Of course.
DFO interprets its mandate as explaining and defending management policies, not defending the citizens who engage in sealing. So is DFO the appropriate lead department? I'm not so sure. Yes, we have more than adequate management philosophy and practices. We run probably the best wildlife management killing operation in the western world, but defending that is not the issue. The issue is how do we stop people who are using arguments that have nothing to do with the operation of sealing, other than in a facile manner, but have to do with a desire to end killing of a particular species with, as I believe, the ultimate goal of extending beyond that species to others?
It appears to me that the main player should be the Department of Foreign Affairs. These activities are led by foreign groups, primarily American-based and British-based, and take place in foreign countries. They are attacks upon the respectability, reputation, and dignity of Canadian citizens, whether they be Inuit, Quebeckers, or Newfoundlanders, with the odd time some sealing taking place in other places. These are reprehensible, and something that citizens of a country should not have to accept.
Therefore it seems to me that the explanations of the management of the hunt are fine and dandy. We've seen how effective that is, but the Department of Foreign Affairs is in a much better position to argue with foreign governments as to the reprehensibility of their parliaments passing regulations on the activities of Canadian citizens when Canadian citizens are following the legal dictates of their government.