---

DISSENTING OPINION BY PETER STOFFER FROM THE NEW DEMOCRATIC PARTY TO THE SEAL REPORT BY THE HOUSE OF COMMONS STANDING COMMITTEE ON FISHERIES AND OCEANS
JUNE 1999

Introduction

The issue of seals is a very sensitive one and any report has to respect all points of view. At the outset, it needs to be said that the cause of the cod collapse in Atlantic waters was not due to seal predation. Every witness who addressed this issue before our committee said the cause was massive overfishing by human beings.

We know very little of the relationship between seals and other species in our oceans. What is lacking is adequate personnel and financial resources to conduct a scientific investigation into how these various species interact with each other.

It cannot be stressed strongly enough that if there is to be an increase in the seal quota then markets for seal products must be developed beforehand. This would secure long-term employment for communities in rural Newfoundland, Labrador, Nunavut, Quebec and Prince Edward Island.

Recommended Changes

The report, as written, is contradictory. For example, just before recommendation 1, the report says, "the Committee believes that there must be a major reduction in the harp seal population." However, in paragraph 68 it says, "not one of the witnesses before the Committee spoke in favour of a massive cull." And in paragraph 69, it says that "the Seal Industry Development Council, also made it clear that the Council does not support even an increased quota, far less a cull, until the work has been done to ensure consistent markets with acceptable price ranges. The Council registered a number of misgivings about a cull, which involved the disposal of the seals culled, the financial cost of a cull, the cost from a public relations perspective, the possibility of providing animal rights activists with a new issue, and uncertainty of the effect of cull on the viability of the seal population. It was even suggested that a cull might have a detrimental effect on other commercial fisheries without ensuring a strong recovery of cod stocks."

Also, just before Recommendation 1 and after the subheading "SCIENCE," the report states, "...there was significant disagreement on the total size of the harvest and even less agreement on the impact of the hunt on seal population. On the key questions regarding diet of seals and their potential impact on the recovery of cod and other groundfish stocks, there was virtually no agreement at all."

How can the committee believe there must be a major reduction in the seal population when the committee's own report says the witnesses' evidence does not support this and when the committee admits the witnesses could not agree that reducing seals would improve cod stocks? The sentence just before recommendation 1 should be removed.

With respect to the Fisheries Resource Conservation Council's report, it is disturbing that the FRCC recommended a reduction of up to 50 per cent of seals in certain areas without giving specific numbers of how many should be taken or reduced and without recommending what would happen to the dead seals. This just adds to the confusion. Dr. George Rose indicated there is no scientific evidence that a reduction of this size would be helpful.

The following paragraph from an earlier draft of the report must be reinstated if the report is to be consistent and is to reflect what we heard from the witnesses: "The Committee agrees that a cull is unsupportable. On the one hand, science has not so far demonstrated an unequivocal link between seal predation and the recovery of cod stocks. It would therefore be difficult to justify a cull on the grounds of enhancing the likelihood of recovery of cod stocks. (It is also true, of course, that nor has science demonstrated that seals are not inhibiting the recovery of cod stocks.)"

These sentences from the earlier draft should also be put back in: "It is not clear at what level the Total Allowable Catch (TAC) should be set or how long it should take to achieve the Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY) level. Answering these questions will require more definitive scientific advice than is currently available. It is evident, however, that no increase in the TAC can be implemented without ensuring that there are additional markets to absorb a greater volume of seal products without risking the markets that have already been established."

We need a statement after paragraph 19 saying: "Dr. Levigne stated that his papers are subject to peer review, whereas Dr. Winters said that his papers do not undergo peer review, but are examined by another agency."

The Recommendations

Recommendation 1 now completely contradicts itself. On the one hand it says that the purpose of the panel of eminent persons "would be to evaluate the current state of scientific knowledge and to provide advice on a long-term strategy for the management of seal populations." But then the recommendation says the panel must develop a five-year strategic reduction and utilization plan.

Evaluating scientific knowledge and providing advice is not the same thing as developing management plans. Scientists can only conduct studies and provide advice; it is not their job to develop management plans, especially since there is not yet any scientific evidence to show that reduction plans are necessary. The committee appears to have prejudged the science by saying that reduction plans are necessary even though the science to support that conclusion has not yet been done. The phrase "The panel must develop a five-year strategic reduction and utilization plan..." should be replaced with the phrase, "The panel would be asked to study and report on items..."

Recommendation 2 concerning experimental harvests and experimental seal exclusion zones is completely unacceptable and we cannot support it. The FRCC did not indicate how seals could be excluded from these areas. If the purpose of this recommendation is to protect spawning and juvenile cod, then the committee should recommend that the government introduce marine protected areas in Newfoundland and Labrador, which would exclude oil and gas exploration, as well as fishing, from those areas. If one predator is excluded from these areas, then all predators should be excluded, including man.

Recommendation 3 obliges the Department of Fisheries and Oceans to define all seal populations in northern and eastern Canadian waters, but does not recommend an increase in the department's budget to fund this research. It is critical that the government grant DFO the resources to fund all aspects of required scientific research.

After Recommendation 7, and before Recommendation 8, the first sentence of the second paragraph after the heading "Public Awareness" should read: "The activities of the anti-sealing groups are well funded through public donations; however, in the opinion of the Committee, there is a perception that some materials distributed by anti-sealing groups may be misleading."

The first sentence of Recommendation 9 should read: "The Committee recommends that the federal government, through the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Industry Canada, and the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, demonstrate, through raising public awareness, that sealing could be a viable and sustainable commercial activity in Canada."

We agree with Recommendation 14 and it should stay in the report. It is important that people be allowed to observe the hunt.

After recommendation 15, the following section should be restored to the report:

Economic Impacts

The Committee heard conflicting evidence about the economic value of the seal hunt, particularly in the Island of Newfoundland. Concerns were also expressed regarding the influence of federal government subsidies on support of the sealing industry in eastern Canada.

Recommendation 16

The Committee recommends that a study be conducted to determine the economic and social benefits of the seal hunt in eastern and northern Canada. The Committee recommends that the federal government also undertake an economic analysis of the sealing industry with respect to the development of new products and markets.