Fisheries Committee on Nov. 23rd, 2006

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerald Keddy]

Please.

[James Lunney, Conservative, Nanaimo—Alberni, BC]

There are about half a million people there now. We've tried creating other means of keeping people there. Let's create a window factory. But they're hundreds of miles from markets. It doesn't work. We're trying to get that resource re-established.

These seals eat a lot of fish, about a tonne a year per seal. And that's only estimated by the feces. They examine the feces. As the chair correctly mentioned--I'm getting to your points, Mr. Chair--they estimate that the seals eat only about 20% of the fish. If they shared the blinking fish, it wouldn't be so hard on the resource. We're trying to recover that resource, the cod. I wanted to make that point.

I also wanted to make the point that on Îles-de-la-Madeleine, which my colleague Mr. Blais represents, they refer in French to these seals as loups-marin. There's an island called Île-de-loup-marin, which means “wolves of the sea”. They do eat an awful lot of fish. We're trying to see these stocks recover. We don't like to see animals wasted. That's why we're trying to develop markets so that they're used like other animals that are used for domestic purposes.

I wanted to address the issue of the hakapik. It looks brutal in the image that you have there, sir, and you correctly said, can we not do it some other way? It's not used extensively everywhere, but we do have an independent veterinary group that has examined this, and they have appeared here--and I have a background in zoology, so I paid close attention to this issue. The hakapik is actually the most humane way to kill these seals at this stage. The vets have examined this. It's better than a bullet, because often when you shoot a seal, if you miss the brain, they fall into the water and they're not dead.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerald Keddy]

It's not often, James. It's sometimes.

[James Lunney, Conservative, Nanaimo—Alberni, BC]

It's less humane than the hakapik, actually. It's only a small percentage that use the hakapik, but when they're on ice, and ice that's thinner and ice that's slippery, the fishermen will use the hakapik sometimes to save their own lives. If they're slipping, they can use it to pull themselves back up on the ice. But the veterinary evidence is that, frankly, that's the most humane way. The hakapik makes sure they're dead and they're dead quickly.

I wanted to address the swimming reflex, because I don't think that was adequately explained. The veterinarians are very clear on this. Concerning these nasty images of animals being skinned alive, you've all heard of the chicken with its head cut off and it continues to run. For ninety seconds, I think, up to two minutes after an animal is killed, it has a swimming reflex—they're swimming animals—and it looks like a swimming motion. So you can have an animal that is clinically dead, and the veterinarians have testified to this, but if you take an image during those few moments—the fishermen are under pressure because of time; it's a very limited harvest period—that's where some of these nasty images have come from. There has been very, very careful scrutiny of these issues.

So I wanted to make sure we got that point on the agenda here.

As far as disease is concerned, the grey seals in Nova Scotia are twice the size. There's a huge grey seal herd there now that was managed maybe for decades at about a 10,000 population and is now up to about 300,000, as I understand it. Colleagues may want to correct me. We're hoping to see cod and other fish re-established in some of these coastal areas, but the seals eat a tremendous amount of fish. As I say, they only eat about 20% of the fish. There's a concern among fishermen now that the feces from these seals is being eaten by the cod, resulting in a real problem with the cod having a parasite that they've picked up through a cycle from the seals themselves. In managing any ecological system with biodiversity, we have to consider this.

When we talk about this animal management situation, if it were.... We're talking about wolves; they call them “sea wolves” in French. If it were wolves jumping over the farmer's fence and tearing the viscera out of sheep in the fields of Austria, Germany, England—or Scotland, for that matter, where you have a lot of sheep, I understand—would you not have some call for people to manage the wolf packs in your own communities?

[Lasse Lehtinen]

We are not allowed to do that. We have a situation in Finland where we are not allowed to shoot the wolves that are doing what you just explained, because they are listed as an endangered species. Now we are in trouble with that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerald Keddy]

Do you have six million of them?

[Lasse Lehtinen]

Two hundred.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[James Lunney, Conservative, Nanaimo—Alberni, BC]

Gentlemen, as politicians I think we understand the sensitivities of this. For the record, I'd like to say that we understand that committees make recommendations that aren't always heard. We certainly have sensitivities here as well. In Canada, 80% of our population is now urban, and for those who represent rural ridings there's a challenge to explain rural practices and to put them in the right perspective. I guess we all share that responsibility.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerald Keddy]

Thank you very much, Mr. Lunney.

We have one more witness whom I want to hear from on our side. Mr. Stoffer, you just arrived. Perhaps you could speak directly to a couple of issues: the issue of the Independent Veterinarians' Working Group—I think we've dealt with the issue of skinning seals alive—and the issue of processing and food safety standards, if you could.

Perhaps I'll add one point before Mr.Stoffer begins, and I want you to think seriously of this. It's been said several times, but we have a change in population on the planet. It's gone from rural to urban. Canada is a huge nation, and we have 50% of our population in three major cities, so we are in the same condition.

I respect the member from Portugal; I have a farming background as well. People today think that food comes from a grocery store, that milk comes from a box, that meat comes wrapped up in the grocery store. They have no concept of harvesting or slaughtering practices. That's a great difficulty for us, with a very open and humane hunt.

A question was asked about the humanness of the hunt, and I'll ask Mr. Stoffer to enlarge on this, but the International Veterinarians' Working Group has said time and time again that this is the most humane hunt on the planet. I'll give you some instances.

Six million seals are harvested, and in 2005 there were 50 charges laid for violations in the seal hunt. Those 50 charges wouldn't all involve humane killing. Some of them could be that the individual on the front in Newfoundland, for instance, was using a .222 calibre instead of a .223, which we've asked them to change to because it's more powerful; for some of them, it could have been that they were there a day early or a day late, or that they had 50 carcasses on board when they were supposed to have 40. There's a whole myriad of issues that could be there.

On the issue of skinning alive, I want you to think about something. If you take an animal that weighs 40 pounds, which is a small dog, to 80 pounds—that's a large dog—and that has a mouthful of teeth, would you like to skin that animal alive? If you were so inclined.... It's ludicrous to think that any reasonable individual for any purpose would skin an animal alive. It's misleading by NGOs, who really aren't qualified to judge the hunt, because they're not licensed veterinarians and they don't understand it.

Mr. Stoffer, please.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for the opportunity.

First of all, I want to apologize to the chair, my colleagues, and our visiting delegation from Europe for being late, but as parliamentarians you know that your schedule can get you tied up sometimes.

I want to let you know that we in the New Democratic Party, the smallest party in the House right now, fully support the commercialized seal hunt that comes off our east coast. We have supported that for many years. I want to show that we are unanimous as a committee, that we believe the seal hunt is humane and that it is done sustainably. We have always argued on this side, along with my colleagues, that the hunt should be sustainable, market-driven, and located where there are economic opportunities for people in the outports and, most importantly, for our first nations and Inuit populations. You may recall 1982, with Brigitte Bardot and the mass seal hunts. We had an estimated two million seals then, and they were complaining about the hunt then. And also the issues surrounding fur trapping and so on had a devastating effect on our first nations people.

The United States has something called the Marine Mammal Protection Act, under which they do not allow seal products to come in from Canada. They allow those products to come in from Alaska but not from us. There is a bit of an irritant there that we've been trying to work on for many years.

It is true, as my colleagues have said, that independent veterinarians have said time and time again, and I won't repeat it, that this is a humane kill. But the reality is that when you go to a slaughterhouse, go hunting for a moose or a deer, or put down a dog that's been hit by a car, it is not pretty and it is not nice, and cameras can make any image look deplorable.

To be completely frank with you, politically, for me and my party, if we really want to be honest, if we opposed the seal hunt, we would probably increase our votes because the vast majority of Canadians live in cities. As my colleague said, that's where the votes are. We could tell Newfoundland and Labrador to take a hike. In Nunavut there is one seat. Why would we even care? But the reality is, as my colleague Mr. Lunney from the west coast said, we need to show solidarity with our neighbours and brothers and sisters in Newfoundland and Labrador and throughout. This is an opportunity for employment.

I would encourage all of you, when you have the opportunity, to visit these communities, not during the seal hunt, but to visit these outports and first nations groups on your own and talk to them. Find out what they go through in their daily lives. Moving to other parts of the country is simply unacceptable.

I am somebody who was born in Holland, had to move from Holland in the fifties because of the closure of the coal mines, and who lives in Atlantic Canada. The vast majority of our young people move from Atlantic Canada to other parts for economic opportunities. Like my colleague Mr. Keddy, who is from the south shore, from my neighbouring riding, I don't like that. We like the opportunity--there is a resource that's healthy. We have an opportunity to utilize that resource as we do other fishing products in the ocean.

On the question of skinning alive, I can assure you that I've seen the seal hunt on many occasions and I have yet to witness one myself. Is this to say that it's never ever happened? No. It may have happened once or twice or several times. The reality is that if you put a whole bunch of hunters out there, there's bound to be one or two of them a camera will catch not doing it properly. Is that the image of the entire hunt? No.

First of all, I want very briefly to thank you for coming, hearing our points of view, and exchanging views. I know we'll have more time after lunch. I can assure you that politically the easiest thing to do would be to just stop the hunt. We'd win votes and we'd be happy campers. But the reality is that it will have a devastating effect on the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, and we simply cannot allow that to happen. If you start with seals, then you'll move on to something else and something else again. This country was built on hunting, trapping, and utilizing of the resource.

There are many people out there who don't like the idea that we take animals or fish out of the natural environment for our own consumption. They simply don't like that. They don't like the idea of seeing somebody in a seal coat or a fur jacket. As someone who has lived in the Yukon for nine years, I know that is part of our tradition. When you visit the far north and you see the Inuit people and they see a National Geographic special and they see polar bears and walruses, they sit around their table and say, hmm, yum, yum, what's for lunch? Most Canadians look at that and say, oh, those are nice. They have no concept of what wildlife means in terms of consumption and basing country food in terms of their sustenance.

If we cancelled the seal hunt , that wouldn't just have a devastating effect on the outport communities on the east coast; it would also have a devastating effect on our Inuit people and our first nations people in this country. It wouldn't stop at the seals; it would go on to everything else.

We encourage you to have a pragmatic look at this. Don't necessarily take our word for it, but please go to the outports, go to the Inuit communities, and sit and talk to them. I think you'll find that very helpful in your deliberations.

Again, thank you so much, and I apologize for being tardy in my delivery here.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerald Keddy]

Thank you, Mr. Stoffer. We appreciate that you kept to your five minutes. You went over by 30 seconds. You're the only member to stick to the time limit so far.

We have one more member. The hour is getting late here. I know you may have some more questions. I'd like to ask our European delegates whether they have another question.

I know we wanted to discuss fish stocks as well, and especially, I'm sure, transboundary stocks. We can certainly do that over lunch.

If there are no questions, I'll ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries, Mr. Kamp, whether he would like to have a final comment here.

[Randy Kamp, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I will likely be the second person to stay within the timeline.

I want to welcome our guests. I have appreciated your questions—the ones I was here to hear. You've come, I think, with a certain amount of objectivity, wanting to base your opinion and view of things on the facts, and we appreciate that.

In summary, I think, although we've heard a fair bit of passion from each of the members, which I share.... I'm also from the west coast of Canada, where no seal hunt takes place, but I was with the committee when it visited sealers and was near the places where it happens, and it gave me a different perspective on things from what I might otherwise have had. I encourage you to try to have that experience as well.

I think there are probably three facts that we, in summary, would want to make for you to take away.

One is that the seal population is not endangered. There is no evidence that it is. It's not regulated by CITES, the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species. There are almost six million harp seals in Canada, and there could be more. So that is not part of the issue.

Secondly, harvesting methods are humane. That's always been the conclusion of the Canadian and American veterinarian associations, whether you go from the 1986 Royal Commission on Seals and Sealing or to more recent studies by the independent groups. I know our researchers would be happy to provide copies of all of those to you if you haven't seen them already. But clearly, as has been said here, the harvesting methods are humane.

Thirdly, something that I think has been undervalued by critics, but hopefully not by you, is that sealing comprises a significant part of the income of sealers and is a significant part of the social and cultural fabric of many of our coastal communities, and we ought not to undervalue it. The seal hunt is very important to Canada, and it's important to us that it be understood as fully as possible and as objectively as possible. You can help us with this, and we appreciate that.

I look forward over lunch, if not now, to questions about fish stocks. Concerning the northern cod, for example, Mr. Dover, this committee in a previous Parliament did a study on the northern cod. In fact, we were trying to answer the question why, since we had a moratorium in 1992, we have not seen a significant recovery on the offshore of northern cod. In fact, our study concluded that it may be a maximum of 2% of the biomass it had in the 1960s or 1970s, when it was near its peak. Why, since we have not basically fished it domestically since 1992, have we not seen a recovery?

That report was published by this committee in 2005. You might want to take a look at it, if you haven't. I'm sure we'd all be glad to discuss some of the things we learned and some of the things we need to learn still, based on that study and other things we've done.

Thank you again for being willing to come and to have this interchange. We have appreciated your questions and look forward to being able to answer them in a more detailed fashion. Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerald Keddy]

Thank you very much, Mr. Kamp. Thank you for sticking within the time limit.

I'm sure we have some more questions from our European colleagues, and I'd ask you go ahead.

[Gary Titley]

On a completely different subject, if I may—

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerald Keddy]

The finest kind.

[Gary Titley]

It's probably too late, but could I give notice, in effect, to—

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerald Keddy]

We can overrun a little bit here, if you have the time. I don't know what your agenda is.

[Seán Ó Neachtain]

We're meeting another group at 11 o'clock, the Magdalen Islands, then we have the lunch afterwards.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerald Keddy]

Yes, we will meet for lunch.

Go ahead.

[Gary Titley]

A notice of questions, in that case.

I'd like someone to explain the issue surrounding the EU quotas for cold-water prawns and the problems that creates for Canada. Maybe the commission can answer that one, as well.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerald Keddy]

Are you saying cold-water prawn? I didn't quite hear.

[A voice]

Shrimps, prawns.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerald Keddy]

Cold-water shrimp.

Gerry, as a Newfoundlander from the shrimp fishery, would you like to touch on that? Have you a comment?

The quota limits on cooked and peeled shrimp, we look at—I'll just speak quickly—as being extremely unfair. They're not based on any quota restrictions on the resource. We look at them very much as a non-tariff trade barrier.

Does somebody else want to enlarge on that, the parliamentary secretary or Mr. Byrne? Mr. Byrne.

[Gerry Byrne, Liberal, Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL]

The background to the issue is that the commission has the right to impose a tariff. A 20% tariff is imposed on imports of cold-water cooked and peeled shrimp into the European Union, but the European Union has decided to provide special exemptions and a preferred tariff rate for a certain amount of shrimp to enter the EU at a reduced tariff rate of 6%. The amount of quota that can enter the EU under the preferential rate has been increasing in the last few years as a result of discussions between Canada and the European Union, obviously indicating there is some merit to increasing the supply. The U.K. is the primary market for cooked and peeled shrimp; however, many European countries enjoy the product.

A 20% tariff does create a very difficult situation for Canadian producers. The vast majority of cold-water shrimp in the world today is from Canadian producers. The tariff rate does impose a somewhat large burden. We have been asking the European Union to consider increasing the amount that can enter the European Union at the reduced rate of 6%. All countries can compete, Canada included, for what I think is currently 7,000 tonnes that can enter the European Union at a 6% rate. The interesting note for parliamentarians—the calendar year being the beginning of the time period, January 1—is that 7,000 tonnes is normally filled by around January 15 of each year.

The European Union is a large consumer of cold-water shrimp. We feel very strongly, and we've been trying to make the case, that from a consumer point of view it would be extremely beneficial to have that either enter the European Union tariff-free or a much larger percentage enter with the lower tariff rate.

For example, as a result of the tsunami, the European Union has allowed a lot of warm-water shrimp to enter the European Union duty-free, tariff-free, as a constructive measure to support victims of the tsunami.

Again, it would be a strong move for consumers in the European Union to have access to this product at a lower tariff.