelled extensively within the Qikiqtani. I have harvested actively in most communities. I try my best to see not only the towns, but also the land with which they interact.
From a personal perspective, too, I also hunt seals all year round, and try my best — much like the Nauttiqsuqtiit — to distribute food to fellow community members. In saying that, I do recognize my own limitations in being able to express the depth and enormity of community members’ points of view about seals, but I will try my best.
This morning, I’m hoping that some of the questions that were forwarded to Paul Irngaut may possibly be repeated because it gave me a chance to think in more detail about how I might want to respond. In saying that, I’ll just close my remarks. Thank you.
Senator Francis: Thank you. This is following up on a previous question from the previous panel: Could you comment on the impact of the misinformation campaigns by animal rights groups on the Inuit? How did it impact the livelihoods of individuals, families and communities? And how has that contributed to food insecurity?
Mr. Lonsdale: That is quite a loaded question since there can be so many different answers. I’ll try my best to summarize this. I would say that prior to the bans — in the late 1970s and early 1980s — it was around the time when the first generation of Inuit were experiencing the colonial practices of being brought into communities from the surrounding land. They were being transformed from a semi-nomadic people to being in a fixed community, which was a huge change. It had many impacts. One of the things that helped alleviate that was to be able to actively hunt and harvest seals, which provided food for community members — fellow Inuit — as well as to practise the culture of hunting, the preparation and the post-hunt activities, all of which contributed to language retention, cultural practices and the practice of customs. To be able to do all of that, and also provide financially for your family through the selling of pelts, did ease that transition; it’s not to say that it was great, but it did make it easier. Inuit were able to provide for themselves. When you fast-forward to the post-ban era, you can immediately see things like suicides quadrupling, and poverty became apparent very quickly. In that sense, it was devastating. As Paul Irngaut spoke of earlier, it was devastating in many different aspects, and we’re still feeling the effects of that today. That misinformation and that kind of active campaign had devastating impacts.
Senator Francis: I also noticed in your opening remarks that you tended to use — what we would call in Mi’kmaq — a two-eyed seeing approach to combine Indigenous and non-Indigenous perspectives. Am I right in saying that you are suggesting that a two-eyed seeing approach is necessary to effectively combat misinformation about sealing in order to advance food sovereignty for the Inuit?
Mr. Lonsdale: In short, yes.
Senator Petten: I noted that you just mentioned community-based knowledge, and you added a reference to that. When we were in St. John’s, Newfoundland, listening to a number of different people on this study, one of the things that was indicated by some of them — especially with the harvesters — was that there seems to be very many seals out there. When we talk about seals, sometimes we talk about them generally, and I asked a question earlier about the species because there is a big difference between them. They are saying that there is an explosion of seals out there, and, of course, the concern relates to the amount of fish, particularly cod, because it’s been such a long time since the implementation of the moratorium on cod in their region. They contributed to research, and I know that DFO has been looking at providing some funding, and announced a couple of funding amounts that were going out — part of it involved finally listening to some of the harvesters with their community-based knowledge. I remember that the representative from the Fish, Food and Allied Workers Union had indicated that he was really excited because they were finally going to listen to what the fishermen were saying with respect to the gut content of the seals so that you could try to manage all of that.
This dawned on me: With respect to quotas and how the seal population is being managed, are officials listening to what you are indicating? Are they using the information collected to determine how it should be managed?
Mr. Lonsdale: When it comes to the knowledge of the harvesters, we don’t have a platform as large as that of researchers, and also the information itself is treated differently; the majority of the information available is oral accounts from networks of hunters communicating verbally. Sharing amongst each other is hard to broadcast on a larger scale. When hearings like this occur, I’m very happy to have the opportunity to speak and try to put forward some of those answers. I was very happy to hear that the committee was hearing directly from the harvesters.
It becomes quite one-sided in terms of the information being provided because of the opportunity to have that platform. When we look at research, it’s often a snapshot compared to, say, Inuit knowledge, where it extends over lifetimes and generations. When we look at that snapshot, it’s easy, perhaps, to look at, say, doomsday scenarios based on that limited window that you looked through. But if we look at Inuit knowledge, and how it is based on the entire year, I often kind of jokingly say, “Some researchers are like the snowbirds and only come when the weather is warm.” When we look at research done by Inuit — which is an oral account comprised of traditional knowledge — it’s based on a transmission over years and years. It becomes a lot more in-depth, and you get to see the trends. It’s very hard to describe because it is of an oral nature, so to pass on that information is difficult.
Senator Petten: Do you think the ecosystem is in balance with the number of seals that are there? I know that you have your full gamut of [Technical difficulties]. Do you think it’s out of balance?
Mr. Lonsdale: When out hunting, I have seen a lot more harp seals coming into Frobisher Bay around Iqaluit. I do often see that every time the harp seals are in the bay, especially in large numbers, they are competing with ringed seals, which is our primary food source. That tends to drive them away to different areas. Anytime I’m in an area with what might be a couple of hundred harp seals, I just go somewhere else. I hear stories from Pond Inlet where they don’t get very many harp seals, but in the last few years, they are starting to see them. There is a certain competitive effect when it comes to sealing. Sealing in general, as Mr. Irngaut spoke about earlier, has ringed seals as the primary source, whereas harp seals are used mainly as dog food for dog teams. We also have bearded seals, which are a rather large species. They are hard to butcher because of their size, but their yield is pretty big. We are actually starting to see other types of seals that haven’t been seen before. For example, outside of Frobisher Bay, just at the entrance of it, I have heard of harvesters getting smaller harbour seals, and possibly even spotting sea lions.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you very much.
Senator C. Deacon: Thank you, Mr. Lonsdale, for being with us.
I want to keep drilling into the issue of research. In my first year as a senator, I will never forget a Genome Canada presentation — where they compared traditional knowledge — where Inuit elders were saying that there were two different types of Arctic char between two different bays that were quite close together. They did the genetic research and found out that the traditional knowledge was absolutely correct; genetically, they were completely different. The value of building from traditional knowledge is powerful. Doing research that doesn’t do that, I think, is limiting our progress. We don’t have time as it relates to this issue.
Are you aware of organizations that work with communities to build research plans that are relevant and based on that traditional knowledge, and that can do the nearshore work, not the deep water work, that’s needed to start getting the answers that are essential to demonstrating the harm — the cultural, ecological, familial and community harm — that’s being done through these bans? The disinformation, and the intentional spreading of false information, is — I would argue — for the personal benefit of those who are employed in those organizations. Are you aware of research organizations that could help build on that community traditional knowledge in order to have evidence that will allow us to take decisive action? Thank you.
Mr. Lonsdale: I’ll first comment on what you said about the fish where, according to Inuit knowledge, it was said that they are two distinct populations. It’s weird because we know that, and yet it needs to be justified in a scientific way to really show that it’s real. But it was already real when we saw it.
When you are so in tune with an animal, and when you are that in tune with what you are catching, there is great value in that. I have heard different stories where you can taste the difference between one area or another — when you are that close to your food source — and you say, “I don’t like the taste of the fish here in this lake. I want to go to this lake.” I think the recognition is moving toward that. Traditional knowledge was not even a conversation 10 years ago, and now it’s moving forward to becoming a recognized knowledge base. I love hearing stories about that because you do hear that quite often in the North.
In regard to research using, say, traditional knowledge in terms of organizations, we don’t have too many right now. It’s something that’s budding. It’s something that’s growing. Right now, research is really done in silos. It’s very independent because you have, say, one university going for one project, and then you have government scientists going to do another. It’s done in silos. I haven’t seen any real systemic, organized way to use traditional knowledge.
One of the things that I have been working on over the last years is to create policy and regulations within the permitting process to use traditional knowledge because, right now, it is — what I call — a nice thing to do. If you are a researcher, it’s nice if you use it. It will enrich your research. It will create those connections with communities, and bring forth that knowledge base that otherwise would be unknown outside of communities. It is a fantastic thing to be able to do that. It is not an obligation, though, and it can easily be refuted, say, by another scientific study. It’s all done in silos, so you don’t have that coordinated effort to be able to use traditional knowledge.
One of the contributing factors is that researchers just don’t know how. It is really up to Inuit to show them how, and to be active partners in that development of how to do it.
Senator C. Deacon: It’s not a nice-to-have, and I think that you would find agreement around this table that it’s not a nice-to-have. It’s a waste to not build from that.
In speaking about the ability, then, to cut through those silos — because we don’t have time — harm is being done, and the ecological harm is going to be hard to repair. As you build on your recommendations, and as you have something to share, could you please share that with us, as a committee, in written form? Or perhaps you have more you could offer now. That would be very valuable. We can point to the direction, the strategy and the importance of it, if we agree amongst the committee that it’s crucial. It would be nice to have specifics to fill it out.
Mr. Lonsdale: I can comment further on that.
Right now, it seems that the use of traditional knowledge is about, say, guiding principles about broad statements of interactions with Inuit, and about outlined values that you need to respect. But the thing with guiding principles is that they only provide guidance on conduct — on respectful interactions with Inuit. It really lacks direction on how traditional knowledge should be collected, how it should be used and how it should be analyzed, and, therefore, it really fails to provide clear ways to incorporation.
In that case, with no guidance, the onus usually falls on the participants — on Inuit — on how it should be done. This is often an unfair and loaded request because it is often an open-ended question. I have been in many consultations, and that open-ended question is asked: “How should we use Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit, or IQ?” IQ is being used within the context of government practices, protocols, policies, regulation and legislation procedures. Asking those not initiated within the government bureaucratic process makes it quite difficult to be able to answer. It is kind of an unreasonable request. At the moment, IQ is being used within these siloed projects. For it to become systematically widespread, it will require a larger scale and strategic coordination, and I think that would entail investment into discussions with stakeholders on how best we can do this as opposed to an ad hoc, open-ended question at a meeting somewhere, to say, “How do we do this?” Thank you.
Senator C. Deacon: Thank you for the strength of your answer.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Lonsdale.
Senator Ataullahjan: Something you said piqued my interest: You talked about explaining Western bureaucratic ways to the Inuit people. I don’t understand some of the bureaucratic ways, so that must be a tough job. On the other hand, when you explain Inuit ways to the bureaucrats, do you find that there is a culture of sensitivity? Is there an understanding? In this committee, we have consistently heard of issues of racism that exist at various levels.
Mr. Lonsdale: I’m not sure if I fully understand the question, but in my experience of trying to explain Inuit ways to non-Inuit, it is constant, and I have literally built a career on it. Every so often, I just get exhausted, and that’s when I turn to various friends and colleagues who support me well. It just gives me the motivation to keep moving because it becomes quite repetitive at times to constantly explain and justify.
That’s the different thing about this: With outside pressures, it’s hard to always be fighting. When you look at the Fisheries Act, it doesn’t distinguish sealing and fish — fisheries are fisheries. But when you go into the general public, fishing is fishing and sealing is hunting, so me trying to exercise my rights within this fishery becomes something of a fight.
It’s very hard when it’s these deep personal things that are culturally connected to me as well as to things like food security, language retention and the passing on of customs. These are very personal things. To be attacked or judged gets exhausting because it’s a never-ending fight.
Senator Ataullahjan: As a racialized woman, I understand the constant explaining and trying to make people understand. You’re saying it’s repetitive. Is there a lack of will to understand? If you’re having a conversation, why can’t they understand?
I hope I’m not putting you in a tough spot, but why do you feel that you have to keep repeating yourself? It’s clear that you’re talking about a certain culture and a way of life that has existed for centuries, which we are all learning about.
Is it a lack of interest? Is it racism? What is it? Is it everything together?
Mr. Lonsdale: I would say that it’s a lack of awareness. In speaking to a group, it will be quite localized. Then, I will go somewhere else, and I’m speaking again. It’s just the lack of awareness in general. It’s not only me, but also colleagues of mine, or those within my field of work, who are constantly communicating these things; it’s reaching a small group, and we’re continually just repeating ourselves to different groups. Communications-wise, it’s not reaching a broader audience.
Senator McPhedran: Thank you for being with us, Mr. Lonsdale. You were in the room when I was asking questions of our previous witness about the impact on women in your communities, and also strategies to support, promote and create better opportunities for the economic participation of women.
Do you have anything to add to the answers that were given by the previous witness?
Mr. Lonsdale: As I spoke about earlier, the impacts of the sealing ban were swift and extremely powerful. I spoke about suicides quadrupling at the time. It was primarily men because, at the time, it was a way to practise culture and customs while also being part of the economy. To be able to do both things is very empowering, so when that was taken away, those impacts were severe.
It not only impacted the men, of course, but also the women. There were still the traditional roles of hunter-gatherer, as well as processing and making clothing and things like that. It disrupted the entire dynamic of the community and how we interact with each other. We’re still feeling the impacts today.
In terms of support, we’re looking at trying to create an industry where there is a lot of that misinformation. How can you begin to do that? I don’t know. There are no simple answers to that.
When we look at the misinformation that’s out there, we’re fighting a media campaign machine that has been invested with millions of dollars. On the other side of this, there is not as much investment, so it’s not a fair battle to begin with.
When you look at animal rights groups that are opposing the sealing industry, it is the only industry that I can see that doesn’t sell anything but ideas. Its sole existence is to create more of this information and sell it.
You can, on paper, be a charitable organization, but when that charitable organization has negative impacts on people, how much of a charity is it? That’s the sole purpose of this media machine: to just keep pumping out information. When we have community members who are trying to benefit from sealing, it becomes a very disadvantaged fight.
In terms of support, though, that’s really hard. I think one thing is to change that — try to combat that image — because it becomes a moral issue when it comes to the animal rights groups. The morality of killing an animal is wrong, and that’s the end of the discussion. There is no talk of whether it’s sustainable. How does it benefit the community? Does it contribute to food security? It’s just seen as something negative, and the discussion stops. I think it’s about promoting that discussion, and creating more awareness around the positives of it, instead of seeing that moral judgment.
It seems kind of extreme on that end, but when you have, say, friends of people with those ideals, or just the general public, you may not even associate yourself with sealing or the sealing industry even if you don’t believe in those same ideals. You just don’t want to be judged. You don’t want to be put on the spot. You don’t want to be seen as evil. Even those who are not supportive of those ideals will not oppose them, at the same time, because of that fear of judgment. You may have people who are empathetic and supportive of Inuit, but may not openly or publicly state that.
Senator McPhedran: I want to make sure that I’ve understood your answer so far. What I’m hearing is future, prospective, possible actions that could be taken.
Could you share with us if there’s anything happening now that you know of — that you’re potentially involved in — that has a focus on women’s economic development, and the promotion of women’s creative production within your communities? Is there anything happening now?
Mr. Lonsdale: They may still be in operation, but there was a non-profit group in Iqaluit that would organize a sewing group to make kamiks, which are the sealskin boots. These kamiks are extremely hard to make. It takes a very skilled person to be able to do that. There are many steps involved in making those boots.
Because of the loss of traditions, and the loss of people’s ability to make them, those boots have become a very rare thing. Even to see them on, say, Facebook Marketplace, they are quite expensive, and they are revered.
When you see programs like that trying to revive these kamik-making programs, it’s very positive. It is primarily women. There may be the odd man here or there, but the program has been organized and supported by women.
They are highly revered. When you are able to learn how to make these things, it’s not just a one-time thing. It’s going to take years to be able to perfect that craft. To see programs like that is very uplifting, and you see a very tangible product. At the same time, in making that, you see the intangibles, such as the language retention, the practising of customs, networking and the positive cultural practice that’s becoming more infrequent these days.
Senator Cordy: Thank you so much for the answers that you’ve given. Your answers were very impactful, particularly when you spoke about the devastating effect of the loss of the sealing industry, or certainly the slowdown of the sealing industry, in the territories.
So often the sealing industries in the territories are in very rural communities, and people living in cities don’t really understand the impact that it has, as if it were a huge industry within an urban area. Thank you very much for that.
I also loved your comment about how much of a charity it could be if it has such a devastating effect on people. That was a really good comment.
As a committee, when we’re putting our report together, and making suggestions for some of the really important things — both panels today were on misinformation — what are several of the key pieces that we should put in our report relating to misinformation and trying to overcome misinformation?
It’s been going on for a very long time. The pictures that they show on their posters are not factual. They show the pups, which is against the law in Canada. It’s very cute to see someone holding a pup. How could anything happen to this pup? If you’re going to try to promote something, that certainly would be the way to go, even though it’s wrong.
What suggestions would you give to us as a committee?
Mr. Lonsdale: I think that one of the overarching issues that is communicated by animal rights activists is moral judgment — being seen as evil, or as something extremely negative. That’s one of the biggest things to combat.
From the Inuit point of view, it is a reality to be able to harvest, to be a good person and to practise your culture. When you look at it in a very holistic way, it’s all-encompassing. The connection that seals have to Inuit is more than the product. It’s more than the food. It is part of an identity.
When you look at even just preparing for a seal hunt, as well as the hunt itself and the post-hunt activities, it contributes to food security, language and cultural retention and economic opportunities, and it improves the overall quality of life. How can you look at that as something evil, or as something bad? It encompasses so much. It is one of the most important ways of expressing Inuit identity — being able to exercise harvesting rights, as outlined in Article 5 of the Nunavut Agreement. This is something that is constitutionally protected. It is not seen in a bad light by Inuit.
As I spoke of, this is the type of thing that I’m continually communicating. It’s a good thing that I’m stubborn because I just don’t stop. I just need a reminder every now and then to keep going, and I’m very happy to. Thank you.
Senator Cordy: “Stay stubborn” would be the advice to you.
You spoke about the healthy seal populations. If there’s one group more than any other who would want healthy seal populations, it would be the seal hunters. People forget about that — that would be their issue.
There was an MP and former minister from Atlantic Canada who always used to say that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans should not be headquartered in Ottawa but, rather, should be located on one of the coasts of Canada. Would that make any difference at all if they were closer to what’s actually happening?
Mr. Lonsdale: Of course. I’ve been asked this question before by different government departments doing consultations in the Qikiqtani. One person asked, “How can we do a better job?” I said, “Have more offices here, not only in Iqaluit, but also in the communities.” You have to live in the place where you’re serving the public sector. When you don’t have an office there, you don’t have the pulse of the community. You don’t know what’s going on.
When these consultations are occurring, it seems as if these consultations are always from scratch. If you have a continual presence in an area, you don’t need to start from scratch every time. You can build upon what you’ve learned, and build upon what you’ve heard directly from community members, so your consultation might be just living there. To have a government office in Pond Inlet, in Grise Fiord, in Resolute Bay, is one step closer to being able to properly serve the public — and Inuit are the public; we are Canadians. There might often be a distinction there, but it is part of Canada, and yet we’re very far removed from government services, government offices and things like that. I’d say just to be closer to people.
Senator Cordy: That way, it wouldn’t be a consultation that’s once a year or once every two years. It would be continuous — a phone call.
Mr. Lonsdale: Exactly.
Senator Cordy: Thank you very much for being here.
Mr. Lonsdale: You’re welcome.
The Deputy Chair: Mr. Lonsdale, I want to go over one thing. My colleagues have covered a lot of the issues that I was interested in as well, but you had mentioned, when you began your opening remarks, that you had been here for our other witness, and you had made some observations that you wanted to make sure that we heard. I want to give you the opportunity now, if there is anything that you would like to say or recommend that you haven’t had a chance to talk about, to make a comment and to reinforce the fact — if later something comes to you that you really think is relevant to this study and would be helpful to our goals, please feel free to make any kind of written submission. It will certainly be part of our consideration.
Mr. Lonsdale: When it comes to cultural practices, this is something that I would definitely like to communicate: It is always hard to really outline that. I usually find statements around cultural importance very hard to explain, and it’s hard to explain the depth, the feeling and the connection that always seems to be understated even when using my own words.
I’ve seen references to culture in the Fisheries Act. I’ve forgotten which article it is, but it is something around the discretionary role that the minister plays when it comes to cultural impacts, and yet, the cultural side of things is not clearly outlined as to what that means.
As I said, it’s very difficult for even me to outline cultural impacts. It’s something very understated at times, and yet, it has so much meaning within it. I’ll try my best to explain the cultural importance of sealing specifically with an example.
Sealing with ringed seals in the North is done all year round, but in the winter, it’s done on the sea ice in 24-hour darkness. It’s probably one of the most intimate hunts that I’ve ever experienced.
You’re standing over a seal hole, literally inches away from your food source. The seal hole in the winter — depending on the seal — could be that big in diameter, or that big in diameter, and it’s maintained throughout the entire year. This is a non-migratory animal, so it’s maintained throughout the whole year. That’s why it’s such a staple food source. It doesn’t migrate. It’s the only larger animal that is available all year round that’s non-migratory because they maintain these seal holes — the breathing holes.
As it comes up, it exhales, and a little bit of ice builds up to the point where it’s cone-shaped. It resembles a child’s project of a volcano with a little hole on the top. You have this ice crust over the seal hole, and you stand over it in minus 30 degrees Celsius, and you need to wait for the seal to come up for air. Some seals let out a big exhale, while others breathe very quietly. You need to have really good hearing for this. Once you hear the first breath, you have to wait for the second breath to do anything because some are known to come up and then just go — so you wait for that second breath. You’re literally listening for breathing. It’s hard to emphasize when you’re in the middle of nowhere and you hear it from within inches. After the second breath, you literally fire straight down. You don’t see it; it doesn’t see you. You are solely hunting on sound. Everything up to that gunfire needs to be really quiet; otherwise, the seal will just flee.
To be with your food and feel your food from that moment to when it’s on your table, to when you give it to your relatives to skin and make clothes from, is really a connection that very few people have. When someone explains about the cultural importance of it, it’s that deep.
This is just one aspect. When we speak about cultural connections to other things, it’s just as deep.
Within these bits of legislation, when I hear cultural references, it just doesn’t outline it as deep as it should be. I just wanted to take the opportunity to express that.
The Deputy Chair: Senator Cuzner has been inspired to ask a question. You’re more than welcome to, if you would like, please.
Senator Cuzner: Madam Chair, thank you for allowing me to join, and thank you to the committee. This is my first Senate committee. It’s been very insightful. There have been some great questions.
Having had the opportunity to be in the House before, some of the issues that we’re dealing with here are similar issues that we have been dealing with in regard to the seal industry for a number of years.
I remember back in 2006 when Paul McCartney and his wife had that famous picture taken out on the ice with the seal pups, condemning the Canadian government for the harvest of seals — a practice that had been stopped 20 years prior. The misinformation was prevalent then, and I think some great questions have been asked about how to remedy it.
I have two questions, but I have an observation first: Even beyond the misinformation, a natural trend now is that people are eating less meat. When I go to a barbecue now, I have my burger and about five tofu burgers on the grill. It’s tough enough. There has been a decrease there.
I’m not sure if there are different ways that you can serve the meat, or jerky it, or whatever it might be, in order to make it a little bit more appealing and get it there, but it’s the absolute use of the total animal.
I know that there was a fairly strong initiative a number of years ago to look at using parts of the animal for organic fertilizers. I’m totally unprepared for the meeting here today. I don’t know where that is — maybe the committee has heard — but is that still a thing? Is that still being pursued as another option for other parts of the animal?
Mr. Lonsdale: Before I answer that question, I have just a couple of comments. I noticed your X-Ring, and I immediately thought of my wife, Sonja Lonsdale, who has the same ring.
To comment on the seal pup photo opportunity by McCartney, I looked at that through an Inuit perspective. As soon as I saw the person petting and holding the pup, I knew that was detrimental to that pup. The mother, smelling the human scent, may abandon that pup to starve. For that kind of hypocrisy to occur was very hard to watch.
The Deputy Chair: Mr. Lonsdale, we have about two minutes left, and then our group behind us has to move on to another responsibility. I hate to cut you off, but could you finish in two minutes, please?
Mr. Lonsdale: Of course. In regard to the question about fertilizers, I’m not sure about that. I do know of, say, different options where the possibility of creating iron pills from seals is something that has been explored. Seal meat has as much iron as iron supplements. This is due to the fact that, pound for pound, they have twice as much blood as humans. To be able to dive deep and hold their breath for a long time, they need to have that thing in their body. The iron supplements might be an option because you’re not, technically, eating meat but a supplement. There are opportunities there.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you. I apologize again for rushing you. I want to thank you very much for taking the time to appear here today, and to share your intimate lived experience with us on this incredibly important topic.
(The committee adjourned.)