THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON FISHERIES AND OCEANS
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Thursday, November 23, 2023
The Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans met with videoconference this day at 9:02 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.
[English]
The Deputy Chair: Good morning, my name is Bev Busson, senator from British Columbia, and I have the pleasure of chairing this meeting. Today, we are conducting a meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans. Should any technical difficulties arise, particularly in relation to interpretation, please signal this to the chair or the clerk, and we’ll work to resolve the issue.
Before we begin, I’d like to take a few moments to allow the members of the committee to introduce themselves, beginning with the senator immediately to my left.
Senator C. Deacon: Good morning. Colin Deacon from Nova Scotia.
Senator Petten: Good morning. Iris Petten, Newfoundland and Labrador.
Senator Francis: Brian Francis, Epekwitk, Prince Edward Island.
Senator Ataullahjan: Salma Ataullahjan, Ontario.
Senator Ravalia: Good morning and welcome. Mohamed Ravalia, Newfoundland and Labrador.
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, we have this mandate, and the committee will be hearing from the following witnesses on our first panel: David Kunuk, Deputy Minister, Department of Economic Development and Transportation, Government of Nunavut; and Zoya Martin, Director, Fisheries and Sealing, Department of Economic Development and Transportation, Government of Nunavut.
On behalf of the members of the committee, I want to thank you for being here today and welcome you to this meeting. I understand that Mr. Kunuk and Ms. Martin will be delivering some opening remarks. Following your presentation, members of the committee will have some questions for you to answer. Thank you very much. You have the floor.
David Kunuk, Deputy Minister, Department of Economic Development and Transportation, Government of Nunavut: Thank you. I’m pleased to be here, and thank you for the invitation. Lovely to meet all of you. I appreciate it. We’ll be alternating, so please bear with us. I’ll start.
Seals and sealing are integral to Nunavut, Inuit and Nunavummiut. We wish to bring to your attention today issues, challenges and barriers facing Inuit and Nunavummiut with respect to seals and sealing while showing you the in-depth relationship that is founded on deep respect. It is our understanding that the role of this committee is to look at how Canadian seal populations have been managed thus far, how management should proceed in the future and research and research priorities. We have comments and perspectives to share on each topic. Lastly, we will conclude by sharing an overview of our concerns and thoughts about next steps. We would like to be clear that there are a variety of seal species in Nunavut with ringed seals and harp seals being the more common but also including bearded seals and hooded seals.
Zoya Martin, Director of Fisheries and Sealing, Department of Economic Development and Transportation, Government of Nunavut: For how seal populations are currently being managed, the current management regime for seals in Nunavut is effectively non-existent with respect to any formal Fisheries and Oceans Canada, or DFO, management plan or plans. Inuit are continuing to manage their harvests as per Inuit societal values — Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit, or IQ — and within communities, harvest discussions take place as and when needed, but there is no formal overarching federal investment in managing seals in Nunavut to our knowledge. There is no integrated fisheries management plan, or IFMP, that we could reference.
This is a concern because seals and sealing have been a significant political topic for decades. These species are fundamentally important to Inuit, and there has been little investment by DFO to ensure the health of the populations and the sustainability of the resource. This role has been upheld largely by Inuit and Nunavummiut in the territory, but it remains a federally mandated authority.
Nunavut is not experiencing the same trends of seal overpopulation seen in other parts of Canada and Europe because our harvests have continued for subsistence purposes. This has kept the ecosystem in balance by keeping humans in the equation. When you remove a top predator like humans from the ecosystem, it becomes unbalanced. This balance is understood and respected by Inuit, and has been the foundation of Inuit resource management for centuries. With Fisheries and Oceans Canada working towards an ecosystem approach for resource management, we remain optimistic about future management plans for seals that are similar to the holistic methods of Inuit.
We would like to acknowledge that the lack of management plans and lack of investment by DFO for this species has been a serious concern. So much so, that the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada, or COSEWIC, has suggested listing ringed seals under the Species At Risk Act, or SARA, as a special concern to ensure that monitoring of the species begins.
We argue and maintain the position that it is an inappropriate use of SARA and would cause significant harm to Inuit if listed. Listing ringed seals under SARA would be a step back to 2009 when the European Union, or EU, enacted their most recent seal ban. There is little understanding of the difference in listing, and it would add further market access barriers. A species as important as ringed seals or harp seals should not require listing under SARA to bring the attention and investment needed for mandated stock assessment research and subsequent co-management planning.
We think that the future management of seals in Nunavut needs to be led by Inuit and communities, that it respects the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement, while bringing in the resources, capabilities and capacity of DFO; that is the spirit of co-management. At present, there is no concern about the health of seal populations on the part of Inuit, but changes in distribution and migrations have been noted. Inuit harvesters and elders hold a tremendous amount of knowledge, and there needs to be room within policy and practice for the inclusion of this knowledge in resource management plans. Resource management plans often rely solely on science, and we are advocating that in policy and practice there needs to be space for other knowledge systems to be included beside and, when needed, in lieu of science.
The Deputy Chair: I’m sorry, you’re not finished. My apologies. Please continue.
Mr. Kunuk: There has been, arguably, little investment into seals and sealing research in our territory in the past two decades. The majority of our research has been graduate student projects, but to our knowledge there has not been adequate investment from DFO into stock assessment surveys for seals in Nunavut. There has been policy-related research that looks into the impacts of the seal bans against Inuit and Indigenous peoples. There has been research into parasites and contaminants in seals. There has been one research project looking at Nunavut seal populations from stock assessment perspectives. Otherwise, the science data for Nunavut seal populations is old and from as long ago as 50 years.
There have been IQ studies completed and workshops to document the rich and holistic knowledge that Inuit elders and harvesters hold, but this information has not been recognized or used in any meaningful way by resource managers.
To serve Canadians and Nunavummiut with the best possible marine environment, it is imperative that our investment into seal research — both science and Inuit knowledge — is required. How can decisions on a species be made when there is no scientific information and the Inuit knowledge is not being used?
We want to take a moment and comment on the impacts that decisions about seals and sealing have on Nunavummiut and Inuit. We do not take our advocacy here lightly. We are profoundly appreciative to be here sharing with you today.
As we mentioned, seals and sealing are a part of our lives and culture in Nunavut, whether Inuk or not. Nunavummiut know that seals are vitally important to our communities. Seals provide to Nunavummiut subsistence, food that is rich in vitamins and minerals, skins and furs that keep us warm in extreme weather, economic opportunities to sell post-harvest products and connection to Inuit culture and traditions going back centuries.
The ban on seal products from the United States, European Union and now the United Kingdom results in worldwide attention on Inuit and their connection to the practice of sealing. Along with this came comments that were filled with false facts and shame against those who carry on the practice and are proud to wear sealskin.
In the 1980s, when the original ban started, there was a huge economic impact to the Inuit. People were able to survive with some of the post-harvest income from the sealskin pelt sales. When the ban happened, food insecurity started. It has become worse and worse over time.
Ms. Martin: Still today, despite the European Union and United Kingdom acknowledging the rights of Inuit to harvest and trade through their exceptions and despite the recognition of the Indigenous rights through the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, or UNDRIP — and the Government of Canada’s response — there is deep hurt, negative impacts and continued harm with respect to the lack of national support around sealing.
The lack of investment by the Canadian government to protect Inuit from these bans was unacceptable; it continues today with little interest or understanding from public servants and the public on the impacts of these bans on Inuit and Indigenous people that they are meant to represent.
The Government of Nunavut is one of three recognized bodies as listed in the European Union and the United Kingdom. Through these positions, we have been trying to advocate and work towards correcting the wrongs and deep negative impacts the seal bans have had on Inuit and the seal by-product market.
We want to be clear. The bans need to be revoked. In their place, proper regulations that permit the proper marketing of products need to be in place.
We want to be clear that Canada and the European Union have not done enough to educate people within and outside of the European Union about the exceptions, and this goes against the joint statement by Canada and the European Union signed in August 2014 which states that they both support indigenously harvested seal products to be marketed.
In conclusion, we wanted to bring a few points forward.
There is a need for real and effective investment in an educational campaign in Canada, and worldwide, to correct the misinformation and the lies on sealing. This would fall within the government’s commitment under the Truth and Reconciliation report.
This education must extend to and respect Inuit and Indigenous culture and practices with seals and sealing. We are thinking, as an idea, about national commercials like “Heritage Minutes,” which could be a significant step forward to educating the public. Additionally, this topic needs to be added into the curriculum so we start educating younger generations. The silence does need to stop.
There is also a need for significant and appropriate financial investment into the proper science surveys to be completed on seal populations in Nunavut. There is a precedent for these types of investments — the narwhal management plan — and as well the significant recent investment into marine protected areas.
We advocate that seals and sealing need and deserve the same investment, and that they have been a political hot topic long enough with not enough effort.
There is a need as well for significant investment into including Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit and other knowledge systems, beside science, into resource management decisions.
Lastly, there needs to be the resource and capacity directed to work on creating a co-management plan for Nunavut seals, and this needs to have an aggressive timeline of one to two years.
It has been our experience that public servants working on the sealing files from Global Affairs Canada, DFO, the Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency, or CanNor, and other relevant departments would be well served to be better educated on the Canadian seal files.
There should be a national working group that commits to meeting often, as this is a problem that is shared from coast to coast to coast.
This is especially important for any public servant who works on international files with respect to the sealing bans. We’re finding that their information is perhaps lacking slightly when we discuss that topic.
Mr. Kunuk: DFO needs to complete a review of proposed SARA listings from COSEWIC for the following deficiencies: one, do SARA regulations have effective authority to make changes against the anthropogenic impacts; two, is the information included recent enough to be a meaningful representation of the stocks; three, has relevant Indigenous knowledge been included as per the regulations?
If any of these criteria are not met, the reports need to be sent back to COSEWIC and the gaps filled. We are hopeful, with this committee and the chance to speak today, that Nunavut’s voice is being heard, that our points and concerns are being recognized and that we are seen as a full and active partner to help find solutions.
We are willing to invest and do our part to support our seals and subsequent sustainable sealing economy. Qujannamiik.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you both. I have a list of senators anxious to ask you questions.
Senator Francis: Good morning again. Thank you for being here. Your opening remarks were very informative and detailed. I appreciate that.
At the present time, does Nunavut have any investment programs or grants available to help develop new seal-based products or markets. If so, what are these programs and grants? How long have they been in existence? What is their uptake?
If so, has it helped address the wide-ranging negative impacts of the European ban? If not, would you agree that funding should be made available for these purposes?
Ms. Martin: Thank you. Yes, we do have grants and contribution funding, approximately — in total — $175,000 a year, up to $200,000 a year, for Nunavummiut to apply.
It is a contribution program. There is meant to be an investment from the applicant — some sort of investment from themselves as well — then they can access the funding. It’s related to a wide variety of topics under the sealing envelope.
We have been successful in the past in getting federal funding when there was the Certification and Market Access Program for Seals, or CMAPS, program. That did facilitate the creation of some of the regulations and products we needed to do in accordance with the European Union ban.
As a recognized body, we needed to create a tracking system, a QR code. We did invest in some campaigns in Brussels and Europe to try to grow the market there.
We have, especially since COVID, taken the focus of making sure that the sealing economy for Nunavut is supported in Nunavut first. Then we will branch out domestically into Canada.
We have interest in rebuilding the European Union market. But until there’s education around the exception, the barriers there are significant. Neither side can say whether there’s a market or not because when people hear the word “ban,” they stop listening after that. No one listens for an exception.
Senator Francis: Thank you for that, Ms. Martin.
Mr. Kunuk, do you have anything to offer on that?
Mr. Kunuk: No, I think she covered it well.
Senator Francis: Okay. Thank you both for that.
Senator Petten: I just want to make sure that I understand because sometimes when we talk about seals — ringed seals, harp seals or other seals — there are so many species of seals, so I just wanted to make sure that we’re talking about what specific species of seals.
Ms. Martin: In Nunavut, the traditionally preferred seal is a ringed seal, but we have significant harp and ringed seal populations. We have a small amount of hooded, bearded and other seal populations that come in, but the primary harvested species are ringed seals first and harp seals second.
Senator Petten: Thank you.
I just want to follow on that. You indicated that you have no DFO management, so — just getting a sense of the size — I wonder if you can put it in context for us: How many seals are taken a year? Do you have any sense of how big it is? I’m trying to get a sense of the scale and what the issue is. Is it a problem with other species and impacts such as on your Arctic char and all of this as well? I was just trying to get a sense of that.
Ms. Martin: If I understand your question correctly, you’re wondering what the need for a management plan is or what the concerns are?
Senator Petten: How many do you take? Is there 100,000 seals or 20,000? How many seals are taken out of the system? Do you have a sense of that?
Ms. Martin: We know some of the numbers. We know how many seals are sold into a program that we operate called the Dressed Ringed Sealskins program. An example would be 1 community out of our 25 that is a higher harvesting community of seals, Pangnirtung. They’ll sell into the program 800 pelts a year right now. Across the territory this year, we’ve received about 1,500 pelts into our program. That is a fraction of the number of seals that would be taken. Those pelts are sold into the program because the harvesters or the families made the decision to sell the pelts for economic reasons and not use them for traditional reasons.
As for the food, the food is eaten by the families. Beyond that, to my knowledge, there isn’t a lot of tracking of subsistence food with respect to a single species, but it is something we could probably follow up on, if you would like.
Senator Petten: Yes. I was just wondering if you have an overabundance of seals.
Ms. Martin: No, we don’t because we didn’t stop harvesting. It’s still a strong subsistence food source in our communities.
Senator Petten: Thank you. I will go on a second round.
Senator Ravalia: Thank you very much for your insightful remarks. I applaud and respect your traditions and the species around you.
I’m from the northeastern coast of Newfoundland and Labrador where we have a burgeoning seal population that is dramatically impacting the ecosystem. Like you, we struggle with the science because we feel like the collaboration with DFO is, at best, minimal and, at times, very inaccurate.
Does the Government of Nunavut collaborate with other Canadian provinces and territories in addressing some of the shared challenges and opportunities?
On an international basis, with your close proximity to Greenland and that rich relationship between the Inuit in your territory and in Greenland, are there opportunities for dialogue and potential trade openings there?
Mr. Kunuk: This will be a two-part answer from both of us.
We have a memorandum of understanding, or MOU, with Newfoundland and Labrador, so we’re building that relationship. Seals are one of the items in fisheries on the topic of a working group that we’re trying to create. We have started that dialogue. Actually, we met with Newfoundland representatives on Tuesday in an all-day meeting around our priorities. We see alignment.
We also have an MOU with Greenland, but because there are no commercial flights on a regular basis, it’s harder to have an active relationship, but we do have a relationship. We did a trade mission last year. We’re trying to continue that year.
I’ll pass it over to Ms. Martin to add a little bit more.
Ms. Martin: We work with the Government of the Northwest Territories as the other recognized body under the EU and the U.K. listing of exceptions. Then, beyond that, we do sit on the seals and sealing network national working group as one of the territory representatives. We have also been in attendance to an Atlantic seal working group.
We try to get relationships everywhere when it comes to sealing.
Senator Ravalia: In those relationships, are you seeing an opportunity for common pathways and collaborations in a way to persuade the government and other agencies to see your viewpoint?
Ms. Martin: I believe we’re starting to get there, yes. Committees like these are starting to show there’s an interest for the federal government to acknowledge what we might want to say or share, as well as if there are some issues to deal with on the seal file. Especially on the international file, we do stand stronger when we speak together with the Northwest Territories and Greenland. We took that method for both the European Union and the United Kingdom discussions regarding the exceptions. That has been very helpful.
Senator Ravalia: It would be very helpful for our committee if, at some point, you could send us a written submission with respect to some of these negotiations in terms of the progress, the contentious areas and the areas where you feel things are happening. Some of these points are very important for us to eventually incorporate into our study. Thank you very much.
Senator Ataullahjan: Good morning and welcome. It is nice to see you again, Mr. Kunuk.
I’ve been writing things as you’ve been speaking. The thing that jumps at me is “public servants better served if they were better educated.” Why do you feel they’re ignoring — I’m trying to find a polite way of saying this; sometimes I’m not very polite. What is the lack of interest? What is it due to? Don’t they care? If the information is there, a part of their jobs is to be better informed.
Mr. Kunuk: Part of it is that Canada is so big. When there’s a different seal interest on the East Coast — our realities are different in the North. They’re looking at the overpopulation from the Newfoundland point of view versus us, where we hunt for subsistence, so there’s no overpopulation. I think it’s ignorance, from my point of view.
Ms. Martin could add to this.
Ms. Martin: I’ll give an example in two places.
I don’t think there’s ever a disinterest or a lack of wanting to know. Some practical examples would be when we show up to the European Union as a representative body, Global Affairs Canada is there beside us. One of the things we’ve heard from the EU a few times is that sealing is never raised as an issue at the bilateral discussions. Global Affairs Canada changes over relatively often, and, on the international files, they’re not as well versed on what impacts things like these bans have on Inuit and Indigenous groups within Canada or just in general for the sealing economy in Canada.
Another example would be that, last year, there was a big push from DFO to figure out where the marketing of seals could go for DFO and their role. Our experience has been that DFO has often played the card of wanting to just be a regulator and nothing else, but then there’s nobody actually advocating for fisheries or for sealing in Canada.
We don’t see Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada step up to the plate like they would with other proteins. There is really no federal agency that’s advocating for the domestic economies of sealing. DFO sees themselves more as regulators at times as opposed to economic supporters.
Senator Ataullahjan: I think that is part of the problem. The sealing industry is one of the oldest. There is so much potential.
Following on from that, my next question is this: Do you think the federal government is doing enough to represent the sealing industry? I’ve scribbled it down, and you’ve kind of answered it.
In trade negotiations, they can make it part of their trade negotiations, but from what I’m understanding and hearing, it’s rarely discussed.
Ms. Martin: That’s our experience, yes, exactly.
Senator Ataullahjan: Thank you.
Senator C. Deacon: Thank you, Deputy Minister Kunuk and Ms. Martin. Your testimonies are very powerful and helpful.
I wanted to speak about the evidence base and how we look at having the evidence to better manage the ecosystem in a way that is sustainable according to traditional practices and the traditional ecology that is now being impacted. We’ve heard about harp seals being an invasive species that is causing harm as a result of not managing that species in its natural habitat; it’s moving north and causing disruptions. The need for evidence to support action is really important.
But we had some very powerful testimony a few weeks ago from Steven Lonsdale. We were asking about the use of Indigenous knowledge as a foundation for research efforts, and he said:
. . . 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 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.
He’s describing, I think, a very serious problem that’s harming progress. Could you guide us in what’s needed to do a better job? Do you have a best practice for scientific studies and efforts to better use traditional knowledge to give us all a far better foundation of what’s going on and what can be done? I’m looking for a best practice.
Mr. Kunuk: That’s very good to hear as a question because Inuit hunt seals all year round. They see the population going up and down. In some areas, there are killer whales, so they go to other areas and whatnot.
In terms of research, if the scientists use the data from the Inuit, specifically — and not just for two weeks out of the year — I think if there is an ongoing, all-year-round research relationship with Inuit — Inuit are on the ground; they’re hunting seals. There could be a lot stronger scientific/Inuit knowledge incorporated. The scientists just need to ask what part of the hunt they want to know about, whether it’s samples from the meat, population numbers, et cetera. Inuit are there already.
So that knowledge could easily be gapped by making them work together.
Ms. Martin: My education is actually as a stock assessment biologist. I had the pleasure of being trained in science and then the pleasure of being trained in Inuit Quajimajatuqangit when I chose to live in Nunavut. If there is a desire by the researcher, it is quite a symbiotic and nice relationship between the detail of science and the holistic view of Inuit Quajimajatuqangit.
One of the most helpful things that could happen is to actually ask Inuit knowledge holders how they want their knowledge respected and included into the resource management plans. For each stock, it might be different. That takes work and effort, but respecting how Inuit want that information added — as Mr. Kunuk said, building that relationship for the year-round data collection, not just small snapshots in time — I think we’ll start to really add a holistic view. There are two different ways to think, see and investigate the world. Science is so exact and only wants to talk about one thing, and that’s not the connection with Inuit Quajimajatuqangit or any Indigenous knowledge system.
So that’s challenging your researchers to think outside their training and push them to know that there are other knowledge systems. It is about empowering the resource managers to see strength in traditional knowledge that is equivalent to science.
There is a comfort in falling back on a number in science. There is an unease for resource managers to make a decision if they’re not comfortable with traditional knowledge centres.
Some education for both sides, for resource managers and scientists, would be good to find some traction. That’s a long answer.
Senator C. Deacon: Is there a scientific study that could be accurate in your mind that doesn’t follow what you’re recommending? I can’t see it, but I just want to get — because they’re snapshots; they’re not a movie. There is no context.
Ms. Martin: Science always only gives a tiny image of a whole picture.
Senator C. Deacon: A pixel versus a picture.
Ms. Martin: Yes.
Senator C. Deacon: Do you see any evidence that DFO has been following practices that respect this? That is a hard position to put you in. If you don’t see evidence, it doesn’t mean it’s not there. But have you seen evidence?
Ms. Martin: Well —
Senator C. Deacon: I think I have my answer.
Ms. Martin: No, no. I think the efforts put under the narwhal integrated fisheries management plan for Nunavut when [Technical difficulties] had come down hard on the narwhal tusk ban, the investment there by the resource managers, they actually used Inuit Quajimajatuqangit more than science to make their management decisions. It did turn into a quota, which is not desirable, but it was probably done for a very difficult situation actually in collaboration under the spirit of co-management.
In my experience — and Mr. Kunuk might have a different example — it is probably one of the better examples that was more recently done on melding the two worlds of the federal obligation for management plans and then the Inuit co-management spirit of resource management.
Senator C. Deacon: So there are elements of best practice, but not the whole thing.
Ms. Martin: Not the whole thing, no.
Senator C. Deacon: Got it. Thank you very much.
Senator Cordy: My questions are follow-ups to Senator Deacon’s. You said that there’s not much funding — or I’m not sure how much funding; you said there is a need for funding. Maybe you can clarify whether it’s a little bit that you have, nothing or a whole lot. I don’t know.
It’s very difficult to make science-based decisions if you don’t have up-to-date information and research. If we’re not getting the research, that must be very harmful to the industry. If you’re looking at entering into dialogue — and it should be Canada, not left to each province or territory to do that — if you’re looking at combating the bans in the U.K., the U.S. and the EU, you need up-to-date research information.
I know you mentioned it earlier in your comments, but I wonder if you could expand on that and the importance of it.
Ms. Martin: To our knowledge, I did reach out to colleagues and ask what the current stock assessment programs were in Nunavut because I myself wasn’t aware of any that were ongoing. For the most part, sealing has not been a priority for what was central in the Arctic and what is now the Arctic region for research. They invest the funds that they do have in other stocks.
The issue around that is things like the species at risk request coming forward when there is a lack of information; a comfort level for managers or regulators might be to list out of concern, but to list without information. So we did see, under the ringed seal presentation from COSEWIC, that the population data is 50 years ago; that’s five generations. They said that the stock is healthy and fine, but we still want to list it because there is no monitoring happening. So it was their way of sort of putting a Band-Aid on the situation.
Without these investments, you have the further problem that when you attempt to market seals or talk about seals in Canada, the U.K., Europe or the U.S., nobody wants to talk to you because it’s a listed species. They don’t want to trade or talk about the sustainability of beautiful pieces making it onto the market that are hand-crafted, one-off pieces, which are biodegradable and sustainable; they’re not plastic. They were harvested, traditionally made and represent key pieces that share tradition and elements around the world. The second you have a listed species or you don’t have management plans or there is concern about any information — lack of information is a problem internationally when you look at things like trade on harvested species. The lack of information means a lack of conversation or any willingness to have a conversation around trade.
Mr. Kunuk: If I may add a little bit. Being a hunter is very expensive. The fuel prices have gone way up in the past few years. Even equipment is very expensive. So before the ban, Inuit were able to afford two-phase motors and whatnot from the subsidies of the sales that they had. In today’s world, a boat easily costs $80,000. Fuel for my boat is $500 just for the tank, which doesn’t include spare fuel. That has had a huge impact on the ability to provide an economic subsidy to the hunters, and there are many full-time hunters who are still trying to put food on the table. I wanted to bring that home as well.
Senator Cordy: That is very helpful. Thank you very much. Nobody should be working with data that is 50 years old. That was before technology and social media. That was before you carried your phone in your pocket rather than having it in your house. So it’s just impossible to have negotiations or discussions when data is that old.
The follow up to that is that which you spoke about the need for investment in education. I totally and absolutely agree with you because there is so much misinformation out there about the sealing industry. You spoke about national commercials being added to the curriculum in schools, I think, because the information you see in schools is probably 50 years old. I wonder how you deal with the misinformation; the information that’s not even misinformation, it’s untrue information, which is what the EU, the U.K. and the U.S. are basing decisions on.
So how do we overcome that because it’s a huge challenge. People are looking at data that’s very old. That’s what they’re reading about and seeing, and that’s what people are basing decisions on. How do we get rid of the misinformation? It’s a huge problem.
Mr. Kunuk: Canada needs to step up when it comes to research. Using current state data would be a big part of the information that’s relevant. This forum will help that as well, and the meetings with the EU processes that Ms. Martin attended is part of that process. But again, as you said, it’s going to be a huge challenge making people believe this because misinformation has been around for so long.
Ms. Martin: Despite the challenge, I don’t think we should be discouraged from trying. I mean, it might be a Goliath situation, but we still need to try to put every effort into it. I think it will be helpful if the federal government would lead that charge and state quite clearly what they’ve put into documents like the joint statement with the EU on their support of Indigenous harvesting of seals and their support of ecosystems that are balanced. I think there are some really great messages that can go out to Canadians. As Canadians learn, we’ll teach the rest of the world.
Senator Cordy: We heard from another witness about the need for federal government officials to be actually on site to acquire a better understanding. It’s easy to make decisions about bans, et cetera, when you’re sitting in an office in downtown Ottawa. So do you have people from, let’s say, Ottawa from the government going up to Nunavut, and not just to pop in for a couple of hours, but to actually be there for a while to see what’s actually going on?
Mr. Kunuk: DFO has a presence in Nunavut, but it is a very small presence. Nunavut encompasses three time zones, so they only have a presence in a couple of the spots. They’re in the regional centres, so it’s not in the smaller communities where hunting is much more prevalent. I think awareness is lacking even within, but they are starting to hire more Indigenous people. I think that will also help with the numbers growing in Nunavut.
Ms. Martin: Budgets are hard, but the reality is that travelling into Nunavut is expensive. What we’ve heard a lot from federal officials is that it’s too expensive to come to Nunavut. You’re representing Nunavut, but it’s too expensive to come here. That is a constant comment we’ve heard.
Many try very hard, even if it’s once a year. We’ll try to stick a few meetings together and work with them and make it financially worth the investment to come North, but it would be fantastic if anyone who works on the sealing files would come. We would set up a harvest. We can do it on the ice; we can do it on the water. Even if something isn’t taken, you get the experience of how vast this is and what it really means to harvest. It’s not a farm, which I think a lot of people are quite comfortable with in the South; it’s quite different.
I think that reality would be a beautiful thing. We’re starting to really invite a lot of our federal family departments up to have these conversations and to show them what it looks like. But, unfortunately, budgets tend to be the reason we hear that they can’t come.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you both. Before we move to second round, I have a question myself that I’m going to indulge. As you spoke, I was thinking about the fact that you have huge challenges with the U.K. and the EU with respect to marketing. Of course, the United States is another whole area of, as you say, lack of information, and what is probably worse than lack of information is misinformation, as some of my colleagues suggested, especially intentional misinformation.
I’m wondering, as an aside, would you like to comment on how you experience the fact that even in Canada, where we all talk about supporting one another — UNDRIP and all of this — how do you feel about the way Canadian officials market or pursue markets even within Canada and deal with the misinformation around seal harvesting? You mentioned, Ms. Martin, that a number of seal pelts come to the program, and I’m wondering if that happens to go to the domestic market or where those pelts go.
Just a general comment about the domestic market of the product and if there is any proactive work being done in that realm. Thank you. Either one of you can answer, or both if you wish.
Ms. Martin: To add a bit of clarity, my comment on the program is that it’s a Government-of-Nunavut-run program for Nunavummiut. We purchase Nunavut-harvested pelts, the Government of Nunavut invests in getting them commercially tanned and then returned to the territory to sell at a reasonable price to our crafters so they have access to pelts that are reasonably priced. A seal pelt that’s commercially tanned in Nunavut, if bought on the regular market, can go for $300 to $500, which is a restriction for a lot of people who wish to make products for sale. That was the program I was referencing there.
For the domestic market, we have tried a variety of ways to open those conversations. Sadly, our division moved into economic development and transportation right at the beginning of the pandemic, so we’re still taking the time to travel and meet with people. But we worked with the Seals and Sealing Network to build a national platform where Indigenous artists, if they wish to, can sell their product. It can be domestic or into the European Union or the United Kingdom because they are products we can certify as recognized bodies.
Beyond that, we’ve been putting effort into finding ways to build the domestic market, first in Nunavut. The Nunavummiut understand, there is a pride and understanding of the value of a seal product, how much it costs when you buy a pair of mitts, why it costs that much and why a pair of traditional kamiks cost the price they do. There is a lot of work, from harvesting, to chewing, to sewing, to a lot of things. So we support the traditional market and the domestic market in our territory first.
We’re starting to have conversations as we build relationships, as Mr. Kunuk mentioned, through Newfoundland, Greenland and those other partners to start to have that conversation on what a domestic Canadian market looks like. One of the biggest challenges, though, is that the anti-fur campaign is so strong and, one could say, subtly ingrained in society, especially around sealing, that it’s a barrier. You have to start the conversation every time with the fact that these are very sustainable products and fake fur is plastic that is not going to biodegrade. Real fur will biodegrade. Real fur will provide you warmth. Real fur probably fed a family for a while. Fake fur did not. We have those conversations every time we try to start a market.
There’s very little room for discussion with the United States, so most of our efforts internationally are focused on the United Kingdom right now. They’re developing their regulations, so they’re the most open to at least talk with us as recognized body entities. The European Union is a machine. It’s significant. They have a little less room for conversation or for flexibility around market development.
I know you asked about domestic, but I jumped into international.
The Deputy Chair: It was a very informative answer. Thank you very much.
Mr. Kunuk, do you have anything to add to that?
Mr. Kunuk: There is starting to be a lot of cruise ships in the North since the pre-pandemic time. Opportunities to make small sales from fur is really hard because of the realities. When they go back home, they’re not allowed to carry fur. We have a huge missed market right there that might be achievable. Even small knick-knacks that are not $500; it could be a seal key chain or something. Those could be small opportunities that are being missed.
The Deputy Chair: I have one more quick question. You have to co-manage with, as you say, numerous departments of the federal government on your marketing initiatives. Do you feel, both domestically and internationally, that the government is doing enough?
Mr. Kunuk: I don’t think the government is doing enough. We mentioned there is ignorance because of the high turnover. The sustainability of advertising is not really there for supporting Indigenous groups. There is a lot of misinformation because of the Newfoundland situation and whatnot. There is that combination; it’s convoluted. It’s not really well advertised.
The Deputy Chair: Ms. Martin, you look like you’re quite anxious to answer that.
Ms. Martin: I’m sorry. When there is a lack of information, people make up their own story. Here, the silence is echoing for a lack of any information on or any investment in the domestic market or an international market from the federal government.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you very much.
Senator Petten: You have mentioned the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada a few times, and I understand they were looking at declaring the species of the ringed seal in November 2019. Did it indeed get listed or is it still ongoing? Are they consulting with DFO on that?
Ms. Martin: They’re in the consultation phase.
Senator Petten: One of the reasons they said it had to be listed was because the small seal needs sea ice to thrive. My question is around climate change. Are you seeing the loss of sea ice threatening the habitat for the seals? You mentioned cruise ships as well, so that’s why it triggered that for me as well.
Mr. Kunuk: There is definitely more unpredictability of ice. There may be some impacts, but because of a lack of research, it’s really hard to say. There are still seals. Year by year, the weather is very different. Sometimes the ice is not forming as quickly as it used to or it’s melting earlier. There is still enough time for the seal pups to grow in their dens, so there is not that huge of an impact yet.
There are eventually going to be impacts as climate change progresses. We’re seeing stronger storms that come up from Newfoundland. We feel the end of the storms, not to the same effect as Newfoundland or the East Coast —
Senator Ravalia: [Technical difficulties]
Mr. Kunuk: Yes, but I think there are some impacts for sure.
Ms. Martin: With the lack of research, what we’ve been hearing is that there are movements in the distribution, but that doesn’t mean that there is a loss of population. It would be natural if the ecosystem is changing. The animals are going to respond and move to habitats that are good for them. For us, that probably means further north for our ringed seals.
One thing we would want to raise with that comment with COSEWIC is that, to our knowledge, the Species at Risk Act has no authority over climate change. To list the species would be a harm to Inuit with what would arguably be a regulation that has no ability to effect change and help if they do see an issue.
Another solution would need to be found if climate change is impacting seals now. We would then need the research and Inuit knowledge included into the Inuit resource management plan, and we need to find a way for effective change. Listing a species is not going to suddenly stop climate change.
Senator Petten: You’ve mentioned a couple of times about no management with DFO. Do you have any thoughts around whom you could be collaborating with from the federal side of helping you with that research?
Ms. Martin: For resource management?
Senator Petten: Yes.
Ms. Martin: It is a mandated species under DFO stock assessment, so there are DFO researchers who do marine mammal research in Nunavut. They would be an option.
There are quite a few different university professors who do a little bit of sealing research within the territory. Most of it tends to be focused on the health of the seal, such as with parasites, or the health of eating seals for humans. It is not necessarily on whether the numbers are healthy enough to harvest.
It’s not a great answer because I don’t know if I have one, besides that DFO needs to do stock assessment work or hire a consultant.
Senator C. Deacon: Again, thank you both for your very powerful testimonies. They were very insightful and helpful.
I wanted to build upon what you said earlier about “Heritage Minutes.” There is an important marketing campaign to counter disinformation. I want to understand what you’re thinking about in that regard — what suggestions you have for us — to have people start to value the seal certification programs that you have and see them as an asset to ecology, culture and the health of communities. I just want to get some ideas.
I see a QR code on every product that takes people to a very rich site that starts to inform them of the destruction of habitat from the invasive species because of challenges in other areas of not managing those seals; the effects of climate change; the effects on communities; and the cost of harvesting. There are so many different elements that are so rich relative to the destructive disinformation.
What are your thoughts in that regard? What are you considering? How might we help?
Ms. Martin: Being honest, I don’t know that I would be the one to answer that. That is a question that needs to go back to Inuit and communities on how they would like to see their stories told. It needs to be the truth of what the importance of seals is and how that has changed over the last two or three decades with climate change, the cost of gas and the introduction of modern transportation. For most harvesters, how have things changed, and how has it grown and evolved? Most importantly, the fact about the respect the relationship has maintained. What does it mean to seal? What does it mean to wear seal? I think Inuit are the best people to enlighten us on that.
Senator C. Deacon: Thank you again.
Mr. Kunuk: It was a thriving market pre-ban in the 1980s. I think it’s tough to be a thriving market. The ban has had a huge impact. We still see people wearing leather jackets from moose, cow and whatnot. This is the same thing. If you see the back, it’s very nice seal leather.
Awareness campaigns are important, because animal rights activists have destroyed — there’s an abundance of seals; it’s not that there’s a lack of seals. There’s just as high an opportunity as cow leather, moose hide and whatnot that seal could offer. The thriving economic opportunities could come back from the 1980s, pre-ban. I just wanted to add that in.
Senator C. Deacon: Thank you, deputy minister.
Senator McPhedran: Thank you very much. I will begin by apologizing for being late this morning. This is very important testimony for us.
My question is based on a recent personal experience I had. I had meetings that I needed to go to at the UN in New York. I was wearing my seal bracelet, my broach and seal earrings. A colleague said to me just before I was headed to the airport, “You’re going to lose those. If you wear them, they’re going to take them.” I was on my way to the airport, so I took everything off and I shoved it down into the bottom of my backpack and that turned out okay.
Technically, with the agreement that Canada crafted with the European Union, if I had adequate documentation, I should have been able to come and go wearing Indigenous-produced seal products.
Is there such documentation when the cruise ships come in or when trade fairs happen? Do you link to the trade agreement exemptions that are specific to Indigenous production? Is there some verification of that production that can go hand in hand — picking up on Senator C. Deacon’s reference to a QR code? Is that being explored? Is that something that I could have potentially had in that moment when I was travelling outside Canada?
Ms. Martin: Into the European Union, there are two exceptions currently in place. The first one is the Indigenous harvest. The idea behind that is that if you want to make a hundred bracelets, and they’re indigenously harvested seals, it doesn’t matter who made them so long as the seal was harvested indigenously. If so, it has to be verified by either the Government of Nunavut or the Government of the Northwest Territories. We have the two that can provide the documentation — the attestation forms — to travel with those items to be placed into markets in Europe.
The second exception is for tourists, which is the one nobody knows about. We are working with our tourism sector, under Mr. Kunuk’s guidance, to make sure that our tour companies and our artists are aware that they can inform the travellers when they come. They can say, “You’re from Germany. You want to buy these mitts. You can take them back. You are allowed to carry two products back for personal use.” That is also an exception under the European Union.
It is having those regulations posted and readily available. For tourists, you don’t need the verification of how it was harvested. If it’s for your personal use, you’re allowed to bring it back into your country. You need documentation, though, if you’re trying to put something into a market. For example, if a walrus skull is sold into Finland — Finland is part of the EU, I believe — we need to send attestation forms if it was harvested in Nunavut. Otherwise, it cannot be sold into Finland, as an example. That includes anything seal product-related to be sold across borders.
What we’ve found is that because the European Union has not been educating their border services, a lot of the products get turned back. Greenland, in particular, noted this. They sent hundreds of thousands of pelts before, just like us, and now they might send 70,000 pelts a year into Italy and other places for high-end fashion. Half of those pelts will be returned, and they’ll have to resend them, even though all the documents are there, everything is ready to go. There is a lack of education.
For New York, it’s a little bit different. Under the U.S., it would be best if you travelled with a letter. That’s what I did when I was flying to Europe. In my bags where the sealskin would be was a letter, and I have on that letter their regulations highlighted saying it’s travelling with me and is coming back with me to my country. I’m allowed to have this.
It is the same thing into the United States. The United States actually limits it from Indigenous to Indigenous. When our premier was travelling into Alaska and wanted to give a gift to some of the Indigenous leaders in Alaska, we had to have documents from the Government of Nunavut — letters going with him — to make sure his products weren’t removed at the border. But he was allowed to do that under their regulations, but they’re not educated enough.
Yes, you should have been able to travel freely in and out wearing your items. Shoving it in the bag might have helped.
Senator McPhedran: I just have a quick supplementary on that. Are you developing or have you developed something that can go hand in hand with each purchase by people on the cruise ships, for example, to try and reduce the amount of capture that’s happening at borders? Of course, that then becomes part of the disincentive for people.
Ms. Martin: We do have a QR code, but unfortunately, the Government of Nunavut was attacked with ransomware just prior to the pandemic. We are still recovering from that. The QR code is one item we’re still working on getting back up and running.
In the last six months, DFO has committed to actually putting on their website — between advocating with the Government of the Northwest Territories and with us — information about these exceptions on their web page. That would include a QR code. Our QR code would historically and in the future link back to the story around sealing in Nunavut as well. It’s a chance for us to educate at the same time.
To answer your question: Yes, but we’re fixing it.
Senator McPhedran: Thank you. Truly a very quick, final question. What would you estimate to be the number of those who are producing seal products ideally for export and purchase by tourists — approximately what proportion of the producers would be women?
Ms. Martin: All of them.
Senator McPhedran: All of them. 100%. Thank you.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you very much. We’re a little over time. Thanks for your patience with all of our hard questions. I want to sincerely thank both of you, Mr. Kunuk and Ms. Martin, for taking the time and trouble to come here to share your very valuable knowledge with us on this very important study.
We want to thank you again and wish you safe travels.
For our second panel, we will be hearing from Tom Henheffer, Co-CEO, and Angus Cockney, Community Engagement and Northern Specialist, both from the Arctic Research Foundation, or ARF.
On behalf of the senators on this committee, I want to thank you for being here today. I understand that Mr. Henheffer will be delivering opening remarks. Following the presentation, members of this committee will be asking some questions to clarify your presentation.
Thank you so much, Mr. Henheffer. You have the floor.
Tom Henheffer, Co-CEO, Arctic Research Foundation: Thank you, Madam Chair. Actually, Mr. Cockney is going to start off the opening remarks, and then I’ll finish them, if that’s okay.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you very much. Mr. Cockney, you may begin.
Angus Cockney, Community Engagement and Northern Specialist, Arctic Research Foundation: Good morning, Madam Chair and honourable senators. I would like to start by thanking you for this opportunity to add the voice and perspective of the Arctic to your study on Canada’s seal populations and their effect on Canada’s fisheries.
The Arctic Research Foundation is a non-profit charity that enables and inspires community-led science and infrastructure projects in the Arctic. We work with communities to build networks of non-government organizations, universities, researchers and governments to fund and deliver programming while providing access to ships, green energy-powered mobile labs and other equipment.
ARF is the only organization in Canada with a fleet of seven fully equipped research vessels specializing in nearshore and uncharted marine areas. You can find information on our three largest ships in appendix B of this document.
Our work is wide ranging — from hydrographic mapping, to ecological monitoring, to food security innovation, to transporting Indigenous community members to harvesting grounds where elders can pass traditional knowledge on to youth.
We have a great deal of experience working in Arctic, Atlantic and Pacific waters, and working with Indigenous hunters, trappers and fishers who are directly impacted by government policy on fisheries and ocean mammals, such as pinnipeds.
We also employ marine mammal monitors on our ships. We have attached the log from the R/V William Kennedy’s work in Ungava Bay, Nunavik, from fall 2022 as appendix C. It is one piece of primary evidence, demonstrating how the overwhelming majority of wildlife sightings in the region are pinnipeds. This aligns with DFO’s own findings that the seal population is at a record high, from 15,000 in the 1960s to over 400,000 in 2016 for grey seals, and 2 million in the 1970s to 7.6 million in 2019 for harp seals, the largest harp seal population in global history.
Several witnesses testifying in front of the House of Commons Fisheries Committee on its study of the ecosystem impacts of pinniped populations have noted gaps in data on seal populations, their diets and their broader impacts on ecosystems. Representatives from DFO itself admitted significant knowledge gaps to that committee, and similar comments were made by DFO representatives during their appearance before that committee. This is consistent with what we have heard in our consultations with communities and researchers, and what we’ve seen on the ground during our operations.
I’d like to quote Jackie Jacobson, an Inuk leader in Tuktoyaktuk, N.W.T., the MLA for Nunakput, who is a member of the ARF’s board:
“In Husky Lakes, seals are killing trout, so if we see a seal, we shoot it, but there’s a complete lack of resources for scientific studies, and we don’t know the population numbers. We just know that the fish aren’t biting.”
That sentiment is similar across the regions where we work, but there’s a much larger problem that needs addressing.
Mr. Henheffer: Thanks, Mr. Cockney.
Scientific and environmental knowledge gaps have become endemic in the Arctic. There’s a dangerous lack of waterway and flood plain mapping, a poor understanding of beluga health in the Beaufort Sea, a shortage of studies on ice freeze and breakup in Great Slave Lake and a broad lack of research into microplastics, contamination and invasive fish species — that’s just to name a small fraction of issues in Arctic marine science.
These changes are compounded by the fact that scientific research is far more expensive in the Arctic than in the South, but DFO and the federal government at large continue to underfund this critical work, especially in regard to marine science.
To give one example, our largest ship is the R/V Nahidik II. It is the only full-sized research vessel dedicated to Great Slave Lake, the Mackenzie River and the Beaufort Sea, which is one of the most important ecosystems in the North. For the past three years, and likely this year coming, it has stayed in dry dock due to a lack of federal investment in marine science. This is despite ARF subsidizing its operations with $1 million of our core funds and calls from the region’s hunters and trappers committees for more federal funding for marine science in the region.
Moving back to pinnipeds, Canada lacks a clear picture on the extent of the damage they cause throughout our waters. What is clear, however, is that the issue is being exacerbated because DFO has not been conducting fulsome fish stock assessments in much of Canada. The department announced that it is completely cancelling fall fish stock surveys in certain regions last year, and has consistently failed to properly assess stocks in the Arctic.
The most recent stock assessments on DFO’s website are from 2020. Of the 180 stocks listed, 21 are from the central region and Arctic. Only three species are categorized as “healthy,” “cautious” or “critical.” Of all the stock species listed in the Arctic, the remaining 18 are listed as “uncertain.” They don’t know what the numbers are. This lack of knowledge is unacceptable and it’s unnecessary.
Currently, stock assessments are largely conducted by trawling with large vessels using massive nets, a process that is slow, expensive and environmentally damaging. But proven technologies exist that have been widely used in other parts of the world that can achieve the same or better results at a massively reduced cost and with a massively reduced environmental impact.
For years, Scandinavian countries as well as countries in Asia have been using bioacoustics mapping equipment similar to technology that’s found in fish finders and the hydrographic equipment that we and other organizations use to map sea beds to effectively conduct fish stock assessments. We use this kind of equipment on our ships every day, and the methods for adapting it to stock assessments have been proven effective. There is no reason why we can’t use it in Canada.
Examples include the use of hydrographic methods to study the early life stages of Baltic cod; to forecast spawning conditions for eastern Baltic cod; and to track early life stage survival and predator dynamics in Atlantic cod populations. You can find more information on those in the footnotes of the submission.
These surveys could be made even more accurate — while also providing meaningful employment to local fishers — by ground truthing through small-scale trawling, following behind the ships doing the bioacoustics work using low-cost local boats.
To address these challenges and opportunities, we recommend the federal government take the following actions as soon as possible:
1. Immediately create a pilot project for fish stock assessments using bioacoustics equipment. We recommend this be done in the Beaufort Sea, but it could also be done in the Atlantic or other regions;
2. Increase investment in Arctic marine science to match investments in the rest of the country;
3. Add a northern top-up to grants for marine science in the Arctic that reflects the increased expenses for operating ships in the region, which can be 10 times what it is in the South;
4. Meaningfully engage local fishers, hunters, trappers and Indigenous wildlife stewards in wildlife management strategies;
5. Continue to place more power in the hands of Northern communities by ensuring they are able to direct how Arctic science grants are spent.
We have to commend the federal government for already beginning this charge, but from what we’ve seen, it’s very important not just that the funding is announced, but that it gets out the door as well because that can be quite difficult with the way the funding structures are currently arranged in the North.
We hope our insights and recommendations are reflected in the committee’s final report to the government. We have the ships, technology, methods and expertise to solve one major aspect of the pinniped problem, and that’s by resuming fish stock assessments in an affordable, minimally invasive way. All we need now is action from the federal government. Thank you.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you very much. I have a number of senators who are interested in asking both of you questions. I urge my colleagues to be concise with your questions because we have a hard stop at 11:00.
Senator C. Deacon: Thank you, Mr. Henheffer. My mind has just exploded based on the statements you’ve made and the concerns we’ve heard from Indigenous witnesses about the gaps in knowledge and lack of respect for full alignment with Indigenous knowledge.
I’m familiar with a company in Nova Scotia called Dartmouth Ocean Technologies Inc., which has the ability to find out what fish are in the area through their sensors versus this antiquated approach of trawling. Show us how wide the gap is in terms of what DFO has done in the past and what is possible today. Bring some more reality to this for those of us who are not experts in the space: the difference it costs — you said there is a big one — and the fact that the technologies are less invasive. Give us more reality to that in ways that those of us who are not experts can understand.
Mr. Henheffer: Sure. The most damning statistic is that of the 20 species in the Arctic, 18 of them are unknown. That’s just a complete lack of knowledge, and the two species that are listed in the stock assessments represent data that is several years out of date. It’s something that needs to be done consistently. That’s a statistic that we took from the western Arctic. It could easily be applied in Nunavut. I know that the senator from Nunavut, Senator Patterson, has expressed a lot of concerns about this. I myself am from New Brunswick, and I can tell you that the fishers in that province have exactly the same concerns.
In terms of the costs, it will be difficult to know exactly what the cost difference is until a pilot program is launched, but I can tell you this: You need to use an enormous ship in order to pull these heavy trawls, and it has to move very slowly. To perform the assessments that it does, it basically pulls a representative sample from the area where the net is passing through.
If you’re using these bioacoustic sensors, it’s hydrographic equipment, which is the same technology as that of a fish finder. It basically sends a sonar beam down and can get the shape of the ocean floor in these different transects. They’re about 500 metres if you’re going into deep ocean water to look at the ocean floor.
If you’re looking for fish, you can change the settings on these devices to observe a much wider area — I believe up to a kilometre in some cases. So you have this huge area around the ship where you’re getting accurate imaging of the fish — not just that there are fish, but the exact size and shape of the fish, so you can tell what the species are, achieving 100% certainty. This can be done in the pilot program, and may or may not be needed once a more fulsome program is launched, but at least in the pilot program, you follow behind with small, Zodiac-sized boats or ones that are a little bit bigger depending on how rough the water is where you’re working, using small nets to pull the fish out. So, according to the bioacoustics, it was Atlantic salmon, and we found Atlantic salmon of the same size in these ships.
The cost of running a Canadian icebreaker or trawling ship that might be 200 or 300 feet long, weighing multiple hundreds of tons, is in the hundreds of thousands of dollars a day. Our largest ship, the Nahidik, only costs $30,000 a day to run, and our smaller ship, the William Kennedy, is a sixty-foot former fishing vessel, in which we like to practise what we call “fish boat science,” where we take ships that are Arctic, hardened and proven, with fishermen who are as rough-and-tumble as they come in terms of the weather and conditions they have to deal with and adapt them to science.
The William Kennedy is a 60-foot ship based out of Halifax that is dedicated to Hudson Bay. It costs between $17,000 and $20,000 per day to run. So doing this, covering an area that is from 5 to 10 times as long, moving at a much faster speed than what the larger ships are capable of at a cost of what is at most one tenth of what most of these ships cost — it’s very easy to see what these numbers are. We’ve been making these recommendations for a while now, but for whatever reason, it has been very difficult to get the departments in charge to actually make these changes. We’re stuck in the past as a country, and it’s hurting our fisheries, the North, science and our understanding of climate change and how these species are changing.
Senator C. Deacon: Just to summarize, if I could, chair — I know we’re in a tight time frame: We could set a new standard for doing this work across the country by starting in the Arctic, it doesn’t have ecological destruction and it’s much less expensive. Thank you.
Senator Petten: My question is about the Arctic Research Foundation. I wonder if you’re working with universities to help you with supporting the things that you would like to do in your research.
Mr. Henheffer: Yes, absolutely. Our primary partners are the communities where we work and second to that would be universities. We also work with various non-profit organizations such as ArcticNet, government departments such as Polar Knowledge Canada, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, as well as some for-profit organizations like National Geographic and American government organizations like NASA. But the Canadian universities are the largest subset: University of Manitoba, University of Calgary, Memorial, Dalhousie, University of New Brunswick, all across the country.
Senator Petten: Yes, so that helps you with your funding so that you can collect the data to continue to do some of the research?
Mr. Henheffer: We don’t get any funding directly from the universities, no, but they do charter our ships to carry out their science mission. The Arctic Research Foundation itself does not have a science agenda. We work to deliver on the science agendas of our partners, so that is communities first; communities lead and set that, and then we bring in universities to help address the priorities of the communities or we pair universities with communities where their science priorities align.
Senator McPhedran: Thank you, both of you, for being with us today. I want to share a brief anecdote of a conversation that I had recently with a high-level fisheries official on the topic of the decline in fishing and opportunities for those in the fishing industry as a result of the decline in population and also in relation to the very significant increase in the seal population.
I will tell you that, unequivocally, this very high-level official said to me this is all because of climate change. This has nothing to do with the seal population. I wondered if you had any thoughts or information, based on your research, that you would feel comfortable sharing in response to that assertion.
Mr. Henheffer: Absolutely.
I can say there is a lot of anecdotal evidence that has been presented. A lot of people have very strong opinions on this. I’ve seen reports from DFO scientists who say, “We don’t know what the seal and fish populations are, but we know that the seals aren’t affecting the fish.” I question how that’s possible. If we don’t have accurate stock assessments of what the fish stocks are, how can we draw those conclusions? I question how any accurate conclusions can be drawn without the research.
One area I think we do have reliable information that stretches back hundreds of years is the traditional knowledge from the communities. When we speak to people from Tuktoyaktuk — including Angus, who is from Tuktoyaktuk originally, so he can speak to this and the engagement with the communities more; that’s one of the reasons he is here representing the organization. He has so much more experience there, but I can tell you that the people I spoke to in Tuktoyaktuk attribute it directly to the seals.
Senator McPhedran: Yes, that was our finding as well, but I would very much appreciate hearing from you, Mr. Cockney.
Mr. Cockney: Yes, regarding seals for sure, I would like to reiterate Jackie Jacobson’s remarks about Husky Lake. People there depend on a lot of the trout throughout the year. When he says, “If we see a seal, we shoot it,” it’s just the way it is. I think Jackie is kind of implying, “Hey, we need more research. The fish aren’t biting, for sure.”
Senator McPhedran: Thank you.
Senator Ataullahjan: Thank you to both of you for being here.
I don’t know if you heard testimony from our previous witnesses, but Ms. Martin said DFO needs to do stock assessment work. I’m hearing from you also that DFO is not conducting much research on fish stocks. I would like to know what DFO’s job description is.
Mr. Henheffer: I believe their mandate is quite large, but they do have a responsibility and obligation under their mandate to do stock assessments and keep them updated. They are not meeting — and I don’t think this is just the fault of DFO; I think it’s a broader issue with federal science spending, generally.
It comes down to that DFO has a certain amount of money, and the amount of money they have and with the way stock assessments are done, that money is not enough to do all of the stock assessments that need to be done.
What we’re suggesting would not increase costs. It’s a reallocation of costs to a more cost-effective way of doing stock assessments. Again, it’s just like with the evidence of the impact of pinnipeds on fish stocks: Until we have the information, we don’t know exactly what it’s going to be. We believe — and from my description of the numbers — it’s quite a compelling case that the delta between the cost of trawling for stock assessments from large ships versus doing bioacoustic stock assessments would allow DFO to fulfill that mandate with the current budget it has.
It just requires a willingness to take just the smallest amount of risk. Canadians generally are quite risk-averse and can be very conservative with these things, but taking just the smallest amount of risk to try something new that has been proven in other jurisdictions — we have exactly the same equipment, pretty much the same fish and very similar waterways. There is no reason it can’t work here when it is working in Scandinavian and Asian countries that have a similar context to ours.
Senator Ataullahjan: Do you do any other research in other parts of the Arctic or just in the Canadian North?
Mr. Henheffer: Just in the Canadian North as it stands right now. We are working on a project with NASA that would go into Alaska as well. It is not just the western Arctic; we’re active in Nunavut, especially around the community of Gjoa Haven.
We do not just do marine research either. One of our biggest growth areas in terms of research is done through our terrestrial labs, which are steel shipping containers powered by green energy — wind and solar. We actually have the furthest-north wind and solar array in Canada in the community of Gjoa Haven where eight local technicians — all Inuit from that community — work. They are basically Inuit farmers working in a containerized system.
There have been containers brought up North before, but they generally only grow one crop, and they very quickly become unsustainable because the cost of powering them with diesel energy is too expensive. Because ours work with solar and wind, and barely ever have to have a diesel generator backup come on — about 10% of the time — it has been running now for four years. It doubled last year, and will be doubling again.
We also do a lot of work on the thermal tolerance of Arctic char, we restore human medical samples in Inuvik and do dentistry and water sampling there in one of our labs. We’re also working on adapting our labs into a meat-processing plant. In addition, we also do land camps with youth, elders and scientists.
We have quite a wide range of research programs.
Senator Ataullahjan: It’s interesting. You said that DFO is risk-averse. I’m thinking back to my time on the Foreign Affairs and International Trade Committee. That was one thing we heard when we spoke to trade partners overseas: They always commented that Canadians are risk-averse. Maybe we need to change our attitude a little bit.
Thank you for your testimony.
Mr. Henheffer: Thank you. If I could, I would like to add that “risk” in this situation is very much in quotations. Doing this type — it’s a small investment, a reallocation of already-existing funds — on technology that has proven to work.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you very much.
Senator Cordy: Thank you very much for being with us today. You can speak really fast. We’ve gotten a lot of information in a short period of time. Thank you very much for that.
Does the Arctic Research Foundation have the ear of DFO? Do they listen or is it just sort of a nodding of the head when you speak with them?
Mr. Henheffer: Thank you. I’m a Maritimer, so the speaking quickly comes naturally.
It depends upon the jurisdiction. In the Arctic, it can be quite difficult. Certainly, our suggestions on adapting the stock assessment have not been taken up. We’ve also had a difficult time having them use our ships. As I said, we’re the only organization with nearshore ships working in the Arctic with fully outfitted research vessels, and DFO are using one of our ships in coastal B.C. They occasionally use one of our ships on the Atlantic coast, but they have yet to use our ships in the Arctic.
Senator Cordy: Thank you. That’s very helpful. I’m from the Maritimes, too, so maybe I can hear quickly also; I’m used to it.
It was interesting hearing you speak about the self-powered mobile labs to conduct research. You also just said now that you can adapt the labs to meat processing. Is that seal meat? Can you give us more information on the self-powered mobile labs? Those sound quite fascinating.
Mr. Henheffer: Sure.
In this case, it would primarily be for more terrestrial-based meats, caribou especially. The lab would be going a bit more inland along the Mackenzie River.
Basically, the labs came up — the community of Gjoa Haven — we were originally founded to aid in the search of the Franklin expedition. During that time, our board realized there was such a dearth of infrastructure in the North, especially with nearshore vessels. That’s what we’ve grown from.
We go in communities when we’re invited and earn their trust, and then we ask them what they need. The community of Gjoa Haven had recently had their art studio condemned; it was no longer fit for work. They asked if we could come up with a Northern-hardened, polar-bear-proof design for an art studio. My co-CEO, Adrian Schimnowski, who has a background in industrial design, built this idea for an art studio out of a mobile shipping lab and worked with some of our partners to determine that it could actually work with green energy.
When the elders in Gjoa Haven saw that, they said, “Forget the art studio, I think we can do something more. We have a real problem getting fresh produce in this community — getting it at all, let alone getting it affordably.” They said, “Is there something we could do with that? Could we figure out how to make this an agriculture farm?” That is also a good example of how everything we do comes from the communities. We said, “Sure, let’s see what we can do.” We partnered with Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, the National Research Council and the Canadian Space Agency, and built the lab based on that.
Part of the reason we have such a difficult time getting federal funding for our work is that we try to mirror the places where we work. We take a whole-of-ecosystem approach, we stack projects together, make sure they’re modular and that they will work in the Arctic. That is very much what the labs are. Because of the design, they can be adapted. It’s a shipping container with insulation in it and then dry wall or whatever lab-rated steel or plastic needs to go up on the walls, with a floor, water and plumbing, sewage tanks, if needed, are run under the floor, electric lighting, and in the Naurvik pod, there are racks with growth medium in them. The plants are on trays, some are in soil and some in water with hydroponics with a growth solution in them, there is very powerful LED lighting to simulate sunlight. We’re constantly adapting and tuning them.
When we first started, obviously, there is 24-hour darkness in Gjoa Haven for a good chunk of the year. When it’s dark, it is generally more windy, so the wind turbines go. We had to constantly adjust the system to take it from 30% usage of diesel backup generators down to less than 10%, which is where we are now. That’s how they’re built.
When you have a design where you can basically build a lab out of it, once you have a lab in that space, you can make it do whatever you want. It’s very easy to have it be a sterile environment, and we can also daisy chain the labs together so you have a larger footprint without making it any more difficult to get into position. They can be very easily moved used a komatik and a tractor — basically a sled and a tractor — to put them into whichever location they need to be. Because they’re shipping containers, they can be put on barges or different ships and put into place with a crane, and they can be moved around as need be.
Some of the labs, the ones in Byron Bay and the Finlayson Islands especially, are in extremely remote locations and only get turned on a couple of times a year when scientists go to test their instruments. They’re testing the thermal tolerance of Arctic char. They have fish in tanks, and the tanks need very specific temperature conditions and constant power. Scientists like our labs for that because when using diesel power from the communities, the power fluctuates quite a bit, which can make it very difficult for their sensitive instruments to work and be calibrated properly. Using the battery systems that we have, combined with the green energy systems, allows an extremely constant power throughput that enables their instruments to work positively.
They’re really an ideal solution for the North, and ever since we’ve installed this location in Naurvik, Byron Bay and the Finlayson Islands, we’re getting lots of calls to build more of them.
Senator Cordy: We’re running out of time. We heard Senator Ataullahjan speak about DFO being risk-averse, and that tends to be governments overall.
When we’re writing our report, what should be the one or two recommendations that we make to the government about being less risk-averse and looking at the work that your research foundation is doing, which is incredible work? What would you pick out as being a few things that we should make mention of in our report?
Mr. Henheffer: That the government should not confuse inertia and risk. This is a new program, but a pilot program for this would be a tiny fraction of DFO’s budget, even their budget for stock assessments. To take a little bit of that money and reallocate it when there is basically no risk because this project has worked in other places. The experts that we work with, the technicians that run this hydrographic equipment, the people who have written the hydrographic software that runs it, we know them, we work with them and it will work. It has worked in other places; it will work here.
The reward is enormous. This could revolutionize the fishing industry in Canada. It could mean that we actually know how stocks are changing. It would allow us to establish a baseline from which science can be done. We can much better understand climate change. The economic incentive would enable fishers to stop leaving money on the table because, in many areas, the quotas are artificially low because they’re going back to whatever defaults they were when a stock assessment was done, in some cases, 20 years ago. This would enable us to have accurate quotas in order to ensure we’re getting the maximum amount of value out of our oceans while ensuring it is done in a sustainable way, especially when it comes to the Arctic and places where fishers are not just doing this to get rich, but doing it for subsistence in order to live as part of their culture. It’s very important that we stop limiting fishers when they don’t need to be.
On the other side of it, it will also allow us to put limits in places where there should be limits, in places where the stocks are more depleted than we realize.
Senator Cordy: Thank you very much for that. I was in Washington a few years ago with the Defence Committee, and they were telling us in Washington about a special project they have where they only expect 20% to 40% of the projects to be successful, but they’re continuously testing new things, but we as a country seem to be risk-averse also.
The Deputy Chair: I would ask Mr. Cockney if he has any recommendations to go along with Mr. Henheffer’s.
Mr. Cockney: Coming from the community level, it’s wonderful to see what’s happening in Gjoa Haven. Naurvik means “the growing place.” They’re growing crops, green peppers and red peppers. Visiting them there, I’ve also seen them grow in confidence, and that’s because of the opportunities the foundation has given them.
We’ve developed an Indigenous policy with the foundation it’s called ata, which in our language means to listen. It’s wonderful to see how the foundation has listened first in terms of establishing relationships with the communities. Listening first was certainly instrumental in finding those ships up in Gjoa Haven, for sure. I hope the Senate also listens to our concerns and addresses them.
The Deputy Chair: We have just about a minute left, and Senator Deacon is bursting to ask another question, so I’m going to give him the floor.
Senator C. Deacon: I’m troubled about your suggestion about DFO doing a pilot. They’ve got to shift. The risk of inaction, in my mind, is massive. They’re not studying 18 of 20 species in the Arctic, you said. They haven’t been doing the trawling. There’s nothing to recalibrate against; there’s no useful data to recalibrate against if you only have two of 20 species. What are their reasons? What are you told?
Mr. Henheffer: We need to establish a baseline. The fact that the research hasn’t been done recently doesn’t mean that it —
Senator C. Deacon: Why aren’t they doing this? Why are they not saying “yes” to you and working with you? Do they give you reasons?
Mr. Henheffer: No, not really. There is a large ship they use, a trawler they use called Frosti, in the region. They like to use that boat, even though it can’t get close to shore. Aside from that, I think it’s a limitation on budget; I think it’s the force of inertia.
Senator C. Deacon: It seems to be a limitation in thinking and keeping up because they’re only studying 10% of the species and not doing nearshore, so it’s not relevant.
Mr. Henheffer: Yes. You have to remember, the nearshore is where the communities live, where they work, what they use for transportation, where they get their livelihoods and food. That’s the environment. It’s also where the rivers meet the sea — the biggest, most important area in terms of monitoring ecosystems because it’s where the most change occurs and where some of the most production is in terms of the animal and plant life. It needs to be studied. There needs to be a change.
Canada is really failing in a lot of areas on Arctic science. We don’t get any federal funding as it stands right now at all. We’re a non-profit; we’re not a for-profit organization. We lose money every year. We only exist to do good, to invest in the communities and to make sure science gets done. It is a constant challenge to try to find the funding and get the money together to make it work.
I hate to be cynical and say there aren’t a lot of votes in the Arctic, but I do think that’s part of the issue. It’s not something that wins elections, but it is something that is going to be crucial for Canada’s future as a nation, and that is crucial for all of these Indigenous communities on the ground.
Senator C. Deacon: Thank you very much.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you to both of our guests, Mr. Henheffer and Mr. Cockney, for your incredibly useful and insightful message around the possibilities. I want to thank you for taking the time to come and share your knowledge with us, both scientific and Indigenous knowledge.
With that, I will end the meeting. It’s 11:00. Thank you again.
(The committee adjourned.)