FISH Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON FISHERIES AND OCEANS

COMITÉ PERMANENT DES PÊCHES ET DES OCÉANS

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, April 13, 1999

• 0909

[English]

The Chairman (Mr. Charles Hubbard (Miramichi, Lib.)): Before we begin the main part of our committee meeting this morning there is a very brief procedural matter we have to do, and that's with the so-called operational budget of the committee. Our clerk has put that on your desks. With a motion, I would be able to go before the House committee tomorrow to seek approval for that budget.

• 0910

It is so moved by Mr. Knutson, seconded by Mr. Lunn.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chairman: Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the committee will now begin several days of hearings on the matter of seals and sealing.

I would like to remind committee members that today we will be doing this on CPAC. We know that in terms of the House yesterday, when many people were up a good part of the night, it will be a long day today for many of you, but we certainly want to begin today by hearing from representatives first of all of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.

With that, Mr. Chamut, I would ask you to introduce your people.

Before we do that, though, I would like to remind everyone that we have the first part of our meeting from 9 until 10.15 a.m. as this portion, later on turning to Mr. Lavigne, the president. In that first hour and 15 minutes, Mr. Chamut, I know there will be a lot of questions, so if we could keep our presentations to 15 minutes, if we could proceed in that manner, I think it would be the best way. I want to make sure it's clear to everyone before we start.

So with that, Mr. Chamut—who is the Assistant Deputy Minister, Fisheries Management, with a long experience in dealing with the fisheries and with sealing—we welcome you to our committee. I would ask that you introduce and give the titles of the other people who are with you this morning. Thank you, Patrick.

Mr. Patrick Chamut (Assistant Deputy Minister, Fisheries Management, Department of Fisheries and Oceans): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'm pleased to be able to be here this morning to make the first presentation to the committee on what I'm sure will be an interesting and oftentimes exciting topic over the next two or three days.

I'd like to begin by introducing my colleagues from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans who have joined me here. I'd like to introduce Dr. Garry Stenson. Dr. Stenson is the marine mammal scientist from the Newfoundland region and has responsibilities for assessment of seal populations in Atlantic Canada.

Mr. Ken Jones is with the resource management directorate in Ottawa and has responsibilities for our seal harvesting program.

I'm joined also by David Bevan, who is the director general of the conservation and protection division within our fisheries management program here in Ottawa.

Mr. Chairman, my purpose this morning is to provide what I hope will be a brief presentation that will describe the department's sealing management plan. What I would propose, if there are no objections, is that I speak to the English version of the slides. I advise you that I do have copies of the French version available for members who would prefer to have the French version.

The Chairman: Patrick, I think we're ready.

Mr. Patrick Chamut: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'd like to begin by describing our current management objectives for the Atlantic seal harvest. We have adopted four primary objectives to guide our harvest program. These objectives were based on the results of two public forums that were held in St. John's, Newfoundland, in 1995, immediately after our last harp seal population survey, which was conducted in 1994.

• 0915

The objectives that are presented here are, I think, widely accepted by representatives of provincial governments, aboriginal groups, and representatives of the sealing and fishing industries. I think they're also recognized by conservation and animal rights groups as well as local community groups.

First of all, our objective is to manage seals to provide for their long-term sustainable use. What this means is that over the long term we want to make sure the well-being of the population is not jeopardized by the hunt.

Second, we recognize that seals are a valuable natural resource that can and should be harvested wisely in order to provide economic benefits to coastal communities in Atlantic Canada. Those benefits are recognized as being around $12 million annually in Newfoundland alone.

Our third objective is to make sure the hunt adopts humane harvesting practices. We know the hunt is widely scrutinized, and we recognize it has to be conducted properly and as humanely as possible. So to that end, we have regulations that are set to ensure humane harvesting, and we do conduct enforcement to ensure that objective is met.

Finally, we have a fourth objective of ensuring maximum use of each harvested seal. We believe use of the entire animal is important for public acceptance. Currently the seal pelt and the oil have good markets, but markets for the meat products do in fact remain somewhat weak.

I'd like to now turn to what we have seen in terms of historical seal harvest in Canadian waters over the period 1946 to 1999. On the slide in front of you, the vertical bars display the catch since 1946, and the dotted line displays the total allowable catch over that same period. Due to hunting pressure since World War II, the Northwest Atlantic harp seal population declined to just under 2 million animals at its lowest recorded level. During this period, harvests totalled between 250,000 to 300,000 animals.

Since 1987 there has been no commercial harvest of whitecoat seals or blueback seals, and there has been no large-vessel harvest. From 1983 to 1995, the total number of seals harvested was well below the TAC, or total allowable catch, which was set at 186,000 animals. Harvests during that period were as low as 20,000 animals and never exceeded 100,000. Essentially, during that time, markets determined the harvest levels that were actually taken.

In 1995 the market for seal skins improved, and in 1996, when we had new scientific information, the total allowable catch for harp seals was raised to 250,000 animals. There was a further increase to 275,000 in 1997. We're seeing a renewed aboriginal interest in sealing as a result of these increased prices for seal skins. We now find that sealers are competing for allocations. This is obviously a recent phenomenon, because in the past, as you can see from the graph, large numbers of animals were not harvested when they could have been taken, given the level of TAC that was set.

In 1998 the harp seal harvest reflected very good conditions for sealing, and the total harvest was slightly in excess of 282,000 animals. In terms of harvest, we've actually averaged about 260,000 animals over the last three-year period. Similar harvest levels have not been experienced since the 1960s. The harvest levels that are shown here are exclusive of the levels of harvest in Greenland.

The next slide essentially displays the population trend for harp seals in the Northwest Atlantic. The top line on this graph is the total production of harp seals, and the bottom line shows the production of pups of harp seals in the northwest Atlantic.

• 0920

Now, looking at the trend, you can see the harp seal population has more than doubled since the early 1970s. It was below 2 million animals in 1970 and it's now estimated to be around 5 million animals. So the total estimated population is around 5 million animals, and the population, as I say, is large and indeed robust.

More recent estimates show that the population appears to have stabilized. As you can see at the top right-hand corner of the graph, we're not seeing a continuation of the incremental growth that occurred in the 1980s and early 1990s. We believe the population is in fact responding to the current levels of harvest in both Greenland and in Canada, and we believe the population is now being maintained at a stable level.

For the 1999 program we've adopted the following management measures. The harp seal TAC will be maintained at 275,000 animals. Now, a variety of opinions have been expressed about the levels of harvest. Some have indicated the levels of harvest are too high and others have suggested they are too low. But our position has been that until there is new information on the size of the harp seal population, the TAC will be maintained at its current level. For hooded seals, the TAC is being maintained at a level of 10,000.

I would also comment on the management in 1999, which continues our approach of ensuring that the hunt is carefully regulated. We have as many as a hundred fishery officers monitoring the hunt, using vessels and aircraft surveillance, as well as inspections at dockside and in plants. We also have observers deployed on some of the vessels, and the sealers are obliged to keep logbooks and provide us with estimates of their catch on a daily basis. Sine 1996 there have been almost 200 charges related to the seal hunt, and we are indeed continuing to make sure the hunt is well regulated.

I'd just like to talk a bit about the strategy for the future. There are four main elements in our approach for the seal hunt in the future. First, we want to ensure we have up-to-date stock assessment. Second, we're developing improved knowledge of the consumption of fish by seals. Third, we are engaged in the conduct of a regulatory review. Finally, we are completing a review of our management policy with respect to seals. I'd now like to deal with each one of these separately.

First of all, with respect to seal stock assessment, we currently estimate there are about 5 million harp seals and the population is now stabilizing. In February 1999 the National Marine Mammal Peer Review Committee agreed that, based on surveys carried out in 1994, 5 million animals was indeed a reasonable estimate of the population. The committee also reviewed the methods to derive the population estimates and found them to be acceptable, with some improvements. The committee engaged in this work included expert sealers and academics as well as scientists from both outside and within the department.

We're currently, in 1999, conducting a population survey to give us an updated estimate of the total population of harp seals. Based on data from this survey, a new population estimate will be calculated and is expected to be available no later than April of the year 2000. This population estimate will take into account harvests in Greenland, and it will take into account by-catches in fisheries, as well as taking into account seals that are struck and lost. We do have data being collected in 1999 to provide a more reliable and more accurate estimate of the number of animals that are struck and lost.

• 0925

We're clearly working as quickly as possible to try to produce an updated estimate, but we recognize that the process is extremely labour-intensive and it does indeed take time.

If we look at the other populations of seals, we're currently estimating that there are around 600,000 hooded seals based on a 1996 survey. There are 1.3 million ring seals in the eastern Arctic. Finally, there are approximately 190,000 grey seals, which we believe could support a small harvest.

The second issue I'd like to talk about is the difficult issue of seal consumption. This is very controversial, and it's extremely difficult scientifically to come up with estimates of the amounts of fish that seals actually eat and what the consequences of that would be. We know seals eat fish, but we know they're primarily targeting forage species such as caplin. They do also eat Atlantic cod, but we know that the overall percentage of Atlantic cod in the diet of harp seals is generally low. But we are concerned with their impact, and it may still represent a significant source of mortality.

In March 1999 the impact of seal predation was considered for the main fishing zone in eastern Atlantic Canada as part of our cod zonal assessment process. This process involves experts from within and outside the department, including representatives from the fishing industry. At the time, revised estimates of seal consumption were tabled at the meeting, and they were indeed lower for some stocks than earlier estimates. These changes to the estimates are normal as better information from current research is incorporated into our assessments.

I mentioned earlier that this issue is scientifically complex. As we've noted on the slides, seals do not report to us on what they eat. In assessing their consumption patterns we normally assess predation on soft body parts, and the predation on soft body parts is almost impossible to detect from regular monitoring of seal stomachs, since these parts are generally readily metabolized.

The Fisheries Resource Conservation Council will be deliberating and holding formal public consultations on the results of this assessment in April 1999. Definite answers on the impact of seal predation on fish stocks may be hard to provide and will definitely need more research over the coming years, given the very many sources of uncertainty about this topic.

I'd like now to talk about our regulatory review approach. A number of changes have been requested to our regulations by both industry and various interest groups, and as a result the regulations that govern the seal harvest are currently being reviewed to adapt them to the current conditions of the harvest. Consultations are currently underway on some 13 key issues that have been identified. We've circulated these issues to over 80 groups that have an interest in sealing. These include aboriginal groups, the commercial seal industry, conservation and animal rights groups, as well as provincial governments.

The sorts of issues we're reviewing at the present time include things such as the current regulation on blueback seals, and the issue of whether or not there should be mandatory training for sealers. They include the issue of the seal observation licence. They deal with the issue of non-lethal harvest of hair. They deal with questions about whether or not there should be changes or standardization of the harvesting equipment, and they also deal with the issue of netting and so-called nuisance seals.

• 0930

So there's a large number of issues that we're currently reviewing, and we will be engaged in a very wide consultation to make sure we meet the requirements of the federal regulatory process. We will be holding a forum in May in St. John's, Newfoundland, in order to receive and consolidate the feedback from all of the various groups that have expressed interest in providing us with advice on new regulations to govern the seal hunt. After the forum in May, regulatory proposals will be completed and they will be submitted for approval in part I of the Canada Gazette in accordance with our normal procedures.

Finally, I'd like to talk about our management policy review. We believe it's necessary in order to address some of the changing circumstances associated with the seal hunt. With the new population estimates for harp seals and with a better understanding of the impact of seals on groundfish stocks, we feel it will be time to reconsider the management objectives we've had in place in the department since 1996.

So we will be reviewing our management approach in identifying options. For example, the issue of whether or not we want to attempt to achieve a specified population level of seals is one option. We recognize that this area is controversial and that there is in fact no ideal population level, but the impact of various harvest levels and the levels of harvest that would enable us to attain various population levels can be explored within this management policy review.

We recognize that, like everything about this particular topic, such a review will indeed be controversial and it will be necessary to consider a number of factors. We'll have to consider the interaction of seals with other species, the changing market circumstances for Canadian seals, the impact of any changes in policy or regulation on the issue of removal of U.S. trade barriers to seal products, the impacts on current seal marketing, and other aspects, including the inclusion of Greenland in an overall harvest strategy. This review will require extensive consultation in order to produce a multi-year plan to govern the conduct of the Atlantic seal harvest, and we hope to begin those consultations next fall.

Our goal is to complete a five-year sealing plan that would be based on the latest information on population, on consumption of fish by seals, and on existing circumstances affecting the conduct of the harvest. We also hope to have, before the next season, a completed, updated regulatory package.

That's the final slide, Mr. Chairman, but I would like to take maybe two minutes and give an update on where we are with respect to the hunt in 1999.

As I mentioned earlier, we have a TAC of 275,000 animals, and that is divided up between the various fleets operating in the gulf and operating at the front. In the gulf, the large-vessel hunt closed on March 31 and a total of 54,000 animals were taken. The hunt remains open in the gulf for the small-boat fleet. They have an allocation of 27,000 animals, and as of this morning a total of 10,500 have been harvested, so they will continue to harvest until their quota has been taken.

Secondly, the hunt at the front, which is being conducted off southern Labrador and along the northern peninsula, was closed from March 20 to April 7 at the request of the industry, and it reopened on April 7. As of this morning, there's been a total of 105,000 seals taken by the longline-vessel fleet, and this is out of a quota of 120,000 animals. They have been harvesting very efficiently, and we expect that the longline harvest at the front will close very shortly.

• 0935

There's also a small-boat hunt continuing off St. Anthony. The harvest is at a much slower pace than with the larger-vessel fleet. They're still short of their 64,000-animal allocation. They're currently at a level of around 15,500, so that hunt will enable the small-boat fleet to take their allocation. We're currently monitoring this and ensuring that the hunt operates within the policy and regulatory parameters that are set for it.

That, Mr. Chairman, concludes my comments. Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Chamut.

With the system we have now, we will move around the table, with 10 minutes for Reform, followed by the Bloc and the Liberals. I will ask members to keep their questions as concise as possible and also ask our witnesses to be concise because each member has a very limited time to question our witnesses.

Gary Lunn.

Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands, Ref.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I have a few questions, and I'll just put them all out. They'll actually require quite short answers.

Mr. Stenson, I understand you're the scientist from Newfoundland—I was speaking to you earlier—who looks after this. I would like to know what your projected numbers are for the population. Your scientists have been out over the ice floes doing the counting. You've seen what's going on out there, so you must be able to give us some type of prediction on what you anticipate the results of reporting will be. I understand we're not expecting the results until some time in early 2000, as you've commented on how labour-intensive the count is.

Secondly, I'm a little bit troubled by Mr. Chamut's comments on the diet of the seals, the seals' consumption. I quote: “...the overall percentage of Atlantic cod in the diet of harp seals is generally low”. Again, I want to ask if you're familiar—I'm sure you are—with this east coast report, in which we devoted an entire page to the seal population and what they eat. If understand it correctly, you're telling us that when the scientists examine the contents of the seals' stomachs, they look for pieces of bone or something to identify whether they had eaten cod. Is that accurate?

Dr. Garry Stenson (Section Head, Marine Mammals Section, Department of Fisheries and Oceans): It's accurate in the majority of cases.

Mr. Gary Lunn: However, in speaking with hundreds of fishermen and independent scientists—and again, we report this in our report—cod is their principal diet. The seals eat the soft tissue of the cod, not the hard tissue. As you know, and as we've seen over and over again, we've had fishermen bring us codfish to show us they're eating the stomach contents—the liver, organs and soft tissue—where there is no bone. So this hypothesis you've come up with doesn't hold any water. I'd like your comments.

In fact, if you've read this report, some scientists have suggested that in fact the gulls are eating the stomach contents, and I find that equally outrageous. So I'd like your comments with respect to that. If they're only eating the soft tissue, of course the numbers would be low if, as you've admitted, they're looking for hard tissue, in other words, bone material from the cod.

I'll put out my last question to save some time for the other members: what will it take for you to recognize that the population...? We have numbers from 6 million to 8 million, but roughly speaking, let's say it's 5 million or 6 million. Let's just acknowledge that. That's from your own numbers. If you can just respond—and I'll do the math after—how much fish, by DFO's numbers, do the seals eat a year in terms of pounds?

It's been suggested to me that DFO's own numbers would suggest each seal eats up to a tonne of fish per year. I'd like to know if you concur with that. If not, then what would be your prediction—excluding the ear bones?

Thank you.

• 0940

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Lunn.

Dr. Garry Stenson: If I can take your questions in order, on the 1999 estimate, as I said, we were doing a pup production survey. Unfortunately, when you do that you spread them over a large area. We had about four different whelping patches between southern Labrador and the Gulf of St. Lawrence. Looking at that and the way the animals are spread out, I cannot give you an estimate or even an idea of what the numbers would be for that whole area in terms of this year.

In February we did a review and looked at the population trends, using 1994 estimates for pup production as well as information on catches and reproductive rates up to 1998. We projected that forward and estimated the population in 1999 to be a little over 5 million. But we won't be able to confirm that number until we get the photographs of the pup production survey counted.

On your second question, we recognize that eating soft parts is a problem in terms of how we estimate diets. In a general sense, we look for hard parts when we look at the stomach contents. However, there's a wide range in the quality of those stomach contents when you get them.

Many of our samples come from sealers, who collect the animals while they're feeding and take the stomachs out immediately and preserve them for us. So a number of our stomachs are really well preserved. We have found soft tissue in them as well as whole fish. So it's not quite correct to say all of it comes from hard parts that are left behind. We identify a wide range of prey items, from very fresh to very decomposed.

The reports on taking stomach contents are something we've dealt with for a number of years. They involve a number of species other than just cod—lumpfish and a few other things. It causes problems. It causes potential biases in the sampling. We are aware of them and try to adjust for them when we do our estimates.

For the most part, the reports we've received tend to be relatively regionalized—a small bay here, a small bay there; a weak period here, a weak period there, where there have been some samples taken. What we're trying to do in our sampling, of course, is cover the whole area.

There have been other reports where people have observed seals feeding on whole cod up to 50 centimetres. The size range we're seeing in the stomach contents also indicates they are eating the heads of a number of those animals.

We're aware there are biases involved in how we estimate diets, but they have conflicting directions. Some of them, taking soft bellies of cod, would underestimate the amount of cod in them. Others, where we look at the fact that cod tend to be fairly robust and are easier to identify than some other prey, tend to overestimate the amount of cod.

We've been trying to look at alternate ways, using stable isotopes or fatty acids, to estimate diets and use them as a check against what we're doing with our traditional methods.

On your third question, how much do harp seals eat, you're correct that the estimate for total consumption is between 1 tonne and 1.4 tonnes a year for an average harp seal. However, the majority of that tends to be forage fish and also includes what they consume while they're in the Arctic, because they are a migratory species. So when you look at what's actually consumed in our waters where we have commercial fisheries, the estimate is about 40% of that. When you look at how much of that includes commercial species, particularly Atlantic cod, our estimates go down to about 1% to 2%, depending on where you are.

In recent years, we've been seeing more cod in in-shore diet. In fact, it's gone up to about 10% in some bays in some areas.

• 0945

The Chairman: You have one minute left.

Mr. Gary Lunn: Okay, I'm just going to use your numbers very quickly here: 1.4 tonnes of fish per year, let's assume 5 million seals, that's 7 million tonnes of fish. Let's take 40% of that, in our waters. These are your numbers, which I think are incredibly optimistic, but I'm still going to accept them. That's over 3 million tonnes of fish a year that the seals are eating. That's by your numbers. I might argue that they're higher, but even at that, that's over 3 million tonnes of fish. I understand that our largest fishery ever, in the history of Canada, in Atlantic waters is 1.7 million tonnes of fish.

By your numbers, the seals are eating twice as much fish per year as the fishermen have ever caught, and you have already acknowledged right here in your own written part that it's primary the hard parts. We've seen evidence right in the fisheries committee, not in videos but where people have brought in the cod with their bellies bitten out.

So again I would ask, by your numbers, if the seals are eating two times the amount of fish that our fishermen have ever caught in the history of Canada, isn't it prudent that maybe we could be taking a few more seals and trying to look at this problem, as opposed to waiting until there's no fish left?

Dr. Garry Stenson: I admit that the numbers are impressive. This is a large population. As we have said, we estimate that there's about 5 million. They tend to be spread over a large area. The total range over which they're spread is in the range of 1.5 million to 2 million square kilometres. So when you start spreading it out, it does reduce the impact in any one area.

The other thing to remember too is that, as I said, these are generally not commercial species they're taking. The commercial species tend to be much lower in the overall diet. Also, it's not just fish; a number of them are invertebrates as well.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Lunn.

[Translation]

Yes, please.

Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ): Your second chart on trends in the seal hunt shows that beginning in 1996, there was a very significant increase, with the harvest going from approximately 50,000 in 1995 to approximately 250,000 in 1996, 1997 and 1998. How do you account for this rather significant increase in the number of seals harvested?

[English]

Mr. Patrick Chamut: The increase in the catch is attributed to a renewed interest in pursuing the market opportunities associated with seal products. At that time we started to see renewed interest in seal pelts. The markets were much stronger. There was indeed a market for oil and other products from the seal, and I think it was demonstrated that there was a useful economic opportunity that people took advantage of.

I think the increase is indeed attributed to changing market circumstances and the increasing value of the resource for people who lived in coastal communities at a time when other opportunities for fishing or income from fishing operations were quite diminished. So I think what we're seeing is a response to an economic opportunity that essentially became available to those involved in the seal industry.

[Translation]

Mr. Yves Rocheleau: Are we to understand that the campaigns to denigrate the seal hunt—and I think they can be described in this way—headed by Brigitte Bardot or by Greenpeace and other environmentalists are things of the past, or is there some other factor that explains why people are more interested in fur, in particular?

[English]

Mr. Ken Jones (Resource Management Officer, Seals, Anadromous and Catadromous, Resource Management Branch—Atlantic, Department of Fisheries and Oceans): If I may, the market increased, and it came about in 1995, but ice conditions prevented a good harvest that year. But it's mainly attributed to Asia and Asian markets, and IFAW campaigns have primarily been focused in Europe and in the United States. IFAW campaigns are continuing in Europe and the United States in a strong way, and they're something we have to deal with, especially if we're seeking to remove U.S. trade barriers. It's also something we have to continually deal with in terms of the U.K., where they threaten us with boycotts to salmon and other things.

• 0950

So IFAW is still around. It still has a huge budget. Its appeal may be somewhat less in the domestic market. We're starting to see a lot of incoming correspondence that's more in favour of the seal hunt than against it. But they're still there, and they're still spending big dollars, and they're still a voice that will always pressure us in some way or another, usually overseas.

Mr. Patrick Chamut: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to add that the initial concern that resulted in much of the opposition to the seal hunt revolved around the harvest of whitecoat pups. In 1987 that practice was prohibited, and the hunt is now dedicated to the harvest of more mature animals that are essentially no longer dependent on their mothers. I think that change has also moderated some of the concerns with respect to market opportunities for seal products—that coupled with Mr. Jones' comment about the development of a market in Asia.

[Translation]

Mr. Yves Rocheleau: Is it also true that as far as hunting practices go—particularly in the case of white coats, some images shown on television could cause many people to react—an effort has been made to make the hunt as humane as possible for the seals, as you state in your brochure?

[English]

Mr. Patrick Chamut: Mr. Chairman, I agree that to some extent there has been improved humane treatment of animals. The harvesting methods have in fact been standardized in terms of the equipment and the procedures that are to be used, and we have been rigorous in our enforcement efforts to ensure that animals indeed are treated humanely.

So I think a variety of reasons come into play here. We've talked about markets, we've talked about changing attitudes with respect to humane treatment of animals, full utilization is now a policy objective that we have adopted, and I think there may also indeed be public attitude changes that have provided for the increased opportunity we see with the hunt in recent years.

So I believe your questions really are best answered by the realization that a variety of reasons have contributed to the current market opportunity associated with the hunt.

The Chairman: Merci, Yves.

On the Liberal side now, we have two members whose constituencies are very much involved with sealing. Mr. Easter, would you mind if I turned to Mr. O'Brien first and Nancy, if there is time? But we would like to get to you from Nunavut as soon as possible too.

Lawrence, don't take the whole ten minutes. Mr. O'Brien from Labrador.

Mr. Lawrence D. O'Brien (Labrador, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It's nice to see you made it back from Labrador as well.

The Chairman: A good place to live, a nice place to visit.

Mr. Lawrence O'Brien: I guess my biggest challenge here this morning is to figure out what to say in the timeframe that's allotted to say it.

First of all to the DFO officials, I dispute your historical harp seal harvest populations from 1946 to 1999, because I think what you're doing there in the early years is simply looking at certain portions of the hunt, not the total hunt. I know, because my dad bought seals all through my days of growing up as a child and long before I was born, and in those years he bought half of those numbers himself. So I think you're away off target in terms of the early years.

If we look at the Captain Abraham Kean, The Ice-Floes, and Death on the Ice and all of these books and so on, I think they will more than portray that the DFO figures need to be rewritten for the earlier years, and that they're away off.

So I think we need to get some factual perspectives going here, and not give us points of view that are distorting the facts.

• 0955

On the issue of the harp seal population, when I was a child growing up in the Strait of Belle Isle, in the small community of L'Anse-au-Loup, the seals used to migrate from north to south in late December and early January, and we used to catch them with a seal fishery, which is a net. Seals come into it. You just throw it and catch them and you go out and bring your seal in and retrieve it. That was a very important part of our way of life. The seals used to come in during December and January. They would go back through the straits in May and early June. Then, right after the seals went, our cod fishery would arrive, and we would pursue the cod fishery and make our living in early June, July, August, September, and October. In November we'd catch a few fish for our winter, and that was about it.

But I can assure you, Mr. Chairman and committee members, that the very second the seal.... Now the seals come in September in the Strait of Belle Isle, and the very second they arrive, the very second, is the second the cod fishery leaves. The cod leave. They just go. Now, scientist or no scientist, these are the facts, because that's the way it is. And it's the same thing in the spring of the year. The seals now, instead of leaving in May and June, don't leave the Strait of Belle Isle until mid-July, and you will not see a cod fishery coming down to the gulf until the seals have gone north.

Now, therein lies a big problem for us, gentlemen, because the window of opportunity for the cod fishery is very, very narrow. It also tells me a whole lot of other things. I do believe what you're applying to this issue is very academic—obviously you're academics; I mean scientific people—and I would suggest to the committee and to DFO that we need to get down to some practical applications to this issue before, I think...it's blowing up in our face anyhow. I think it's a case of academic versus practical.

I share the views of Minister Efford and others. I don't feel it's practical to be taking less than 300,000 seals a year out of a population of 6 million or greater. I think if you weigh the balance, it's obvious that they're increasing more quickly than we can take them. So we have to look at some constructive mechanism here to take more seals, to reduce the numbers.

I'm not suggesting getting rid of the seals, because I think the seals are a very important balance and very important entity in the north Atlantic—very important. But I do believe that in order to create some balance, we have to get the harp seal population down to the vicinity of a couple of million seals. I think that has to be our challenge, Mr. Chairman. Whatever it takes to do that, we have to forge ahead to do it.

As for the bullshit with the IFAW, the International Fund for Animal Welfare, they're a bunch of absolute assholes, in my view.

The Chairman: Mr. O'Brien—

Mr. Lawrence O'Brien: Well, I say it clearly. I tell you, Mr. Chairman, it pisses me off to see people in this country and in our own province going around collecting big bucks and almost begging.... They went to the door of my assistant here in Ottawa just recently and forced her, literally forced her, to give them $20. Now, I have trouble with that, and I am telling you that these guys are making good incomes on the backs of the little people, on the backs of the bleeding hearts, and we, in our province, in Atlantic Canada, are paying the ultimate price of disaster for these hypocrites. That's my response to the IFAW.

The other point—I have a little more passive view on it—sir, is on the blueback side of things. Why in northern Quebec and James Bay are they allowed to take bluebacks for sale, when bluebacks are really off the Labrador coast and up along Nancy's area, the Labrador side and up along the Arctic coast, when we're not allowed to take these seals for harvest? I'd like you to explain that one to me as well.

So there are two points: one, practical versus academic; and two, the issue of the bluebacks. Thank you.

• 1000

Mr. Patrick Chamut: Thank you, Mr. O'Brien. I'd like to make a number of comments in response to the issues you've raised.

The first is the issue of academic versus practical. I certainly do not claim in my background to carry the qualification of being an academic. I like to think the approach we're taking is indeed a mix between a scientific-based approach and the practical, which together combine to provide us with an approach that is scientifically defensible and will enable us to meet a variety of what are oftentimes conflicting objectives.

Concerning your comment initially with respect to our catch figures, the one comment I would make is that the catches here are essentially for the period 1946 until 1970. Those bars reflect average catches for that period. They are five-year aggregated averages, because we didn't have enough room on the chart to provide a year-by-year assessment.

I would acknowledge that prior to 1946, in fact prior to the war, catches indeed were much higher than what is shown on this graph. The catches went as high as 800,000 prior to that time, and the circumstances to which you're referring may indeed reflect that earlier period of time. I do acknowledge that prior to the war they were much higher.

Mr. Lawrence O'Brien: And after the war too, sir, in the fifties.

Mr. Patrick Chamut: The other comment I would like to make deals with the issue you've raised about whether or not there is a desirable level of harvest. We have explained that our approach to this point is based on objectives associated with having a sustainable hunt. In other words, we want to make sure the overall population is not jeopardized by the hunt. That is one of the approaches that we believe have been important in winning public support for what is oftentimes a very controversial topic.

We did indicate as well that we are carrying out a policy review. We want to make sure our current policy properly reflects the current understanding with respect to things like population size, impact of seals on other stocks, and market conditions, as well as some of the public attitudes associated with a very controversial issue. So we are indeed looking at whether or not there might be a desirable level of population.

You have indicated your view. There would be other views, I'm sure, that would have to be considered in this whole mixture, but our intent, as I indicated at the end of my presentation, was to carry out a policy review to engage in an assessment of this particular issue, and then provide advice as to whether or not our approach to seals needs to be in any way changed.

Now, on your final point, the issue of why groups are allowed to take bluebacks for sale, my response is very short. In fact, there is a regulation that prohibits the sale of bluebacks, and in my understanding there is no provision for sale of bluebacks.

The Chairman: The ten minutes have expired. Peter, if—

Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NDP): This is an important question.

The Chairman: I'll get back to this side later. They'll have their turn.

The NDP, Mr. Stoffer.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Well, Lawrence, it's always nice to know how you really feel about something.

Mr. Lawrence O'Brien: You know how I really feel.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: I remember that in our very first committee you were the same way. It's good to see you're feeling well.

First of all, thank you, gentlemen, for coming out today.

• 1005

I'm disturbed by the fact that you haven't given us any figures on the kills that are not reported. The reason I say that is you say you have a hundred observers or personnel out there monitoring the floes, and yet nowhere in your brief have you given us how many kills are not reported. I have the figure in this book that I was presented by somebody else, but not by DFO.

Professor Stenson seemed to contradict what Mr. Chamut had said about the hard parts and the stomach contents, although it says here you seem to have contradicted that in a question from a Reform member.

Another question I have is do you have the support of the sealers associations of Newfoundland and Labrador, and of P.E.I. and the Îles-de-la-Madeleine? I always say this in a tongue-in-cheek way. You have these grandiose plans of what's going to happen in the future when DFO attempts to place a management scheme on a particular species, but can you assure us that DFO will have the personnel and the resources to carry out this plan? It's nice to put it on paper and tell us what you're going to do, but are you going to commit the personnel and the resources to do that? And have you taken into consideration the seal amounts that are taken from Greenland or other countries as well?

I have other questions, but I'll keep them brief. Thank you, sir.

Dr. Garry Stenson: First to clarify, I didn't mean to contradict about the hard parts in the stomach. In fact, the majority of our diet work is based upon looking for hard parts. It's just that there is a range in which in some cases we do find fresh things in them. So it ranges from only single pieces of otoliths right to whole fish. So hopefully that clarifies this.

As for unreported catches, we do have some information and have looked at the issue of unreported catches. At the National Marine Mammal Peer Review Committee in February we dealt with this issue specifically, identified some studies that had been done at the time on struck-and-lost, or animals that were killed but not landed, and in fact we are continuing those studies this year. Some of the people who work with me are out there right now.

The levels we have come up with as an, I guess you would say, illustrative use are best estimates, and they indicate that for a maximum level of struck-and-lost for animals that are shot in the water, particularly in the Arctic during the summer, it could be as high as 50%. For the majority of the hunt that takes place right now, which is mostly what they call a “beater hunt”, taking moulted young animals, struck-and-lost levels are very low. They're somewhere in the range of 1% to 3%.

We have run a number of population models incorporating those estimates, looking at what happens when you include them or don't include them into your estimates of your population. The differences that occur in the runs of your population model and your current estimate of population are not significantly different.

For example, we looked at the highest level that had ever been reported or assumed, which was actually one that Dr. Lavigne provided us, and compared that to one where you assume absolutely none. And your numbers change from something like 5.2 million as a total population down to 5 million. Now, within the uncertainties that are associated with these estimates anyway, that's not a significant difference.

The final question I'd like to answer is about the catches in Greenland. Yes, in fact we do take into account catches in Greenland. They are included explicitly in our population models and we've been monitoring them with the help of Greenland scientists. Catches in Greenland have been increasing steadily since about 1975. In fact, I should mention that they revised their estimates about a year ago as to what their catches are. The last reported catch for Greenland was in the range of I think 75,000. In the last runs we did of the population model, we actually extrapolated that forward to 1998, which would give an approximate catch in Greenland of about 85,000 right now. In addition to that, probably another probably 5,000 are taken in the Canadian Arctic.

• 1010

Mr. Patrick Chamut: The question you raised was the issue of whether we have the resources to “do the job”. I think it's fair to say that in any of these issues if there were more resources we would no doubt do more, but I believe in this instance we have mobilized the resources necessary to do the job, and to give us confidence that the hunt is properly enforced and that we have good data on the harvest levels. We achieve this through enforcement officers who are operating at sea, who are operating on aerial surveillance, and also through our dockside monitoring.

So I'm confident that we have the people and the platforms—in other words, vessels—that will enable us to have a reasonable and responsible approach to making sure the hunt proceeds in a manner that's consistent with the regulations we have for its conduct.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Do you have the support of the sealing associations in Newfoundland and Labrador for your statistics and observers and for everything that DFO is doing? The reason I ask that question is because Mr. Efford has made some comments in the House of Assembly; he said that if you stack them all up and burn them, the more you kill them the more he liked them, and the sealers association in Newfoundland went right against that, saying, no, they didn't agree with that. Then I've heard other elements of the sealers association who said, yes, they kind of like what's going on. I'm really confused as to where they are.

Being the Government of Canada and being responsible for this, do you have the support of the major sealer associations in Newfoundland and Labrador?

Mr. Patrick Chamut: I believe the sealers association will be testifying here and I think you would appropriately put that question to them.

My understanding is that there is indeed support for many elements of the management program we have adopted. I would not want to suggest that everything we do is necessarily endorsed by that association, but I think in general the approach we're taking is one that does meet with their general approval.

The Chairman: Thank you, Patrick.

Nancy, do you have something from your perspective?

Mrs. Nancy Karetak-Lindell (Nunavut, Lib.): My questions were a little bit addressed by Lawrence, but one of the questions I had was this. How much of the traditional knowledge and the fishermen's knowledge is incorporated into the details you gave us this morning as far as the impact on fish is concerned?

The other question goes towards not getting enough information out to the public. If the whitecoats have been banned since 1987, and that's over 10 years ago, why does someone still come up to me and say, “Why do you support sealing if they're killing little white pups?” And this was in November 1998. Someone is still asking me how I feel about hunting seal pups, and I tell them, “Did you know that it's against the law to hunt seal pups?” Yet time and time again we can see in the newspapers ads, magazine ads, and TV ads that pictures of white pups are still being used to sway public opinion.

Isn't there something that DFO can do to counteract that? To me, that is misrepresentation of a situation to sway public opinion, and I feel the government should take some role in making sure the right facts are out there, so that if people are going to make an opinion about sealing they have the facts before them. Seal hunters in my riding do not have the money to counterattack misinformation that the public gets. I'm not particularly sure whose role it is to counterattack that, but if the government has the facts, I don't understand why they aren't getting the facts out to the public, because that is very detrimental to a way of life. I feel that if people are going to make an opinion they should be making the opinion with facts.

Thank you.

Mr. Patrick Chamut: Thank you. I would like to respond to two of the specific questions you've raised.

First dealing with the traditional knowledge, I would indicate that indeed traditional knowledge is a consideration as we're developing our understanding on seal populations and on seal consumption. A lot of the material we've based our program on is derived from the conduct of a seal forum held in 1995, which involved representatives from the sealing industry as well as individuals from other groups with an interest in the seal hunt. Fishermen are also involved in the stock assessment work we're doing. For example, the zonal assessments, which I think were conducted in Rimouski this year, that looked at issues associated with seal consumption involved fishermen from the various Atlantic provinces.

• 1015

So we do certainly consult with them and we do look at the information they have, and that is indeed considered.

The other issue is one of public information. We view our job in the department as providing factual information associated with the seal hunt. This is a very small brochure, but it's an example of the sort of information we have publicly available. I'd be happy to provide you with a copy.

What it attempts to do is simply provide factual information on the seal hunt, because there is a lot of misinformation about the conduct of the hunt, and that misinformation comes from a variety of sources. But in our view, our job is to provide a factual explanation of the seal hunt, how we manage the various objectives that we have, and how we go about meeting them. We communicate the facts through small brochures of this nature. We also have press releases, fact sheets, backgrounders, and a host of other information that's publicly available, and it's all available on the departmental website, which is available to people on a global basis.

But we do not believe we necessarily need to be an advocate for the hunt. We believe our role is to provide a factual explanation of how it's conducted, and in terms of an advocacy role for the hunt, we think that is probably more appropriately conducted by the representatives of the Canadian Sealers Association. I know they release a fair amount of public information and communicate to try to provide their side of this issue.

I agree with your comment. Some of the information that is circulated about this hunt can oftentimes be distorted.

Dr. Garry Stenson: I'd like to just add something.

You were asking about involvement of sealers and traditional knowledge. Just to let you know, in terms of how we collect our data, for the last 20 years we've been collecting data based upon samples that are collected by sealers for us—sealers we've trained to collect the samples for us and do it. So they're actively involved in the way we're collecting our data for the science we're using to look at things like seal consumption numbers and that sort of information.

We also have our people in the field talking to them on a regular basis. People who work with me have been in the field for the better part of the last three months now, continually talking to sealers and working with them. So we try to take into account what they have to say and put that into a context we can then use.

The Chairman: Nancy, are you satisfied, or do you have another question? You're maybe not satisfied, but you might have another question.

Mr. Matthews, from Newfoundland.

Mr. Bill Matthews (Burin—St. George's, PC): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. It's difficult at this stage of the game not to be repetitious, but there are a few observations I'd like to make.

I've said before this committee earlier that it totally bamboozles me that here we are about to enter the new millennium and we still don't know what seals eat. In this day of DNA and other things that have come to the forefront, we don't know what seals consume.

I think we do know what seals consume. And I want to say to the people from DFO this morning that I think you've confirmed a couple of things for me without probably knowing so.

I think, Mr. Chamut, you said in speaking of seals eating the soft-flesh underbelly portions of cod that it was readily metabolized. I believe that's what you said. And I think that tells us a big story, because fishermen have consistently told me that's exactly what's happening—the seal eats the underbelly of the cod and it's very quickly digested or metabolized, so there's very little evidence of the seal consuming the cod. So I think you've told us something this morning, perhaps without realizing that you did.

• 1020

Mr. Stenson, I believe you said there was more cod in inshore diets. That's because there's more cod inshore. Your own scientists tell us today that the bay stocks are growing, and we're very pleased with that. The reason there's more cod in the stomachs of inshore seals is that they're in there chasing the cod for food. So you've told us something as well this morning.

Mr. Chairman, I have two concerns about seals. The number of the population, I would suggest, is in excess of six million, and if you multiply those numbers by Mr. Lunn's numbers you're going to come out with a greater take of cod by seals. And I believe Mr. Stenson said seals consume forage fish. Cod, I believe, also consume other forage species.

So we have two problems with seals. One is that they're eating the cod, and the second is that they're eating the species that cod need to survive, as well. So it's a double impact that seals are having on our cod resources.

I would like it if one of you could explain, if you can, why we see an increase in the number of seals in our southern zones. I represent the most southerly region of Newfoundland and Labrador, and some of my provincial colleagues are here who represent that provincially. We're seeing an explosion of the number of seals in our southern waters.

In my view, it's one of three things. They're either just naturally increasing their population there, or they're migrating there from northern waters to chase food. Again, by the way, in our southern zones we're seeing significant regeneration of our cod stocks, which is very positive. We've had a fishery there now for two years. So is that the reason we have more seals in places we've never seen them before—that they're coming there to eat the cod that's now regenerating? Or is it just a natural population explosion because they've suddenly become whatever you become to reproduce? What is it? Fishermen are telling me they're seeing seals where they've never seen them before.

The other thing they're telling me, by the way—as late as two Saturdays ago, in the little community of La Poile—is that they see seals there eating redfish and lumpfish. I don't think those fishermen are making that up. They are sincere.

How do you explain all this? In my view, we're at a breaking point in Newfoundland and Labrador. Our rural communities are dying because of out-migration, because there's no fish. As the most intelligent beings on earth, usually when there's a crisis we intervene. We were in the House of Commons yesterday and last night debating an issue in Kosovo, a crisis. We intervene when there are crises, and we take certain actions when there are crises. And here we are, looking at the future of our province, particularly our rural communities, because of an exploding seal population. That's a factor. It's not the only factor, but it's a very important factor.

I suggest to you people and to the members of the committee that Newfoundlanders are very quickly getting to a point where we're soon going to take matters into our own hands on this issue if we don't get some good management practices and some sense to this very critical issue for us.

I don't know if you can respond to some of my concerns and questions. I believe that seals are consuming as much cod as fishermen are saying they're consuming. We have colleagues here this morning from the all-party committee from the House of Assembly in Newfoundland who witnessed the floor of the ocean, in a bay or two, covered with codfish with their underbellies eaten by seals. They saw it. They're sitting right here. They didn't make it up; they went there and saw it. And yet, some of your people deny that this has happened.

I guess I can't impress the urgency of it enough, that it is a bloody serious problem for us and we're not going to wait another four or five years for you to determine if seals eat cod. We know they eat cod. We know they eat other species that cod eat. Consequently, that's affecting the regeneration of our cod stocks that we depend on to live and survive. So something has to be done.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Matthews.

We have no time for an answer because you're—

Mr. Bill Matthews: I'm sure you can allow one, Mr. Chairman. You've allowed some flexibility. Let them at least respond.

The Chairman: Patrick, would you like to have a brief response?

• 1025

Dr. Garry Stenson: Briefly, I'm aware of much of what you've said. I first want to make it clear that we have never said that seals do not eat cod bellies. I'm not sure how this has come about. Nobody I work with or have been involved with has ever said that is not the case, or that they don't eat cod. My own people have been there and have seen it. I've talked to fishermen, and I've looked at the videos themselves.

As for eating the redfish and lumpfish, yes, we're aware that they do that also. We're also aware that they take out the stomachs of lumpfish, which is another aspect we have to deal with in terms of how we estimate them. If you're interested, later I can show you the list of prey items they do eat. It's about 70 prey items long.

As for why there are seals in southern waters where they haven't been reported previously, we're not sure why they are there. You give two very good possibilities. One is a simple range expansion due to population size increase, and the other one is that they're following prey. I spent the last month with a scientist from Greenland who said that harp seals are in the northern Greenland waters more, and the same two possibilities also are being used there.

What we do know is that having started to use satellite telemetry to track seals, we find that they're going to places we never expected them to go in the past, based on traditional information of sightings and taggings as to where they do go and how quickly they can move between areas.

Mr. Patrick Chamut: Mr. Chairman, if I may make one very brief comment, the key issue I would like to put forward is that at the present time there is no scientific consensus about what the impact of seal predation is on the achievement of rebuilding targets for cod. So there is no scientific consensus. I think what we're suggesting is that in the absence of that kind of understanding, it would be very difficult to proceed, as some individuals have suggested, with a cull designed to reduce the population of seals. I think until we get a better degree of scientific understanding, it would be very difficult to justify going out and simply culling animals on the basis of the level of scientific consensus that currently exists on that topic.

The Chairman: We'll now go to Claude for five minutes.

[Translation]

Mr. Claude Drouin (Beauce, Lib.): I would like to continue along the same lines as Mr. Chamut.

The new study may confirm Mr. Stenson's predictions—namely, that the seal population is over 5 million. It is quite difficult to determine how many cod are being eaten, because the seals prefer the soft tissue. Since there has been a moratorium on cod fishing for five years, and since the department's figures seem to show that there has been no change, have you considered increasing the... Mr. Chamut mentioned that it is too soon to do that.

We learned some interesting things today, including the fact that 800,000 seals per year were being killed before or during the war. What was the seal population at that time, if hunters could take 800,000 seals? As we know, more and more people are eating fish today, and the seal population is increasing. Should we not be making some projections with a view to increasing the seal hunt quotas? We were able to make a prediction about the number of seals.

[English]

Mr. Patrick Chamut: I would like to draw your attention to one of the graphs we circulated that outlined a population trend for harp seals in the Atlantic. It was, I think, the third or fourth slide we had circulated. That does indicate what the population levels were back to 1960. At that time the population of seals was between 2 million and 2.5 million animals. I don't know what the level of harvest was or what the level of population was prior to that time, but Dr. Stenson may be able to provide his understanding. I think it is very clear that prior to 1960 the level of seals was indeed less than the current level of around 5 million animals.

• 1030

Dr. Garry Stenson: We don't have good estimates of what the abundance was prior to about the 1950s. What we do know, though, is that from all indications, the catches that had been going on probably since the late 1800s caused a steady decline in the population. There was some relative work done that suggests that between the 1950s and 1970s the population was reduced by half. There have been a couple of studies looking at what we call virginal levels, and Dr. Lavigne may have more information on this, which he may be able to provide later. If I remember correctly, there were various estimates that put the population somewhere in the range of 5 million to 10 million. That would have been, say, in the mid-1800s, with it probably having declined to around 3 million by the 1960s.

[Translation]

Mr. Claude Drouin: Right. Given that the numbers are increasing, and in light of the point I mentioned earlier, have you planned to look into this aspect? Mr. Chamut mentioned that there were so many differences that it was difficult to determine the best quotas. We see that the numbers are increasing gradually, and that the 6 million figure may be reached. In addition, more and more people are eating fish, but our five-year moratorium is still in place. If the number of fish is not increasing, and if seals are eating more of them, should we not be increasing the quota? Some people depend on a fishery for their livelihood. It may be too soon to provide any figures, but have you looked at the situation from this point of view? If so, what is your opinion?

[English]

Mr. Patrick Chamut: I'd make two comments. First of all, the increase in the population of harp seals reflected the fact that the harvest levels were very low in the early and mid-1980s. I think what we've seen is an increase in the population as a result of the decline in the number of animals that were harvested during that period.

I would also draw your attention to the slide you have in front of you, which shows that the level of the population essentially stabilized beginning around 1995 or 1996. We believe that stabilization of the population is a reflection of the increased harvesting that has occurred during that period in Canada as well as in Greenland. So the combined level of harvest has resulted in an end to the increase in the population, and it does indeed seem to be stabilizing.

The other issue I would respond to is increasing the harvest. There are a number of differing views about the merits of that. I know there are concerns within some parts of the industry that if there were a large increase in the harvest of harp seals, it might have an adverse effect on the market. In other words, there's a limit to the number of pelts the market can accept. If there were an increase in the level of harvest, it might have an effect on the price for seal pelts. That is a consideration that members of the Canadian Sealers Association in particular have expressed concern about, and it would be something we'd want to take a look at. In any consideration of any increased quota, we need to be mindful of the impact on the market.

• 1035

[Translation]

Mr. Claude Drouin: You make a very good point. We see that the total population is stable, but if you look at the number of newborns, on the bottom line, you will see that it is growing, and that we are gradually moving toward one million seals. We have to keep that in mind as well. The upper line is important, but the lower one is revealing. If we have more and more young seals and keep the same quotas, we may have a problem later on.

[English]

The Chairman: Thank you.

Timewise, I guess this about concludes the allocation that we had. We've covered most of the topics. We have other groups coming. It would appear that this theory of Malthus is going to be a big factor here. I'm not sure that the department has entertained any observations from groups that may want to eventually become involved with feeding these millions of seals that are proliferating on the coast, but it would appear that unless we have some system of feeding them in the very near future, we have a geometric progression that is going to overcome the fishery on the east coast.

We'll be hearing from others, but this morning we do want to thank Mr. Chamut and his departmental officials.

Mr. Chamut, from the evidence you presented, I hope you recognize that there is a very serious position that is placed on our fishery. Whatever solutions may come as a result of our hearings we hope to be able to present to the department, and hopefully we can make some recommendations on what this industry may eventually result in.

It's really shocking to hear that we have a population of seals eating 3 million pounds of Canadian fish each year, that we're killing about 300,000 seals each year, and that they were probably producing 500,000 to a million new ones. We as a committee will want to look at this position and hopefully draw some analysis from it.

Thank you for coming here today. I see that you want to respond to what I just said. Be very brief, please.

Mr. Patrick Chamut: Mr. Chairman, I will indeed be brief. I just want to say that this is a very difficult and controversial issue for the department and indeed for the Government of Canada.

I want to leave you with the view that it is technically complex, that there are many different elements that need to be factored in. I'm not merely referring to the issue of the scientific complexity of understanding what seals eat and what the impact might be. There are very many other factors that need to be carefully considered.

That said, I can assure you that the department would be very interested in the recommendations and the views of this committee, because we indeed believe they will provide us with some useful guidance in dealing with an issue that frequently divides many different elements of our society. We look forward to the report from this group, and I wish you well in the next three days of your endeavour here.

Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you.

I will adjourn now for 10 minutes before we hear from Dr. Lavigne.

• 1039

• 1057

The Chairman: Before we move on to the next witness, I would like to give our parliamentary secretary a brief moment to bring a matter to the attention of our members.

Mr. Wayne Easter (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): I have two quick points, Mr. Chairman.

Just for the information of committee members, it had been planned that we would deal with Bill C-27 tomorrow, but that has been moved to this Friday due to scheduling problems in the House. I know that a number of people want to speak to that, so it will be this Friday rather than tomorrow. I know people have planned their schedules around tomorrow, but there's nothing I can do about that. It's the House leadership that we'll say is the problem.

Secondly, Mr. Chairman, I sent a note to members about the Lobster Health Research Centre at the University of Prince Edward Island. I would hope that we could bring them before the committee—next week, I believe it is, Bill—to talk about that issue. Lobster is of course the biggest revenue producer in the fisheries in Atlantic Canada. There is limited research. They are involved in that research fairly extensively. I think there's an opportunity to bring them before us to discuss that issue further. There is an opportunity next week if we could do it—if there's agreement by the committee.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Chairman: What's the pleasure of the committee?

Mr. Bill Matthews: [Inaudible—Editor] ...lobsters.

The Chairman: You're suggesting, Mr. Matthews, that we would have to sample some, would we?

Mr. Bill Matthews: We could have a lobster boil at the same time.

An hon. member: Right on!

The Chairman: I think if the parliamentary secretary could arrange that, it might—

Mr. Wayne Easter: You come over to P.E.I. some time and we'll sample really good lobsters from off the shores of P.E.I.

Mr. Bill Matthews: Great.

• 1100

The Chairman: Peter.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: I agree with the people coming next week to discuss with them. I think that's a good idea. But on the question of Bill C-27 being moved over to Friday, no offence, but what the hell's going on? That was supposed to be for tomorrow. What's so important tomorrow except for Kosovo that we can't talk about Bill C-27 tomorrow?

Mr. Wayne Easter: I don't know. That was the discussion, Peter, among the leadership of the various parties. I had other things scheduled Friday as well.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Let's move it to Monday.

Mr. Wayne Easter: It is a problem, but it's scheduled for Friday. If you want me to try to get it moved to Monday, I can have a look at that.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Yes, thank you. I appreciate that, because a lot of us leave on Thursday nights.

Mr. Wayne Easter: I'll get back to the committee tomorrow morning to see if it can be rescheduled. I don't know; it's a House leadership decision.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Thank you.

The Chairman: So from the committee's point of view, we'd like to have that rescheduled for Monday. The parliamentary secretary and I will talk to our House leader.

On the second point, in terms of the group from Prince Edward Island, we've agreed that they can be invited to appear before the committee on April 20, which is next Tuesday. Are we agreed?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Mr. Lawrence O'Brien: I have one other point, Chair.

The committee last spring made a conscious effort on the hepatitis C vote that they would come to northern Labrador and present themselves. I've been trying since the House opened in September to get the committee in. My colleague Mr. Lunn may have contributed to the demise of the committee in not coming to Labrador.

I would suggest, Mr. Lunn, that this is aboriginal communities, and it's a commitment the committee made. We've got about a month and a half to go, and I suggest that the committee should present itself there in keeping with the request.

Mr. Gary Lunn: I'm just going to respond, Lawrence.

The Chairman: Just a second, Mr. Lunn. I'm sorry. We have entertained too quickly, and we do have witnesses here and I don't think we should get involved with—

Mr. Gary Lunn: I think we should.

The Chairman: If you want to challenge the chair—

Mr. Gary Lunn: I want to respond. It's not Mr. Lunn that's stopping this committee from travelling, period.

The Chairman: Mr. Lunn, that's enough.

Mr. Gary Lunn: Lawrence knows that. I told him that's absolute bullshit.

The Chairman: Our next witness here is Dr. Lavigne.

Mr. Gary Lunn: It's the chairman, and I've been very reasonable on this issue. You want me to get galvanized so this committee goes nowhere.

Mr. Lawrence O'Brien: I just want you in Labrador, that's all.

Mr. Gary Lunn: I'm been trying to cooperate with this committee and the chairman. Mr. Easter knows it and you know it, Lawrence. I know that. It's not my actions that are preventing us from travelling.

The Chairman: Anyhow, we shall move on.

Nancy, I'll have to entertain it another time. I don't want to get involved with a whole group of administrative things. I thought that the matter of the bill before the House was of urgence.

Dr. Lavigne, would you mind taking the end of the table?

Dr. David M. Lavigne (President, International Marine Mammal Association): Actually, Mr. Chair, it will be easier for me to speak to my slides if I could sit here.

The Chairman: If you think it would be easier, it would be fine for us. I just thought you would be more comfortable.

Dr. David Lavigne: No, actually I chose this seat.

The Chairman: Very good then. Thank you, and welcome to our committee.

We want to again suggest that you would keep your presentation to about 15 minutes, and after that we'll start our round of questioning. Thank you.

Dr. David Lavigne: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the fisheries committee.

I have provided you with a copy of my brief in English and French. You should have a copy. If you haven't seen them, they are around. Rather than simply read the brief, I would like to speak to some slides.

Before I do that, I would like to concur with my colleagues who spoke earlier and acknowledge that questions related to seals and sealing in Canada and the relationship between seals and fisheries are scientifically complex and fraught with considerable uncertainty. It is out of that uncertainty that I believe much of the controversy about these issues arises.

I would also like to say, and I think it will be self-evident from my presentation, that there is far less scientific controversy among scientists than you might believe if you followed the media accounts in Canadian newspapers. We don't agree on everything, but we do agree on many things. Hopefully that will become self-evident today.

I'm just going to speak to these slides now and try to keep it brief.

• 1105

I put a distribution map for harp seals into my talk, and I think it's perhaps useful that I did. If you can follow this red pointer, the harp seal population we're talking about lives in the northwest Atlantic, along the east coast of Canada. In the Arctic it lives between the west coast of Greenland and the eastern Canadian Arctic. This is a fairly recent map; we just revised it. It's relevant to some of the discussion we've had this morning. You will see that the distribution map for harp seals now extends into the northeastern United States.

There has indeed been a change in harp seal distribution in recent years. Over the last ten years harp seals and indeed other seal species, including hooded seals and ring seals, and a number of other marine organisms are showing up much farther south than they have in recent times. This sort of change in distribution pattern can happen without any change in population size. That's a third hypothesis that might be added to this morning's earlier discussion.

What sorts of factors could cause this sort of change in distribution? Well, one of the suggestions that has been made by scientists is changes in ocean currents and in sea temperatures.

Harp seals spend the summer months in northern waters off Greenland and in the eastern Canadian Arctic archipelago. In the fall they migrate down the coast of Labrador and Newfoundland, where of course eventually they give birth to their pups in the Gulf of St. Lawrence near the Magdalen Islands and on the front off the coast of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Of course it's at this time of the year that the harp seal range overlaps that of cod, which is basically Atlantic cod, which is basically in these southern waters. That of course gives rise to the potential for competition and for the controversy we've heard a fair bit about already today.

I will point out that harp seals are hunted, as you know, in the Gulf of St. Lawrence in March and April and they're hunted off the coast of Newfoundland and Labrador. That hunt is ongoing, as you've already heard. But when they move northward they are also hunted during the summer in the waters of west Greenland—that's the hunt Dr. Stenson was talking about that has increased dramatically in recent years. They are also hunted by Canadian native peoples in the eastern Canadian Arctic. So this species is hunted virtually throughout the entire year.

I want to talk about two of the major scientific issues. Indeed, they've been talked about this morning already. First, is Canada's harp seal hunt a sustainable harvest, consistent with the precautionary approach to management that is enshrined in Canada's Oceans Act? And secondly, are calls for culling harp seals to benefit fisheries justified by the scientific evidence?

Before I address those two issues, I have to point out that there are a variety of sources of scientific evidence one can look toward to get answers. I've listed five such sources here. They range from the peer-reviewed scientific literature—this is the scientific literature, really—to the so-called “grey literature”, which includes a number government publications, publications by non-governmental organizations, documents that may have been reviewed by colleagues but have not been submitted for independent peer review and are not published in the primary literature. Then of course there are the reports of scientific meetings, which usually represent the views of a small number of scientists who happen to attend those meetings. Fourthly, there are unpublished reports that have not received the benefit of peer review. And fifth, there is anecdotal evidence.

Unpublished reports and anecdotal evidence are really not part of the scientific literature. The most important source of information is the peer-reviewed literature. I would point out, for example, that the government's 1990 harp seal population survey is published in the peer-reviewed literature. My paper that has been referred to here today, and which created some controversy earlier, is in press in the primary scientific literature.

• 1110

The so-called “grey literature” includes the results of the 1994 harp seal survey, and indeed the management model or the population model upon which harp seal management has been based in recent years.

An important meeting report you might look at is one from a meeting in Newfoundland in February 1997 that dealt specifically with the question of interactions between harp seals and fisheries. Among the unpublished reports are, for example, Dr. Winters' report, which has also received a fair bit of coverage in the press in recent weeks.

When scientists look at these various sources of information, they view them with increasing skepticism as they move from one through four. Anecdotal evidence really has no place in science, although anecdotal evidence might provide a basis for generating some new hypotheses that could be looked at by scientists.

With that as background, I will address the question of whether Canada's harp seal hunt is consistent with government policy—the precautionary approach, for example—and whether its management plan is achieving the objective of a stable population.

The model upon which management has been based in recent years, and you've heard a bit about this already today, predicted that the 1994 population numbered some 4.8 million animals. Of course there's considerable uncertainty with this estimate. The range was as low as perhaps 3.4 million, with the upper limit somewhere near 5 million.

At that time, the population was believed to be increasing at 5% per year. The government calculated that a replacement yield—the number of animals that could be removed from this population without causing it to decline—was on the order of 286,700. Of course there is uncertainty with that estimate as well. In the original paper the range was from 170,000 to 300,000. It was based on this model that the total allowable catch was set a couple of years ago at 275,000, lower than the replacement yield. Of course that is the current quota today.

You saw this slide earlier. It's the same data. It is the landed catch, the reported catch from Canada against year. My graph goes from 1971, the year quota management was first introduced, to 1999.

The first thing to note, of course, and it was pointed out earlier, is that catches in the last three years have been very large relative to the previous ten. We heard some discussion this morning about possible hypotheses for this increase, and I think one hypothesis was overlooked. In 1995 Mr. Tobin, then the Minister of Fisheries, announced new subsidies for the seal hunt. And I think a third or fourth hypothesis that might explain the rapid increase in the catch in recent years is the fact that this hunt has been heavily subsidized in recent years.

The other point to note is that the current total allowable catch of 275,000 is the highest total allowable catch we have had since quota management was introduced in 1971. You will also note, and it was pointed out earlier, that the catch last year actually exceeded the total allowable catch.

The data on that graph are catches for Canada. In fact they are catches off Newfoundland and in the Gulf of St. Lawrence. Of course there is a seal hunt that goes on in Greenland as well. In this particular graph I have summarized the total landed catches by Canada and Greenland. I have had to estimate, as Dr. Stenson did earlier, the landed catches in Greenland for 1997 and 1998 because the data have not been forthcoming. My estimates are slightly lower than the ones Dr. Stenson gave earlier.

• 1115

But the point I want to make is that when you add Canada's landed catch to Greenland's landed catch, in each of the last three years these numbers have exceeded the replacement yield of 286,700. In fact, they have exceeded the highest limit of the replacement yield of 300,000.

Now, if the government's management model were correct and if their estimate of replacement yield were correct, these figures would suggest that the population should be declining as a result of the hunts of the last three years. Indeed, if you look carefully at the graph Dr. Stenson produced, which was shown to you earlier, you'll see that the population was in fact showing a slight decline in each of the last three years.

However, landed catches do not capture the total number of animals killed. Following a workshop in St. John's in 1997, I attempted to estimate the total kill of seals associated with sealing in both Canada and Greenland, and that is what this particular figure shows. These are the same numbers you saw in the last graph. The blue-green numbers above are a lower and upper estimate of the additional number of animals killed in order to land the reported number of seals that appear in catch statistics. These are the estimates that appear in my paper.

In that paper I said that one of the things that was obvious is that we needed more and better data on struck-and-lost estimates, and Dr. Stenson has pointed out that they now have some new data. It turns out that some of those new data would lower some of these figures, but not dramatically, but they won't change the conclusion of this slide.

In the last slide I showed you that landed catches exceeded the replacement yield, and I concluded that the population declined. We haven't actually calculated a number in Canada that would allow us to make a comparison with total removals from a population and what impact that might have on the total population size. So I have gone to a recent paper published by the United States government that calculates the number of animals you could remove from a population while holding it at or above half its original size. This particular approach is enshrined in U.S. law, in fact, and the actual number you calculate is called the potential biological removal.

The potential biological removal estimate for the current harp seal population is 288,000. What this graph shows you is that Canada's landed catches, the lower bar, have exceeded the number that would be permitted to be harvested under U.S. law, despite the fact that their objective of management is less conservative than Canada's stated objective for the harp seal population. Add in the animals that are struck and lost, and these figures alone suggest that we are killing something like 1.3 to 1.9 times more seals than would be permitted in a precautionary management approach in the United States of America if they were in charge of the seal hunt.

I have only one thing to add to this, and that is that we have subsequently done more detailed calculations related to the potential biological removal. I'm not going to talk about the results here because they're under review at a scientific journal, and at such time as they are accepted, the paper will be made available.

But my point is that if you think this is a pessimistic outlook, that we're killing 1.3 to 1.9 times more animals than we probably should, our subsequent calculations paint an even more dismal picture.

So here are two approaches, landed catches and total removals, and both come to the same general conclusion: we are removing more harp seals than the current population can sustain.

• 1120

I'm frequently asked what it would mean if we were to calculate in Canada a total allowable catch based on a potential biological removal approach. Here's one such calculation. The PBR is 288,000. The current unregulated Greenland catch I put in at about 75,000. I think Dr. Stenson said that now it might be higher than 80,000. Subtract from that the number of animals struck and lost in the Greenland hunt. Approximately one animal is struck and lost for every animal landed, so you have to subtract another 75,000.

We're told that there's an incidental take of harp seals in the lumpfish fishery. A minimum estimate provided by the minister in Newfoundland is 25,000. We now have an incidental take of harp seals in United States' waters that is estimated at 325,000. We don't know the incidental catch of harp seals in other fisheries, nor do we know how many animals are high-graded, although the Department of Fisheries and Oceans has admitted that high-grading, the killing of seals for selected parts, does occur.

When you subtract all of these uncontrollable mortalities from the PBR, that leaves Canada with 112,000 seals. But of course Canada also loses some through struck-and-lost. When you incorporate that into the calculation of what a total allowable catch might look like if you took this approach, you would get a figure of somewhere between 80,000 and 101,000, far below the 275,000 TAC we have set today.

So what do I conclude from this part of my talk? I conclude that the harp seal hunts of the last three years are not achieving the government's management objective of maintaining a stable seal population. As a consequence, the population is likely declining. I would also conclude that the government's approach to harp seal management is not consistent with its stated policy of taking a precautionary approach. I remind you that this is the approach enshrined in the Oceans Act. The approach we take to the management of harp seals, I would argue, is risky.

The second point I would like to discuss this morning—

The Chairman: I want to caution you about time. Your allocation of time is pretty well moving along. I would hope that maybe in the next five minutes you would conclude.

Dr. David Lavigne: Yes. Are calls for culling harp seals to benefit cod stocks and cod fisheries justified by the scientific evidence? There have been a lot of discussions about what harp seals eat. I think we do know what harp seals eat. There have been at least 23 studies done between 1941 and 1997. Over 12,000 stomachs have been examined. In those stomachs we found 67 species of fish and 70 species of invertebrates. We've noted that the diet varies with the age, season, year, and location. We have also noted, as you heard this morning, that the major prey are capelin and Arctic cod, and yes, harp seals do eat Atlantic cod. It is certainly less than 5% by weight of the annual diet, and you were given much lower figures than that this morning.

Relevant to this morning's discussion and at the risk of spoiling somebody's lunch, here is an example of stomach contents from a harp seal. As Dr. Stenson noted, not all harp seal stomachs are empty. If you happen to sample a harp seal shortly after it has fed, you will find fish in its stomach. You will find invertebrates in its stomach. I'm not aware of any published study that has found livers in the stomach of any of the 12,000 seals that have been examined. Indeed, in the studies that look specifically at cod, the stomachs look just like this. They were loaded with relatively small cod, stacked side by side like fish in a can of sardines. Seals tend to eat their prey whole.

• 1125

On the question of whether harp seals caused the collapse of the cod stock, we have an answer in scientific literature. This comes from two former DFO scientists who are now professors at Dalhousie University. They conclude “that the collapse of northern cod can be attributed solely to overexploitation”.

Are harp seals impeding the recovery of cod? All scientific efforts to find an effect of seal predation on Canadian groundfish stocks have failed to show any impact. That was the conclusion of 97 scientists who signed a petition in 1995. There is still no scientific evidence to suggest that harp seals are impeding the recovery of northern cod, or any other cod stock.

Very briefly, to explain why I think there is this misconception, those who take the simple view that seals eat cod and therefore fewer seals would mean more cod for fishermen are implicitly using this model: seals eat cod; fewer seals, more cod for fishermen. You only have to increase the complexity of that model with one additional step. If seals eat the predators of a commercially important fish and you reduce the size of the seal population, the other predators will increase and the target fishery will decline.

One of the important missing pieces of information at the present time is that we don't know enough about the other predators of cod besides seals, such as squid, skate, etc. We need to know more about the other predators of cod, and I'm pleased to note the government has acknowledged that in its 1999 management plan.

Scientists have been asked for many years what the effect of culling seals would be on a fish stock, or what the effect of an increased seal population would be on a fish stock. I just want to very quickly go through three answers. This is from 1981:

The effects [of increasing or decreasing the Northwest Atlantic harp seal population...on exploited fish and invertebrate stocks and yields from them] are unknown.

Canadian government scientist W.D. Bowen said 10 years later: “The truth is we do not know what the effects of a change in seal numbers would have on commercial fisheries”.

An international meeting in St. John's in 1997 concluded:

It is not yet possible to predict the effects of an increase or a decrease in the size of the harp seal population on other ecosystem components, including commercially exploited fish populations, or on yields obtained from them.

That is the conclusion of the scientific community. If it frustrates politicians that that's the best scientists can do, it frustrates scientists that we can't do any better. But I would suggest there is a very simple explanation for why we have had so much trouble answering this question. It is the picture I have included of the simplified food web of the northwest Atlantic.

When people call for culls of harp seals, they are suggesting we can take one little box here, cull that box and have a predictable outcome on another box in this scheme. The world is simply much more complicated than that. So as my late colleague, Professor Deane Renouf of Memorial University, said in March 1992:

The message is, we do not know enough to institute a cull.... I really think that [culling harp seals] without the correct information, could be deadly.

You could make that same quote today, and in fact I think somebody came quite close to making that same quote earlier today.

I also want to tell you, as members of the fisheries committee, there will be no end to calls for culling seals. I also work on Mediterranean monk seals. There are 500 Mediterranean monk seals left in the world today, and 350 exist in the Mediterranean. Fishermen in the Mediterranean kill monk seals because they believe they are eating all their fish. There will be no end to calls for culling seals, which is why I think it perhaps is a good idea to take the scientific approach and see what the answer to the question really is.

To quote another of my colleagues at Memorial University in Newfoundland, Dr. Bill Montevecchi, who edited this Canadian government publication:

There is no scientific evidence that the culling of large marine predators has ever benefited a commercial fishery....

• 1130

In conclusion, the seal hunts of the last three years have almost certainly reduced the size of the harp seal population. The last time average landed catches were as high as in the past three years—and this occurred between 1950 and 1970—the population was reduced, as Dr. Stenson told you earlier, by 50% or more. In this context the harp seal hunt, as it is currently conducted, could be and has been viewed by some scientists as a cull already.

Finally, there is no scientific evidence to justify a cull to benefit fisheries. In fact, culling harp seals could actually be detrimental to certain fishing interests.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Chairman: Thank you, Dr. Lavigne.

First of all, to apologize, I didn't adequately introduce you when we started; we had other administrative concerns. But you are president of the International Marine Mammal Association. Perhaps you could just explain what it is.

Dr. David Lavigne: Absolutely. The International Marine Mammal Association is a not-for-profit organization established in the province of New Brunswick in 1974. It opened an office in Guelph in 1990, and for the last two or three years I have been the full-time executive director of IMMA. In the previous 23 years I was a professor at the University of Guelph. I left that position in 1996, and I retain adjunct status at the University of Guelph today.

The Chairman: Is it funded through the universities?

Dr. David Lavigne: No, it has nothing to do with the University of Guelph. The International Marine Mammal Association is largely funded, as the information I've already supplied you indicates, by the International Fund for Animal Welfare, from whom we maintain an arm's-length relationship.

The Chairman: Mr. Lunn for the Reform Party.

Mr. Gary Lunn: Just before I start, since we're introducing people, we have a very honourable person back at the committee. I'd like to welcome back Mr. Baker, who is a very welcome addition. He hasn't been introduced, and I'm sure all my colleagues will concur we're glad to have George back.

Having said that—and I'm supposed to be speaking in the House very shortly—I'm going to split my time with Mr. Baker, who is a member from Newfoundland. So if you could advise me when five minutes are up, I will stop. Please give my remaining five minutes and the second five minutes the Reform Party has to Mr. Baker.

The Chairman: I'm not sure if that would be in accordance with how this committee operates, but if other members concur, I would have no objections. I wouldn't want people to think Mr. Baker was becoming a Reform member.

Mr. Gary Lunn: I'm not suggesting that at all. Since Mr. Baker is from Newfoundland, he would have a lot to offer to this discussion. That's the only intention. It's not to suggest otherwise at all.

I will conclude with one question, but first I would like to make a statement to Mr. Lavigne. Neither the Reform party nor I—nor I doubt anyone at this table—has ever suggested, would want, or believes in a cull of the seals. You used that word every few seconds throughout your speech. I don't believe in it and I don't think many people do.

I believe there should be a sustainable population. In Atlantic Canada, over the last five or six years, we've spent $2 billion of taxpayers' money to pay fishermen to sit at home while they watched the seals eat their fish. There's overwhelming scientific evidence to suggest the population is exploding out of control—let me finish, you're going to get a minute to respond. We're saying, and I've been advocating, that we need a three- or four-year plan to reach a sustainable population. I know you think we need to cut it in half to even be sustainable. We also need to remove the trade barriers for export of seal products. That's all we're suggesting. Nobody is doing anything more than that.

But my one question to you is a very simple one. I don't want to go on too long because I want to leave time for Mr. Baker. I saw your presentation as very biased, and from a scientific point of view, I couldn't believe it. What would it take for you to actually support increasing the current harvest of the seal population? Is there anything that would convince you that the population is out of control and that we need to increase the numbers of the seals we harvest to ensure we get a sustainable level?

• 1135

Dr. David Lavigne: If there is scientific evidence to suggest this population is out of control, you didn't receive it from DFO this morning and you didn't receive it from me. So if you have such information, I'd be pleased to look at it. But that is not what the science says. I'm sorry.

Mr. Gary Lunn: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Those are all the questions I have.

The Chairman: Mr. Baker.

Mr. George S. Baker (Gander—Grand Falls, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, first of all—

The Chairman: Mr. Lavigne, I don't know if you know Mr. Baker, but as chairman of this committee he did a very extensive study of the fishery across Canada pretty well. And being from Newfoundland, of course, he has tremendous experience in all aspects of the fishery.

Mr. Baker.

Mr. George Baker: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Of course I've read a lot of Dr. Lavigne's published material.

Mr. Chairman, first of all, I want to make a correction. The department was here earlier this morning and they gave some erroneous information to Mr. O'Brien. Mr. O'Brien was absolutely correct, Mr. Chairman. As far as bluebacks are concerned, in the marine mammals regulations there is an exception to the sale, trade, and barter of bluebacks. The exception is to those people called beneficiaries under the act, under the regulations. Beneficiaries are defined as those covered by the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement, as Mr. O'Brien pointed out. That is in the regulations, Mr. O'Brien. You're absolutely correct. And you're absolutely correct that the aboriginal peoples in your riding in that respect are being discriminated against, and there really should be a change in the regulations.

Now, Dr. Lavigne, as far as scientific conclusions are concerned, first of all, I don't know whether you've read the book The Christmas Seal by Skipper Peter Troake in Twillingate, where he describes ice pans filled with the backbones and heads of cod stretching for miles. Of course, this was at the period of time when the ice was moving down.

Therefore, when you show a slide and you say that what's on the slide is from the stomach of the cod as well as from the stomach of the seal.... You put it a different way, though. You said, there's what's from the seal's stomach, and then you said that's exactly what the codfish eat. Well, that's their point. If the seal is eating the stomach of the cod, that's exactly what you might see.

So it's not always what appears to be the case. That's why our committee recommended a public meeting between the scientists and the fishermen, to find out who's telling the truth. Of course we believe the fishermen are telling the truth.

I want to ask you one question. First of all, Dr. Lavigne, are you in agreement with a sustainable hunt for seals?

Dr. David Lavigne: Am I in agreement? The government sets the objective, and I've evaluated whether in my opinion the government's own data indicate they're achieving their objective.

Mr. George Baker: I'm asking you a simple question, sir. Are you in agreement?

Dr. David Lavigne: Is the question: if there is going to be a seal hunt, should it be sustainable? Yes.

Mr. George Baker: No. Are you in agreement with the sustainable hunt for seals if you have all the information?

Dr. David Lavigne: If you're going to have a hunt it should be sustainable, and you should define what you mean by sustainable, yes.

Mr. George Baker: So you are in agreement with a sustainable hunt. You agree with the World Wildlife Federation, the United Nations conservation organization, and the international union for conservation organization.

Dr. David Lavigne: Yes, in fact I'm a member of the seal specialists group for the International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources. I'm a member of the scientific advisory committee for UNEP.

Mr. George Baker: And you agree with the strategy—the world strategy.

Dr. David Lavigne: The World Conservation Strategy? Of course it was rewritten a few years after that. I have some serious problems with the promotion of commercial harvests in wildlife, because we learned in this country 100 years ago that commercial exploitation often causes problems for wildlife. So with that proviso, yes.

• 1140

Mr. George Baker: So you disagree with the International Fund for Animal Welfare in that respect?

Dr. David Lavigne: In what respect?

Mr. George Baker: In respect to agreeing with a sustainable hunt.

Dr. David Lavigne: I'm not sure how they would answer that question, but if there is going to be a hunt, yes, it should be sustainable.

Mr. George Baker: Okay. Let me ask you this question. Here's the main question I wanted to ask, Mr. Chairman. As I understand it in most of your literature, when a harp seal is born, it has a yellow coat for about three days, until it rains or the sun bleaches it and it turns to white.

Dr. David Lavigne: Right.

Mr. George Baker: Then there's a period of time in which it's a greycoat. In other words, you can see the black spots and the grey underneath. Then after it's a greycoat, it becomes a raggedy-jacket. After it becomes a raggedy-jacket, it becomes a beater.

Dr. David Lavigne: That's correct.

Mr. George Baker: Then it becomes a bedlamer after about 14 months.

Dr. David Lavigne: Yes.

Mr. George Baker: Let me ask you this question. Are you in agreement with a sustainable hunt for beaters and bedlamers?

Dr. David Lavigne: Yes. I didn't qualify my answer. In fact, about 75% to 80% of the animals currently killed in the hunt are the young of the year.

Mr. George Baker: So you are in agreement with the beater and bedlamer hunt. Okay. So if you're in agreement with the beater hunt, I want to ask you—here's my key question, here's why I'm asking this—would you then be in agreement with the killing of bluebacks after, say, April 10? Bluebacks, according to your literature, are born all at the same time, roughly—you can define a two- or three-week period up to about March 17 or March 18. When you're getting into about April 8—the season started this year on April 10—would you agree that if DFO were using logic, they would permit the killing of bluebacks after, say, April 10 or April 15?

Dr. David Lavigne: Well, that question really isn't a scientific question, but I can answer it. The problem is that as the royal commission noted in 1986 or 1987, people in Canada were not interested in seeing whitecoats and bluebacks, newborn harp and hooded seals, killed by sealers. And it was the royal commission that recommended we end the hunt for whitecoats and bluebacks. The decision was made based on...I mean, let's face it, not all the decisions....

In fact, science plays only a very small role in the decisions you people make. The values and attitudes of society play a large role. From a biological perspective, killing pups might make good sense; from a public relations perspective, it doesn't make any sense at all, according to the royal commission.

Mr. George Baker: But you would agree, though, that after April 10 or April 15 it would make sense to be able to kill a blueback, since you are allowed to kill a bedlamer—I'm sorry, you are allowed to kill a beater—

Dr. David Lavigne: A beater, yes.

Mr. George Baker: —in the harp species. We're talking about the hooded species now.

Dr. David Lavigne: Yes, I know.

Mr. George Baker: So you get the point of my question. Do you agree, yes or no?

Dr. David Lavigne: No, because you have a problem with bluebacks.

Mr. George Baker: Why?

Dr. David Lavigne: Well, you see, you can tell basically when a harp seal is weaned. This all comes out of the royal commission recommendation. You can't tell the difference between a nursing blueback, basically, and one that has been weaned. So there's a much—

Mr. George Baker: They only nurse for about four days.

Dr. David Lavigne: That's right.

Mr. George Baker: Well, I'm talking about three weeks.

The Chairman: I'm sorry, your time is up now, and I'm going to have to move—

Mr. George Baker: I have one further question.

The Chairman: No, no. We have an established procedure. If you would like to give him his second Reform time, I would allocate that, but I have to move on to the Bloc.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Mr. Rocheleau.

Mr. Yves Rocheleau: I will limit myself to one question, in order to give my colleagues from the Maritimes more time for questioning.

You say two things, doctor Lavigne. On page 9 of your text in English, you say "the population is likely declining". Further on in your conclusions, you say:

In that sense, Canada's harp seal hunt may satisfy the definition of a cull.

• 1145

How can you claim that, given that the chart presented this morning by Fisheries and Oceans on harp seal population trend in the northwest Atlantic shows that we have gone from a population of 1.75 million seals in 1972 to slightly over 5 million in 1997, 25 years later? How can you say that the population is declining, when the chart shows that the numbers have tripled in 25 years?

[English]

Dr. David Lavigne: Oui. I think we're looking at this over different timeframes. If you look at the end of the DFO graph—I don't have it front of me—I think it shows that in the last three years the population has, they said, stabilized; I think it actually shows a very slight decline in the last three years. What I'm saying is the hunts of the past three years have caused that decline. As I read the draft report of the National Marine Mammal Peer Review Committee, the population has declined at 0.5% to 2.0% per year in recent years. That is what the data show in the last three years. Your interpretation of the earlier time is correct from that graph, but I'm talking about the results, the effects, of the hunts of the past three years.

The question now is, is the current level of hunting sustainable by the current population? That was the government's management objective. I'm saying no, now it looks as if we've exceeded that by a bit and the population is going down. I said you could call it a cull because the objective of a cull is to reduce the population, and that's what we're doing now, by the looks of it.

[Translation]

Mr. Yves Rocheleau: Shouldn't we be talking about a reduction rather than a decline? Isn't it an exaggeration to talk about a cull in this context? We see that there is a drop on the chart, but I do not think it is prudent to talk about a decline and a cull in light of the statistics.

[English]

Dr. David Lavigne: The word “massive”—I don't remember that in the French translation, but it is not in the original English. It says Canada's harp seal hunt may already satisfy the definition of a cull. A cull is designed to reduce the size of a population. If you set the total allowable catch at a level that will result in killing that exceeds the replacement yield, you are in effect attempting to reduce the size of population. So in that sense it becomes a cull.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Paul.

Mr. Paul Steckle (Huron—Bruce, Lib.): I want to thank you for appearing this morning, Dr. Lavigne.

Before I defer my question time to my honourable colleague from Newfoundland, who has found time to be with us this morning, I just want to make one comment. If it wasn't so serious a matter this morning, it would probably be humorous. The fact that you are supported by an organization at arm's length I find almost an oxymoron. Perhaps you can comment for a moment on that.

But I will defer my time to Mr. Baker. I think he has some more questions he wants to put forward.

Dr. David Lavigne: In order to do scientific research, one needs to have funds. You can appreciate that. And at the end of the day, science gets judged on the nature of the science produced, not on where the funding came from. But when I get into situations like this, I'm reminded of a time back in the 1970s when most of my funding came from DFO. I heard exactly the same comments. If I came to a conclusion that an anti-sealing organization didn't like, they said I got that answer because the funding came from DFO. Now if I get money from the International Fund for Animal Welfare and I produce some results that somebody doesn't like, they say it's because the money comes from IFAW.

But science does have a few checks and balances. That's one of the reasons I went through the sources of information. When you produce a piece of science, if you want people to take it seriously, you have to submit it to a peer-reviewed primary scientific journal. I do that. I have done that throughout my entire career. And I can still get things published.

• 1150

It may come as a surprise to you, but the International Fund for Animal Welfare has supported a number of world-class scientists around the world who have published in some of the most prestigious journals in the world. They have supported research conducted by DFO scientists. In my mind that is one of the ideal situations, where you have a paper that acknowledges financial support from the International Fund for Animal Welfare and the Department and Fisheries and Oceans. When you get those kinds of papers, then this sort of criticism tends to dissipate.

At the end of the day my science has to be judged by my peers, and if get published in the primary literature I guess I've continued to pass the test.

The Chairman: Mr. Baker, you're going to take the next turn?

Mr. George Baker: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Dr. Lavigne, on numbers, you've studied this inside out and upside down. I recall once a statement made in one of your publications where you said that—I think it was you—some 18.1 million seals had been killed over a relatively short period of time in the 1800s. Do you recall that? Up to about 1860?

Dr. David Lavigne: Well, certainly the period 1820 to 1860 was what I called the golden age of sealing, when as many as 500,000 to 700,000 animals were killed in some years.

Mr. George Baker: Every year?

Dr. David Lavigne: Not every year. In some years.

Mr. George Baker: Well, let's take a year, 1832. Newfoundland got their first government in 1832.

Dr. David Lavigne: Yes.

Mr. George Baker: In that year there were 720,000 killed; in 1833, 650,000 killed; in 1834, 700,000 killed, and so on. You go on up and up. Similar figures for periods of time were also found in the 1900s after the war—relatively high periods of take.

Dr. David Lavigne: That's right.

Mr. George Baker: How do you account for those incredible takes that had virtually no effect on the numbers of animals, given the fact of course that we had no way of counting the animals in those days, and as you know there was no count and no quota placed on the coastal hunt up until 1974, roughly?

Dr. David Lavigne: Total allowable catches came into place in 1971 for harps, 1974 for—

Mr. George Baker: So how do you account for those incredible numbers of seals that were taken during those years?

Dr. David Lavigne: Okay. Well, let's start with the postwar because that's easier and it was partially addressed earlier this morning.

After the war, you're right, catches probably approached 500,000 in the early 1950s. On average, between 1950 and 1970, the average catch was very similar to what we've averaged over the last three years. What impact did it have on the population? Well, Dr. Stenson answered that earlier and I ventured a similar answer earlier as well: the population declined by 50% or more.

Now, if you go back to the period 1820 to 1860, when catches often exceeded 500,000 and I believe, if memory serves, in two years exceeded 700,000, the population almost certainly declined. I think it's very interesting, because you will know, being an avid historian, that there was a massive change in technology in the sealing industry around 1862.

Mr. George Baker: Yes.

Dr. David Lavigne: And with the new technology, despite the new technology, sealing was never able to get back to the levels that they caught between 1820 and 1860.

Mr. George Baker: But, Dr. Lavigne, you have said in your publication—

Dr. David Lavigne: Yes.

Mr. George Baker: —that you examined that 44-year period and you amounted up 18.1 million seals. You averaged it out to over 400,000 seals a year.

Dr. David Lavigne: Right.

Mr. George Baker: For 44 years.

Dr. David Lavigne: And the population declined.

Mr. George Baker: After 44 years.

Dr. David Lavigne: No, it declined throughout that period.

Mr. George Baker: One more question.

The Chairman: I'm having trouble with the mathematics that's being placed before the committee, Mr. Baker.

Mr. George Baker: Yes.

The Chairman: This is getting darned confusing.

Mr. George Baker: Yes.

The Chairman: Maybe we could clarify that point.

Mr. George Baker: There is no clarification needed, Mr. Chairman. It was Dr. Lavigne who's pointed this out in his historical material and history that he's written, and his examinations, that over a 44-year period it averaged 400,000 commercial seals and that doesn't count what the domestic take was. This was just from Newfoundland at the front and in the gulf...well, not very much in the gulf; it was at the front and it was an incredible amount of seals.

• 1155

But what I wanted to ask you is don't you believe that the Government of Canada, this federal government, has led the way in conservation on seals? Don't you agree that we were the first ones who outlawed the killing of seals in breeding patches? We were the ones telling Norway and Denmark, who own Greenland, look, you should do the same thing. Then, two years later, we brought in a rule and we said you're not allowed to kill a seal, an adult seal, in a whelping patch.

Here we were at the front in Newfoundland.... Those are the only two things the seals did, they were breeding and they were whelping, and then they disappeared. We were the ones who brought in the law, the Canadian government, when the other nations didn't. Don't you agree that this federal government has bent over backwards to all of the scientists who have advocated an end to the hunt or reduced numbers in the hunt? It's the Canadian government that has led the way in 1964, in 1966, in 1987, before other nations did so.

Dr. David Lavigne: If you're asking me if I look at Canada as a leader in the management of marine mammals, definitely not. In this country, marine mammals are classified as fish. Marine mammals are not fish, sir, they are mammals.

Mr. George Baker: You know why that is, though. You've speculated. Tell the committee.

Dr. David Lavigne: There are a number of reasons.

The Chairman: Time is getting of the essence here, and I'm going to have to go to the NDP now.

Peter.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Thank you.

I thank Dr. Lavigne for his presence here, as we recently met a couple of weeks ago on Prince Edward Island.

I want to extend the range of the conversation a bit here. What's the natural predator of a seal, besides humans, very quickly?

Dr. David Lavigne: Sharks, polar bears.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: And?

Dr. David Lavigne: Killer whales.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: There's quite an impact of the troll fishery when it comes to swordfish, of course, and many sharks are taken out of there.

I'd like to put it to you, for your scientific thing, that the fact is that if as committee members, and of course you never know what you're going to believe any more.... I'm just as confused now as I was when I started. But on the aspect of other predators that attack the seals being diminished—i.e., sharks, whales, other species that attack the seals have gone down—can you tell me if that's correct or not? Also, what are the other species that attack cod, besides seals?

Dr. David Lavigne: Both questions are quite difficult to answer because of a lack of information.

We very rarely observe predators eating harp seals. Maybe we need some videos of that too, but we don't have them, and so it's very hard to partition how many harp seals get eaten by polar bears, how many get eaten by sharks, how many get eaten by whatever, and the mortality rate in this population, being a large mammal, is relatively low. So there is clearly some predation, but we don't know how much, and we have a similar situation in fact with cod.

As I mentioned earlier, we don't know nearly enough, and one of the things that impedes our ability to evaluate harp seal-cod interactions is that we don't know more about the other predators of codfish. We know that squid take them and skates take them, and whatever, but we don't know enough, and indeed the National Marine Mammal Peer Review Committee has made a specific recommendation on that point, and the government has included it in its 1999 management plan.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Okay. Very good.

One thing I've noticed is that scientists around the world, at least the ones who appeared before this committee and ones I have met, are all in agreement, basically, that—I can't even say that word, number five in your thing, those reports....

Dr. David Lavigne: Anecdotal reports.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Anecdotal reports, right. I refer to my colleague from Nunavut about the fact that scientists are traditionally skeptical of traditional information. And Mr. Baker and Mr. Matthews also said that. I lived in the Yukon for nine years, and when the Yukon and B.C. governments and the federal government were doing a cull on wolves, the aboriginal people up there said that nobody would listen to the traditional people when it comes to information on what's going on with the species.

• 1200

I know science is very structured, but I remember what Stephen Hawking, the physicist, said: although science may have all the facts and figures, we don't know where those facts and figures came from. I believe that traditional knowledge, people who work the resource, people who are there every single day and who have a historical attachment to it, can provide a tremendous amount of information not only to the government but to science as well. Do you believe that's a fair statement or not?

Dr. David Lavigne: To a certain extent. The problem we have as scientists is that we have to work with information, and certain types of traditional knowledge provide information that can be incorporated into scientific analyses. I too have worked with natives on Baffin Island and sampled their catches with them and had them sampling and all the rest of it.

There are other kinds of traditional knowledge where scientists haven't figured out how to incorporate it into their scientific models. At that stage, you have science as one source of information, you have traditional knowledge as another source of information, and you have economic studies as another source of information.

That's where the manager comes in, because the managers have to take information from science, from traditional knowledge, from economics, from sociology, from politics and incorporate that into their management plans. I think you will agree that there are certain kinds of traditional knowledge, and indeed there's a growing literature on this, that we simply haven't found out how to incorporate into the science. It's just a different source of information.

The Chairman: Thank you, Dr. Lavigne.

I'm going to have two more short sessions and then we'll conclude today. Wayne, first of all, from the Liberal side, and then, Bill, we'll allow you to finish.

Mr. Wayne Easter: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The bottom line here in terms of the seal issue is what information do the people who have to make the decision on the total allowable catch have to make that decision and how accurate is it? I'm a little like Peter; the more I sit and listen to these discussions, the more confused I become.

When I went to high school I was led to believe the science was a pure science and you could believe what was said. I've heard two very different scientific opinions today in terms of DFO's position and yours, Dr. Lavigne. My question comes down simply to what evidence—and I know you went through your slides—can you put before us that should lead us to believe that the information you're providing is more correct?

We've certainly moved within DFO and within the government in recent years, because we've recognized it's the right way to go, to take science, some of the traditional views, and some of the practical experience of fishermen, and use them in the sentinel fish program and other things. Since that combination has taken place, I believe we've been making better decisions in the government.

The bottom line of my question is, give me the evidence for why you believe your scientific opinion is more accurate than what was placed before us by some others.

Dr. David Lavigne: I'm quite surprised that you find a great deal of disagreement in, for example, the population, size and trends of harp seals. I used the DFO management model, which predicted a population of 4.8 million in 1994. Dr. Stenson produced a more recent estimate that was about 5 million, same ballpark. His graph showed that in the last three years the population had tipped over. They called it stabilized; I said it looked like it was declining, and that's what my information says. I read from the National Marine Mammal Peer Review Committee that the population has declined at 0.5% to 2% per year in recent years.

I would suggest that there is no great disagreement there and there was no great disagreement, I would argue, on the question of harp seals and cod. I think we came to exactly the same conclusion for exactly the same reasons. So I don't see that there is this controversy. But if you could give me a specific example, I'd be pleased to try to address it.

• 1205

Mr. Wayne Easter: Can I ask a quick supplementary question?

The Chairman: Yes.

Mr. Wayne Easter: The problem here is what is the TAC to create a sustainable level in terms of the seal herd. That's where we get into a major dispute. Why 5 million? Why not 3 million? When the TAC came in, wasn't the herd a little over 2 million, and the level was created because of that number? We're way over that number. If you look at DFO's graphs, I would agree with you that the harp seal population is in a very slight decline, but if you look at the size of the pup seal herd, it's on the increase.

Dr. David Lavigne: Pup production appears to be on the increase, and hopefully we'll get some confirmation of that as a result of the survey.

The current total allowable catch of 250,000 was set on the basis of the 1994 modelling exercise that produced a population of 4.8 million animals growing at 5% per year with a replacement yield of 286,700. It was increased to 275,000 under that same management model. Those are the highest total allowable catches we've had in the history of quota management for harp seals in this country. So I don't see the contradiction there.

The Chairman: Mr. Matthews.

Mr. Bill Matthews: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I have just a couple of brief remarks, as there is very little left to be said. But I'm not as confused as some people are.

The seal population has doubled in the last 15 years, from 2.5 million to about 5 million. So the question is, what is sustainable? If I'm correct, I believe you weren't even satisfied when the numbers were increased. There were still some problems with what's sustainable and that we were taking too many even when they were increasing from 2.5 million to 5 million.

In my position, yes, I'm concerned about the sustainable seal population. I'm also very concerned about a sustainable cod fishery, and I'm very concerned about a sustainable human population in the province where I live. So we have to weigh all those factors.

From my recollection of where you've come from over the last few years, my view is that you're very concerned now because in the last three years you've seen what you judge to be—most people in this room disagree, and certainly most people in Newfoundland and Labrador disagree—a decrease in the seal population. So what would satisfy you, that we allow this to increase over the next 10 or 15 years to 10 million seals? In my view, there's a contradiction here, that to you sustainable means you're okay as long as the herd at least increases, but once it levels off or dips a small bit for one or two years, there is a hell of a problem.

Dr. David Lavigne: No. The definition of sustainable that I think we've all been using lately, at least at this end of the table, is the one provided by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the Minister of Fisheries. It isn't my definition of sustainability. It is how many animals you can take—

Mr. Bill Matthews: What is yours?

Dr. David Lavigne: —without reducing the size of the population. That is their definition of sustainability.

So then I asked the question, is it sustainable in the context of their definition? DFO's own analysis, which you just pointed to, and my analysis and that of the ICES-NAFO working group on harp and hooded seals all suggest that the hunts of the last three years have exceeded the replacement yield. That's just what the numbers say.

You also have to realize that the individuals in this population are not in particularly good condition at the present time. They're relatively thin.

Mr. Bill Matthews: Not like the people.

Dr. David Lavigne: They are exhibiting delayed maturity and probably the lowest reproductive rate on record. That's what the science says.

Mr. Bill Matthews: How can you say that they're not reproducing when they've doubled in 15 years?

Dr. David Lavigne: They're reproducing, but—

Mr. Bill Matthews: But not fast enough, so you want 7 million or 8 million or 10 million.

• 1210

Dr. David Lavigne: Back in the late 1970s, I think the figures showed that 94% of adult, mature females were producing pups. Now the figure is—and Dr. Stenson can correct me—closer to 70%. That's what the biology says.

The Chairman: If I might have just a couple of answers before we conclude, could I have some hard figures on this? What do you estimate the size of the herd to be at present? You say in the paper that it's around 4.8 million or 5 million seals. Can you give me just a short answer? In other words, give a number that you estimate the herd size to be.

Dr. David Lavigne: We're all working with a figure of approximately 5 million.

The Chairman: Five million seals. How many of those seals are mature females that are having pups annually?

Dr. David Lavigne: That's Dr. Stenson's area.

The Chairman: No, you're an expert. You came to us as an expert witness, so I would like to have your answer as how many of those females are producing seal pups each year.

Dr. David Lavigne: If the survey says there were 700,000 pups produced in 1994—and that's the last estimate that we have—that would mean 700,000 females.

The Chairman: I just want to get some plain figures in this. Of five million seals, you estimate only 700,000 are mature females producing pups, is that correct?

Dr. David Lavigne: Yes.

The Chairman: So there are another four-point-some million seals that are not females. There are 700,000 pups being produced. We're told that the annual hunt is about 275,000, and that probably another 50,000 maybe are just killed and not rescued. If there are 700,000 being produced, 325,000 being killed, where are the other 350,000 or so going each year? Is there that big a death in the herd?

Dr. David Lavigne: You have to realize that because of the way this hunt is carried out—

The Chairman: No, I want to know where the 350,000 go.

Dr. David Lavigne: Natural mortality. Of the young animals that survive the hunt—that's your point: that there are lots of young animals surviving—very few of those actually get to sexual maturity. You have to realize that these days they take five, six, seven years to reach sexual maturity. There's a natural mortality curve over that first five years. You don't just transfer the survivors from the first year. Natural mortality goes on irrespective of whether you have a hunt or not.

The Chairman: So with these 5 million seals, is that what you feel is the optimum number of seals to have out there, or would you like to see the herd increase?

Dr. David Lavigne: Those sorts of questions are value judgments.

The Chairman: No, they're not value judgments—

Dr. David Lavigne: They are value judgments.

The Chairman: We're talking about an environment, and you have a natural biological species that's out there that we, as environmentalists, have a right to protect. I'm asking you a question in terms of the number of seals that can live out there. You talk about them being thin, you talk about them starving. In the Miramichi River, I saw them fifty miles up the river this winter looking for fish. Is there a major ecological problem out there in terms of these seals not having enough food to eat? If there is, then we have a very serious situation.

Second, if you can give us a figure today, we can go back to the department and say that we should have 5 million seals in the gulf. How many seals should there be? That's what I'm asking.

Dr. David Lavigne: Well, you've asked me that question before, and I'll give you the same answer that I think I gave you the last time. There is no magic right answer. My colleagues earlier today said exactly the same thing.

The Chairman: Are there too many seals?

Dr. David Lavigne: Too many for what reason?

The Chairman: Well, we're trying to have a sustainable number of seals that can be looked upon in terms of us, as human beings, making sure we don't have an endangered species. What is the number that you want to see out there? You're an expert. You've spent 25 years at this, so we're asking you for an answer.

Dr. David Lavigne: For guidance, I would use the approach taken in the United States, for example. They define an optimum sustainable population as one that is between 50% of its maximum size and its maximum size. There's a lot of latitude there. The one thing you don't want to do is to reduce it below 50% of its original size.

The Chairman: What was the original size?

Dr. David Lavigne: Of what? Harp seals?

The Chairman: Harp seals, yes. We're talking about seals this morning.

Dr. David Lavigne: Yes, but you were talking about other species of seals too. What was the original size? I have no idea.

The Chairman: What is the optimum size that you think the herd should be? You're advising this committee. Do you want to see it get bigger?

Dr. David Lavigne: In absolute terms?

The Chairman: Yes.

• 1215

Dr. David Lavigne: I would suggest that it would be unwise to reduce this population, to take many more than the potential biological removal indicated on that graph, which is about 288,000.

The Chairman: So you're saying that the group that you represent, the International Marine Mammal Association, is saying to this committee that we should maintain a seal population of approximately 5 million off the east coast of Canada.

Dr. David Lavigne: That is not what I said.

The Chairman: What did you say, Dr. Lavigne?

Dr. David Lavigne: I said you shouldn't take more than.... I don't think any responsible management authority would want to reduce a population below what is called its maximum net rate of productivity.

The Chairman: Could you give us what that figure is in arithmetic or mathematical figures?

Dr. David Lavigne: That's the beauty of the U.S. approach. You don't have to actually put an absolute number on it.

The problem is that we're dealing with very complex models in which we think we need to know absolute numbers. In fact, the history of wildlife management would say that relative numbers are better. So, no, I can't put an absolute number on it, and I think any absolute number you decide is a value judgment that has very little to do with science. There is no scientific magic number.

The Chairman: Thank you, Dr. Lavigne.

Dr. David Lavigne: There is no balance of nature.

The Chairman: I would appreciate your report here on this American study that seems to be so important. I don't have a copy of it. Perhaps you could leave it with us.

You are an expert witness. I thought I would have a greater deal of expertise from you in terms of these numbers, but I didn't get them. In any case, thank you for coming. We appreciate your interest in this venture.

Thank you, the meeting is concluded.