Fisheries Committee on Nov. 25th, 2014

[Dion Dakins]

Thank you very much for your question.

I'd like to rely on someone who perhaps said it best, and that was Albert Einstein. He said the definition of insanity was doing the same thing repeatedly and expecting a different outcome.

Sometimes I find, related to this issue, that we have been on a little bit of a treadmill, grappling with how we are going to reshape our future as it relates to the harvesting and utilization of our marine resources, not just seals but also seabirds and whales. Our challenges are enormous

I would like to think, Mr. MacAulay, that perhaps we have been on the wrong track, but I would like to see this as the beginning of the right track—

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

So would I.

[Dion Dakins]

—a discussion that can lead us forward to structuring ourselves internally, such that we can approach international markets to allow value-added trade in our commodities. As you've recognized, right now the world is struggling with how it's going to manage itself as it relates to global food security.

Proteins have never been in higher demand. Omega-3 oils have never been in higher demand. The pressures on these resources are only being exaggerated.

Not only does the seal provide an adequate commodity to go in and fill those market demands, but it also adds a value-added ecosystem service, whereby we control seal populations to allow for the sustainability of fisheries.

Unless we achieve the scientifically allocated quotas, we're going to continue to experience imbalance in the ecosystem.

As I described earlier, the seals are already showing the stress indicators. They're having pups later in life, which is an indication that they're stressed. Adult seals are carrying 20 kilograms less fat at maturity than they used to when the population was under five million.

DFO itself recognizes through its science that perhaps we've reached the carrying capacity of the marine ecosystem, because it has stabilized now. We've been at 7.4 million to 7.6 million for two years with essentially no harvesting pressure. The pressure of the harvesting itself has been minimal over the last five years.

I think the ecosystem—the seal populations and the fish populations—is telling us that we need to do something different, because we have been doing the wrong things. I think we're now at a very interesting point, and a unique opportunity exists for Canada, because other countries—including America, since the Canadian seals are eating the American fish—are perhaps more agreeable to having a discussion to help solve what is now a common problem manifested and created by falsified campaigns around what the Canadian seal hunt is.

I'm very proud to be a part of this industry. The hunters and the veterinarians who do the continual science in this industry are very proud to be a part of it. I think it's a model for conservation of marine mammal species internationally and one that we should further support with correct bills like Bill C-555 and where it's leading. I think we should create a validation system so consumers can have the confidence that Canada is doing the right things to make sure we meet global food security challenges and adhere to high animal welfare standards.

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

Have you indicated that the herd itself is going to be in great difficulty if we do not manage the herd properly?

[Dion Dakins]

From my perspective, it would only be speculation. I'm not a scientist, I can't—

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

You're talking about two million.... If I understand correctly, it was recommended that the population needed to be about two million to sustain and it's at about 7.5 million today. I'm far from a scientist, but it would indicate to me that there's going to be some difficulty somewhere with the large increase in the herd. What you said about the pups carrying less fat, there's great difficulty coming in the herd itself.

Also, I would like you to expand a bit on this third party validation to validate the herd. I would expect that you're going to try to put something in place to indicate to the public how the herd is generally managed. In fact, it's the most humane harvest in the world. I'd like you to expand on that.

[Dion Dakins]

I'd like to come to back to the point about the European Food Safety Authority. When the EU was considering the ban on seal products, they evaluated seal hunting practices in all the range states where seal hunting was conducted for commercial purposes. Canada was actually identified as having quite a high level of animal welfare standards compared to other hunts. We are on the right track and we continue to be on the right track.

The validation is strictly what is required by consumers to understand that it needs to be an ISO certification. It has to be third party. EFSA, the European Food Safety Authority, themselves identified that there was bias in the science that existed. There is no way that videos secured by animal rights groups that are strictly there to end the hunt can be considered unbiased. Even when submitted for regulatory purposes within Canada, there are problems with the continuity, the starting and stopping.

As I mentioned earlier, it's very difficult for veterinarians, let alone lay people, to witness the harvesting or dispatching of a marine mammal or any other animal when they have no attachment to it, and then decide whether or not it's good or bad.

We've worked with a lot of veterinarians and they always recognize that it takes thorough investigation to understand on the videotape whether or not an animal is experiencing pain, distress, or suffering. Just because there's an involuntary swimming reflex does not mean the seal is alive, but to the lay person witnessing this, it's very difficult to understand.

Most importantly, the sealing community, the people who do the hunting, are very much in favour of improving the animal welfare standard where they can, recognizing that Canada currently has perhaps the highest animal welfare standard of any wildlife hunt in the world. Validation of that is required by someone else other than the Canadian government saying, “Well, we're great. Trust us; we know what we're doing” or for a processor to say, “Trust me; it's okay what we're doing”.

We need that third party validation and we need to stop video that's taken just to undermine all the efforts that we've made collectively to improve the animal welfare standard and the viability of the Canadian seal hunt.

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

You also indicated in one of your recommendations that all observers should be 500 metres clear, if I understand correctly, and you feel that would give the hunter the proper clearance in order to do his job.

[Dion Dakins]

Currently, it's recognized that the video cameras being used by the animal rights groups that are out there—because there are no animal welfare groups out there—are good for distances up to five nautical miles. The 500-metre zone is strictly for the safety of both the observer and the hunter, and also for the enforcement people who are out there.

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

I would like to add one more thing.

It's so unfair what's going on. It's such a big problem to deal with. In fact, we have to deal with inappropriate erroneous information on tape. If you videotaped the butchering of animals, people would be horrified. I wonder where we're coming to.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Mr. Leef.

[Ryan Leef, Conservative, Yukon, YT]

I'm sure my time is reduced a little, but that was worth hearing, so thank you for that.

Mr. Dakins, I think you've done a great a job of talking about the need for market and social confidence coming from that third party validation so that domestically and internationally there's confidence in the ethics and sustainability of the seal hunt.

My question isn't really relating to the bill. When we deal with the licensed observers, if I'm reading this correctly, the intention is that licensed observers are there presumably because they have a level of training, skills, and expertise to observe, there's quality in their ability to observe something, to provide that validation and confidence. So they're an important component of the hunt to be there, licensed with quality management control, and able to observe and then provide some unbiased commentary on the hunt itself. The unlicensed observers don't necessarily have that. They can be there for whatever intent and purpose, and it's that group that we regulate away from it and they can be there as long as there is safety and security.

My question is twofold. You did touch on it a bit in your recommendations, that moving the licensed observer category to farther out is needed as well for purely a safety reason. Correct me if I'm wrong here, but I'm taking from that point that you're really focused on the safety angle and that there isn't an element of obstruction of the hunt going on by the licensed observers. Are there cases though where the licensed observers have been obstructionist, have been interfering, and have intentionally caused safety concerns—not the unintentional safety concern, because you're point is taken that when you have firearms in close proximity and the stress of that, the hunters are paying attention to something going on when they should be focused on the issue and it can generate some safety issues.

My focus on the question though is the intentional obstruction of the hunt by licensed observers.

[Dion Dakins]

In the testimonials that we've provided, our examples of licensed observers that have disrupted the hunting environment are by flying too close to the vessel itself, or putting themselves between the vessel and seals that are to be targeted, or by flying ahead and scaring the animals off the ice. The testimonials exist.

To come back to your point about the groups that are out there, in our submission as well as in the written document, Randy Jenkins, who's the director of DFO's national fisheries intelligence service, had the following to say: “The majority of individuals who request a permit to observe the hunt”—these are licensed observers—“are those who have an interest in animal rights. The regular media, CBC or CTV for example, may also request a permit to get footage for their news shows. But the regular observers are largely from the organized animal rights groups...”. I draw clear attention to that because whether it's an animal rights or animal welfare group or the standard media, they're still due to correct safety protocols.

Reviewing the municipal regulations as it relates to discharging firearms within a safe proximity, the seal hunting environment, which is the most dangerous occupation—fishing is too, but sealing is certainly a higher risk than any other fishing activity—you're in an environment where bullets can ricochet off ice and water, which is much higher than any on land anywhere. We feel that the minimum distance for anybody to observe the hunt, including between hunters themselves, should be 500 metres. To discharge firearms any closer is causing a risk to public safety and health.

The other point I would make is that within Canada, we have acts and regulations regarding the workplace. People are entitled to a heathy workplace environment. It has been recognized by both the hunters and the enforcement officers themselves that when observation is occurring inside these distances, especially at 10 metres, there's a high level of stress and interference incurred by the hunters themselves. We're actually not providing them with a healthy and safe work environment.

[Ryan Leef, Conservative, Yukon, YT]

It would seem to me that the licensed observer intention really should be that qualified, experienced, and capable observation group and the licences should really be handed out in that regard. The intention and focus should be squarely on the market and the social confidence and validation that you would gain through transparency. As you mentioned earlier, that needs to come from an objective, unbiased position, and it needs to come from a position of experience, people actually having the skills, knowledge, and ability to assess that. I'd be inclined to be looking more towards a regulation that said the way in which licences are administered and handed out should be more carefully crafted than the distance at which you put those people and that the revocation and enforcement of obstruction should be something that should be fully focused on.

I can tell you, as a former conservation officer in Yukon Territory, that we have regulations about impeding or obstructing a hunt. We also have regulations around the safe distance to discharge a firearm. In that territory it's one kilometre from a dwelling house, whether it's occupied or not, because of the obvious safety concerns with centrefire rifles and the distance at which they can be deadly.

In that respect, in the safety angle, you're pushing on an open door of people who truly know the safety and security things around that. As regulators, typically we focus on ethics, safety, and the sustainability of both of the species being hunted and, as you've heard in the questioning by parliamentarians today, the sustainability of other species that are impacted by the growth of a particular population.

When we're talking about the issue of having folks at a distance, and you want that validation, you did mention that even though cameras can shoot up to five nautical miles, would there not be some value to having high-quality, licensed, unbiased observers with skills, knowledge, and ability there working jointly with the sealers to help provide that confidence? In doing so, five miles or three miles or even 500 metres, at times, as you say, it's hard to pick apart whether or not that video is producing the transparency that the industry's asking for.

[Dion Dakins]

Absolutely. That is the whole purpose of our intervention here. That third party validation system should replace...and in fact, one of our recommendations—I believe it's recommendation two, option B—is to remove licensed observers altogether. Let's not make this observation. Let's make it scientific evaluation of Canadian hunting methods.

It's interesting. If we all recall back to when we were in our earliest days of education and we were doing science, the basics were that you had to have the hypothesis and materials and methods. We don't see that in the observations of the groups that are currently out there. There is no scientific.... There is nothing robust there. It has been identified by the European Food Safety Authority itself that it was biased observation and it's not science.

The only animal welfare true science that exists is that which has been done and supported by the sector and has been supported by the Canadian government. We need to bring more of this to the table. We need to show the world that we take animal welfare very seriously. We take the conservation management of our marine mammal resources as well as our fisheries resources very seriously, and we're willing to have third party validation about what we do and how we do it and let it stand for scientific scrutiny. That is the most important.

[Ryan Leef, Conservative, Yukon, YT]

You were probably pleased to see that the Conference of Parliamentarians of the Arctic Region which this year was held in Whitehorse, Yukon, made it clear in their conference statement—and of course it's the international community of parliamentarians who made it clear in that conference statement—that they encourage all governments to find ways to support the traditional products market and specifically identified seal in that conference statement as a way to do that.

Obviously, the Government of Canada and also international governments are aware that seal is a traditional product and a viable market for that is important. Some of these bands of radicals that are out there on the ice making a heyday for their own political agendas, that needs to start ending and it needs to start ending by way of regulation and enforcement.

[Dion Dakins]

I would agree 100%.

[Ryan Leef, Conservative, Yukon, YT]

Is my time up?

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Your time is up, sir.

[Ryan Leef, Conservative, Yukon, YT]

I'll have the MacAulay minute.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

I included Mr. MacAulay's comments in your time.

Thank you very much, Mr. Leef.

Thank you, Mr. Dakins and Mr. Thompson, on behalf of the committee for appearing before us today and making your presentation and taking the time to answer members' questions. We certainly do appreciate that.

We'll take a brief recess before we move on with our meeting.

Thank you once again.

[Dion Dakins]

Thank you again for the opportunity.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

I will call this meeting back to order.

As you're all aware, we are moving into clause-by-clause study of Bill C-555. I believe you all have a copy of the bill in front of you.

(On clause 1)

We have one amendment, which is by our colleague, Ms. May.

Ms. May, I think this is the first time we've had the pleasure of your company at our committee. I appreciate your coming here this morning. I'll give you a minute or so to explain your amendment.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Of course the reason you don't see much of me is that I'm not allowed to be a member of this committee, and I am summoned by the committee due to the round of identical motions that were passed in every committee last fall to impinge on my rights to present such amendments at report stage. I am sure this was a PMO directive to make sure I showed up and had my amendments routinely slaughtered before committee. But I'm hoping that this one is so reasonable that my colleagues on the Conservative side will agree that this is an amendment that will help the bill and help the process for people who live near the seal hunt.

I want to raise one concern, and I'm not sure it has come up in any of your hearings. A number of court cases have examined whether the limitation on observing and access to and being near seal hunts as they take place violates section 2 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, particularly 2(c) , in respect of the right to freedom of expression.

In 1988 the Federal Court of Appeal ruled in the International Fund for Animal Welfare v. Minister of Fisheries and Oceans case that the limitation on being near the hunt was, as they call it, the locus limitation impinges on freedom of expression as protected by paragraph 2(b) of the charter.

They've gone on to examine whether that was a reasonable limitation on freedom of expression. Our charter rights are not absolute. You can have a reasonable limitation.

This question of reasonable limitation was also taken up by the Prince Edward Island Court of Appeal in the Biroc case, which is sometimes known as the Watson case.

I flag this because I think unless there's very good and substantial evidence that one nautical mile is a reasonable limitation on freedom of expression, this bill may, and I think quite accidentally, end up creating additional litigation, which the bill will not survive.

My amendment is not going to address that entire problem, but will at least eliminate problems for people who happen to live near, or frequent rather, the area in which the hunt takes place. It's a pretty straightforward amendment. Obviously, it's not a long bill. The amendment would change paragraph 33(2)(e), which currently reads that there's an exception to this one nautical mile limit “to a person who resides on land within one nautical mile of a person who is fishing for seals”.

My amendment is really very sensible and straightforward, and it would then read, “to a person who resides on or frequents, in the normal course of their daily activities, lands within”....

That's an amendment to avoid criminalizing the behaviour of people who are habitually and for normal reasons in the area in which the hunt may be taking place, but don't own or reside on land within the one nautical mile.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Thank you very much, Ms. May.

As Ms. May stated, her amendment is that Bill C-555, in clause 1, be amended by replacing line 1 on page 2 with the following:

(e) to a person who resides on or frequents, in the normal course of their daily activities, land within

We'll go to questions.

Mr. MacAulay.