Fisheries Committee on June 15th, 2006

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'll just confine my remarks to a comment and then I'll pass it over to my colleague in a moment.

I want to applaud the department for engaging in communications and for preparing our embassies and our officials to deal with what really is a communications war. I think maybe we've been a little slow as Canadians to understand that when we're dealing with the American humane society, which really fuels off the emotion thing for fundraising, and we're dealing with Europeans, who are very much emotionally tied up in these things, we face a very intensive communications challenge.

As Canadians, we've been a little bit naive on this, perhaps, that if we're nice, and if we just make our case, it'll be all right. But we're dealing with a very emotional issue, and we've been badly beaten up. I'm glad to see we're ramping up or muscling up on the communications side to actually engage.

My own take is that the only thing more powerful than misinformation--or lies--is the truth. It has to be played skilfully, and I applaud you for ramping up the efforts to get the message out. Ultimately we certainly can do that. It's not something that Newfoundland can fight alone, and it's time that all of Canada stood behind this. Of course there are Atlantic and Quebec interests as well; we all need to work together.

We're hoping that as a committee we can make a difference by going over there. I personally believe we can communicate to the members of Parliament over there that there are some communications challenges there, and perhaps they will understand that there is a realistic approach to this but Canada's not backing down. We're hopeful that we can contribute to raising the awareness that Canada is not going to back down. We're going to defend our interests.

I applaud you for the efforts you're making in that department.

Thank you.

[Norbert Kalisch]

Thank you very much.

On your comment, I'll say two things. We've had comments from ministers and political figures in Europe to our heads of missions that, “You know, I kind of agree with you, but you'll never see me admit it; you can fully expect me to be out there in the ramparts to fight and speak for a ban.” That's just the way it is. It's that kind of political situation.

As I said, one needs to be realistic in terms of trying to change public opinion. It's good to inform ministers and technocrats and officials in Europe, but as long as public opinion is against this...and it's a freebie for them. These people, these countries who are threatening the ban, import practically nothing in terms of seal products. It's a very easy way to garner votes and to appear to be on the right side.

So you know, your battle, our battle--we're kind of fighting hard to stay in the same place; I wouldn't say we're making particular progress. That's why you need to attack them on the trade aspects. Or Mr. Simms talked about an open abattoir. Well, there are standards for abattoirs. Perhaps we could get the Europeans possibly to talk about standards, as we had done very successfully with leghold traps. We won that one.

That kind of approach would look at standards, at acceptable standards. If they sign off on standards, and we sign off on some, then something could possibly be done.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerald Keddy]

Mr. Manning.

[Fabian Manning, Conservative, Avalon, NL]

Thank you. I know our time is limited, Mr. Chair.

First of all, I'm pleased to see that the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade certainly seems to be supporting the Canadian seal hunt. It's important to our province, because a lot of times we feel that one of the barriers we have had over the years was in relation to promotion of our seal hunt.

One question I have to ask is that there is some consideration being given, I know in our own province, of banning the likes of Paul McCartney and company from protesting, appearing at, showing up on--whatever way you want to word it--the ice floes during the seal hunt.

I'm just wondering, from an international perspective, if the government or the minister took that action and did not allow it.... I mean, there are so many hunts that go on in the world, from my understanding, where protesters are not allowed. There's danger in being on the ice floes, interfering with the work--not just the livelihood, but the work--of the seal hunters themselves.

If that action were taken by government, how do you think that would be received internationally?

[Norbert Kalisch]

We're entering into the realm of speculation there.

I think Paul McCartney got divorced because of that, so I don't think he is coming back.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[Fabian Manning, Conservative, Avalon, NL]

That's it when you're on ice.

[Norbert Kalisch]

I'd like to hearken back to something Mr. Lunney said about the Canadian image, that we are very nice. We get thousands, in fact tens of thousands, of protest letters abroad, and that in fact is what the letters say, “Canada is so nice; why do you do that?” I would speculate that if those kinds of observers and so on were prohibited from observing, you'd make it worse.

[Fabian Manning, Conservative, Avalon, NL]

Worse?

[Norbert Kalisch]

Yes, in the sense that then you have something to hide, “But Canada is so nice, and they're making this bad thing worse.”

[Fabian Manning, Conservative, Avalon, NL]

Maybe we're too nice.

When I had asked the earlier panel a question in relation to our end product and the best market, they came back with the answer of Russia and China. But when I hear the discussion here, our efforts seem to be on the European Union and countries such as England and others.

We've seen an increase in the hunt over the past couple of years. Whether it can sustain another increase I guess would be determined by somebody else.

In relation to the market development in Russia and China, do you see that as a growth area in those countries, if we were to look at increasing the seal hunt in the next couple of years?

[Norbert Kalisch]

I don't know the nature of the market in Russia and China. I don't know what the Russians and Chinese do with the seal products. The Norwegians use the fur and turn them into fur products. I guess the Italians make...or these things end up as purses and other seal products.

As for China, I wouldn't want to speculate on what the main market in China or Korea would be. If you look at the trade statistics, I think you'll see Korea in there. There may well be other products that are parts of the seals.

[Raynald Blais, Bloc, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

[Inaudible--Editor]...Brigitte Bardot knows.

[Norbert Kalisch]

I can't really comment on those markets. You know, a total market of $10 million would obviously be important to the hunters and so on, but in the large scheme of things it's peanuts. To develop it more would cost a lot of money, and I doubt very much if, to sell $14 million of extra product...and I'm an old trade commissioner, so I have some idea about this.

I would think the promotion efforts for seal products in those two countries, especially since in one of them the economy is more or less state-controlled, would not lead to much greater sales, or I wouldn't think they would.

[Fabian Manning, Conservative, Avalon, NL]

If the minister or the department decides to increase the amount of seals killed next year or in the next couple of years.... As you say, even when we had the three-year management plan put in place there seemed to be some extra protests because of--

[Norbert Kalisch]

The greater numbers.

[Fabian Manning, Conservative, Avalon, NL]

Yes. But if the minister comes out next year and adds another 100,000 pelts, anticipate major protests again.

The whole industry seems to be on a very even keel and very positive at the present time. The increase in the dollars for the pelts themselves is going quite well now as compared with what it was even three or four years ago. There is some pressure being put forward by the local industry in relation to having some increases, but again, you're always dealing with public opinion, especially in Europe.

What would you anticipate if the minister did slightly increase the total allowable catch?

[Norbert Kalisch]

It's very difficult to tell. The latest wave was perceived to have...or whatever increase we've had in protests resulted from an increase in the allowable catch or take. That would lead me to think that the protests would continue, not necessarily increase. They would continue and use that fact.

On the other hand, who knows? If you look at what happened in the United States with the humane society, apparently they were giving indications of consumer and restaurant boycotts that were completely untrue. That hit the press. What does that do for their credibility in terms of next year?

[Fabian Manning, Conservative, Avalon, NL]

Good point.

[Norbert Kalisch]

What does Paul McCartney's situation do for next year? I don't know. We certainly would be ready in Europe, and would expect the same level of protest, with the same intensity and the same aggressiveness, as this year and last.

[Fabian Manning, Conservative, Avalon, NL]

You may not see very many couples on the ice floes any more. They'll be mostly individuals, I would think.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerald Keddy]

Thank you, Mr. Manning.

A final question to Monsieur Roy.

[Jean-Yves Roy, Bloc, Haute-Gaspésie—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

You work for the Department of Foreign Affairs, but I'd like to ask you a question on domestic affairs. This year, I noticed that Canadian environmental groups didn't support the environmental groups that came to testify here. To my knowledge, Greenpeace Canada didn't even raise a finger, nor did the big foundations like the David Suzuki Foundation.

Would it be possible to meet the Canadian environmental groups that are affiliated with the environmental groups that have come from outside the country? Our Canadian groups probably didn't budge because they're better informed. Would it be possible to meet them so they can help us on the international front and explain more to their foreign colleagues about what's going on here in Canada?

[Norbert Kalisch]

That might be helpful, but, to my knowledge, Greenpeace is no longer a Canadian organization. Actual control of Greenpeace is now exercised in Europe. The Greenpeace people are much more active in Europe than here. Even though Greenpeace was founded in British Columbia—I was there at that time—I don't believe its leaders will let Greenpeace Canada tell the Europeans that there's no problem in Canada. In fact, I believe that the problem is not as serious in Canada because Canadians understand the Canadian situation, which is not the case of the Europeans.

On the other hand, it might be more useful to send Inuit seal hunters to explain to them that this type of campaign does them a lot of harm, particularly to their ability to earn a living. That worked for leghold traps. I think that could work.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerald Keddy]

Merci.

Thank you very much to our witnesses.

Just in closing, we asked DFO this question, and we continually seem to skirt around it: is there any recourse through the courts? We have Greenpeace in Europe, humane societies, the World Wildlife Fund--perhaps the WWF is not the right one to pick on--and some other organizations spreading misinformation, deliberately misleading individuals for fundraising activities or for whatever purpose they may have.

Is there actually recourse for Canada through the courts? If Paul McCartney's saying that we club whitecoats when obviously we don't, or any individual or any organization is making erroneous statements, do we have recourse to actually challenge them and take them to court, based on damaging the industry and damaging Canada's reputation?

I'm talking a serious court challenge here, not taking someone to court to slap them on the wrist or over the fingers for $500 or $1,000, but for real money.