Fisheries Committee on Jan. 31st, 2008

[The Chair, Conservative, Fabian Manning]

I want to call the meeting to order and welcome everybody here.

Welcome, Ambassador Sullivan. We realize, Ambassador, that this is very short notice and we certainly appreciate the opportunity of having you come before the committee this morning.

At our meeting on Tuesday we were discussing some future business and somebody suggested that we get you here to have a chat about your travels and experiences in dealing with the seal hunt, seal harvest. I informed them that I knew you were in town, so we managed to arrange a meeting.

I want to say sorry to all the committee members, and especially to Mr. Simms for making him have to get up so early in the morning, but time is of the essence and Mr. Sullivan couldn't make it at any other time other than 8:15. We know that it bothers you, but that's all we can do about it.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

I'm not a morning person.

[The Chair, Conservative, Fabian Manning]

Mr. Sullivan, we throw the floor open to you to make some opening remarks.

Mr. Sullivan has to leave around five to nine, so what I had hoped to do was to give everybody an opportunity, at least each party an opportunity, to ask a question if we can.

Ambassador Sullivan, the floor is yours.

[Loyola Sullivan, Ambassador for Fisheries Conservation, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade]

Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of Parliament, for the opportunity to give you an update on what's happening on the seal file.

Last March my first involvement with it was when I was asked to take a lead on a delegation going to Europe, a delegation of sealers from different parts of the country, the Premier of Nunavut, and a minister from Newfoundland and Labrador—I think there was an election in Quebec at the time and it wasn't as practical for them to attend—and we had hosts from industry. We hit five European countries over a two-week period, in London, Brussels, The Hague, Vienna, and Berlin.

We had a series of meetings with a variety of parliamentarians, media, and senior officials in government, putting forth the Canadian viewpoints and trying to correct the inaccuracies that have been out there.

I consider that reasonably effective, concerning the grounding that the issue has in Europe. Some unbiased, fairly balanced media did emanate from that as a result, but by and large, some of the major media and tabloids just didn't show up and carried their own story of outdated videos.

Since that time it's been an issue on which I've spent considerable time. I've gone to a host of meetings—no fewer than a dozen, well into the double digits—interdepartmental meetings here in Ottawa, looking at strategies and trying to get resources to deal with this issue and to be able to advance it on the European scene.

Part of that involved working with the provinces. I met with representatives of the province of Newfoundland and Labrador, I met with representatives of the province of Quebec recently, and I meet with the Premier of Nunavut on Friday on this issue also, to be able to work together, pulling on one oar in this particular battle we have that's been grounded in Europe for at least two or three decades.

Within that, I've had a series of other meetings and interactions. I've met with like-minded countries to get support for our issue within the European scene. I met with parliamentarians and the most senior officials within the governments of Finland, Norway, Denmark, and Sweden to advance our cause, to get like-minded support on the issue.

Also, recently I went to some not so like-minded areas and met with parliamentarians, senior officials, and chairs of committees in legislatures. I just got back last Friday from Europe. I had 22 meetings in eight days, in Berlin, Paris, Copenhagen, Rome, and Brussels, with numerous people, on this particular file, from meeting with the committees that deal with it in Parliament to advisers to the chancellery to a variety of places in different countries.

It's been a very significant file that has taken up a reasonable amount of the time on the files I've been asked to deal with overall—that is, the broad spectrum of the fishing file generally, with different countries.

We do know that the European Commission received a request to deal with it at the European level. To give you an example, on April 28 last year, it was well advanced in Belgium. In fact, a lot of this advancing of legislation and resolutions being passed goes back two and three years. On April 28 last year, Belgium passed legislation banning the importation of seal and seal products. On October 23 last year, it was banned in the Netherlands and officially came into law. These are processes that have been very, very well advanced.

Our goal, certainly, looking at it, was to try to halt any other countries from moving on this ban. That's why the focus was on areas that had given indication that there would be a ban—Germany, for example.

Italy, Austria, and the U.K., for example, have said it's a European Commission matter and it should be dealt with on a European-wide level. That's why it has been handed to the European Commission.

Under the environment, Commissioner Dimas is responsible for the file. He indicated back on March 15 last year, in the plenary session of the European Parliament, that they don't have a problem with the conservation part of the issue but there have been conflicting reports on the humaneness aspect and they will look into that.

As a result of that, the European Commission commissioned EFSA, which is the European Food Safety Authority, a reputable, professional organization with veterinarians and expertise, to render an opinion on humaneness. There was considerable input leading into that process, I guess, from public stakeholders, particularly Canada. We responded to meet all the deadlines that were requested. They had a meeting in Parma, Italy. The first stage of that occurred in early October. There were other submissions that needed to be made by November 1. We submitted information to correct any inaccuracies and to update aspects of the preliminary draft report, which came out at the end of September.

EFSA rendered its verdict and issued its report. It was published on December 19. It's on the website and is pubicly shown. In the EFSA report to the European Commission, they indicated that many seals can be and are killed in a humane manner. It indicated that the rifle and the hakapik are humane methods of killing when used appropriately. EFSA gave a scientific report to the commission. It's not something the commission can hold up and wave. NGOs I think issued a news release on that, hailing it as a victory for them.

The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans indicated that it's a very decent report and one we accept, because it establishes what would be considered humane methods of killing. They made certain recommendations in that report, the very same recommendations on humaneness that the international veterinarian working group released in their report in November 2005.

One of the steps that's not currently in the regulations in Canada is the bleeding process. In the killing process, sometimes a seal is pretty well decapitated, with expanding ammunition, and the bleeding becomes a moot point. Through consultations in Atlantic Canada and in the Quebec regions--there were four series of consultations with sealers--there was agreement by sealers to advance this third step and include that. That's a process that has been moving for the past couple of years. It wouldn't have been practical to put that into the regulations if we started today, but it's practical to put it into regulations for 2009 and to use that as a condition of licensing in 2008, which will allow that framework to advance.

We will meet all of what are considered humane standards, as outlined in EFSA's report to the European Commission. But that's not the only report the European Commission is dealing with. They commissioned another report by a Danish consulting firm, and that would be the COWI report.

The COWI report was released as a preliminary draft, and we received it on January 10. On January 14, 2008, there was a validation workshop with stakeholders, one from each of the countries affected, and there was input followed and input gathered from provinces that made submissions to correct inaccuracies. There are a lot of gaps in the report. The final report will be released on March 1. It will not necessarily be public. It will be turned in to the European Commission, which commissioned that report, and it's going to deal with broader issues.

The EFSA report will fit into that, but it will deal with socio-economic aspects, legislative requirements, and broader aspects. That will be handed to the European Commission on March 1. Where they will go with that, and so on, who knows?

I don't want to take up all the time speaking, so I will stop.

I'll just make this last point. There are two dynamics in Europe. One is the European Commission, which is authorized to deal with this. The other dynamic is the European Parliament, and I'm not referring to PACE, the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly. The European Commission will deal with it as the authoritative body for the European Union.

Members of Parliament are elected at large in all the countries of the European Union--785 of them. They signed a resolution, too, some 450, the largest number ever signed, to advance this issue. A lot of that has been misinformed information. I met with significant groups in that parliament and their leaders on some of these issues, in addition to going to a whole host of other meetings, which I won't get into at this time. I realize that you want an opportunity to ask questions and probably advance some points you are interested in.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Fabian Manning]

Thank you, Mr. Ambassador.

For all the years I've known you, it's the first time I've known you to come in on time. You even have nine seconds left.

We're going to cut everybody a couple of minutes to give Scott the same as you.

Mr. Simms, you go ahead. You have seven minutes.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

You cut me down to size.

[The Chair, Conservative, Fabian Manning]

Yes, in order to fit everybody in. Seven minutes.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Ambassador Sullivan, for coming in. It seems as if you've been quite busy, to say the least, with an itinerary that's quite blocked. And I thought I was busy.

I have a quick question about the trade aspect of what has been happening in the past little while. When it comes to trade bans in Belgium, when it comes to talking about Germany, the Netherlands, is trade policy for the European Union handled by Brussels or is it handled by the individual states?

[Loyola Sullivan]

With trade policy, there's a DG of trade within the European Commission too. There are 27 member states at the European Commission, and trade is one. Commissioner Mandelson is the commissioner of trade. There is a directorate dealing with trade too.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

What is the effect, then, of an individual nation that says they will ban the importation of seal products? The European Commission is key here, obviously. I get mixed messages from them.

Essentially, what I'm saying is, is it going to happen or not when it comes to the European Commission?

[Loyola Sullivan]

I'll try to put a perspective on that one.

Number one, I think it's fair to say that trade is a concern for the European Commission and for member states on this issue. It's an issue that I've raised with individual member states, and I've indicated to them and to their leadership on this file that they have a responsibility too, as member states, to have an input on this decision, because it affects them as member states.

The EC would normally issue a directive on what action they would take, and they would expect member states to follow that directive, as happened in the 1982-83 ban on whitecoats and bluebacks.

We felt strongly on the trade issue, and I spoke with numerous ministers on this file. I felt that it's an issue that should get to a decision, to the WTO challenge. The Government of Canada served notice to the European Commission on July 31 last year that they were going to take the WTO process.

There was a panel convened, and that process has begun. The consultations on that issue occurred on November 14 in Brussels. We've challenged that at the WTO.

We're in the stage of a consultation process, which is an opportunity to be able to hopefully get to an amicable resolution. Probably 40% to 45% of cases that go to the WTO get resolved at that phase. Others don't, and a choice then has to be made to go to a full-scale panel.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

What are you hoping to get from the WTO process?

[Loyola Sullivan]

On the WTO process, number one, we hope to get an amicable resolution. I've always indicated, and I've said in public interviews and otherwise, that the resolution to this is an amicable one that doesn't prevent the opportunity for us to export our seal and seal products. What that will be, I can't tell you.

I've been at three sealing fora, and I've been dealing with sealers and dealing with everybody at the Fur Institute and anybody who has been around the file.

A similar thing happened back in the 1980s with leghold traps in Canada—

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

I remember that quite well--everybody was involved.

I guess what bothers me is that the individual states here may get to a situation of critical mass to force the hand of the European Commission.

[Loyola Sullivan]

I can update you on my efforts in that regard too. Hopefully it doesn't get to that stage.

We have targeted the ones that had resolutions or legislation pending. Those countries would be Germany, Austria, and Italy. Those three have pending legislation.

In Italy it went to the Italian Parliament. On December 21, the environment committee of the Italian Senate passed a resolution to advance this, which means that it could become law in Italy through one of two ways: one is the fast process, where all the committees and people agree and it gets fast-tracked, and the other process is a longer legislative process.

The day I was in Italy, Prime Minister Prodi spoke to the Parliament and called for a non-confidence vote, which did occur in the Chamber of Deputies and the Senate. The government now, technically, has fallen, and it may not advance this before the European Commission deals with it.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

No, I understand that. From what I understand, non-confidence votes are an annual event in Italy.

[Loyola Sullivan]

But this is a little--

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

But in this particular case, when it comes to Belgium or the Netherlands, which did pass the legislation, in your opinion, where did we go wrong? If you had to do it all over again, what would you have done differently?

[Loyola Sullivan]

I don't know the dynamics before March of 2007. This goes way back into the.... This was initiated in their Parliament in 2005. So looking back over the history of it, I think it was a file where advocacy would have probably been needed to counteract the NGOs infiltrating the minds of the public and the parliamentarians and pushing the issue; we would have probably had to mount a campaign over a decade ago to be able to counteract what's going on in the public forum over there.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

But you know, a lot of people say that we were acting ten years ago. I'm just struggling over where we go. It seems to me that something has to be done differently, because if you're looking at a decade long.... That's my problem, essentially, that we've gone so far, we've gone through these interventions, we've had these delegations. You can go back to the seventies when Frank Moores was around, and all have come down to this where we're struggling for these nations to realize that it's us who have a say in this and not the IFAW or Greenpeace who's king.

[Loyola Sullivan]

Yes. I think what I see on the issue, from my perspective, is that there were efforts made on numerous different bases but there was no lead on the file. There was nothing glued to keep it together. There was an effort here, there was an effort made another year, an effort made here. DFO doesn't do advocacy. That's not the role. It's to regulate, to manage that file. Who stands up and does advocacy to counteract what's going on in Europe?

The embassies have been very active in sending letters, in giving information, in counteracting those falsehoods within each of the particular jurisdictions there, but there was no glue to it, so when I looked at it and came back from Europe in May, I said we have to get some direction on this file; I'm coming to Ottawa. I wanted to have meetings with a variety of people. I met with numerous people from ministers to deputy ministers, assistant deputies. I went to numerous departments I have a concern with--International Trade, Foreign Affairs, the Privy Council Office, Fisheries. I met with a variety of people on this file and had a number of meetings with at least 30 in attendance representing interdepartmental aspects and said we have to pull this together. We've got to get some direction on this. We have to get cohesiveness, not an ad hoc appearance, and that's why I'm working with the provinces so that we all of us can work together on this file and see what's the best strategy now to move from here in this.

There were two things emanating from last summer. This has advanced really far. How do we stop it? There are two avenues I see. One is the European Parliament. I have met with three of the people on major groups. In particular, I could say one is a very strong ally who represents a group of 285 in the European Parliament. I met with other groups that might not be so friendly on the issue and tried to.... While 785 parliamentarians are not going to be experts on this, the leaders of the respective groups on this file are important.

So we'd be looking at a process of educating, providing information to them, two-way communications, because the European Parliament will have an impact. Even though they're not a structure that's a legislative and legal entity, they will influence this decision and the outcome of this. Even though the European Commission is handling it, the European parliamentarians elected by their jurisdictions to go to Brussels will have an input.

So there are two things we're working on. We're working in the EC with the like-minded, and going to the countries that are opposed to try to drive that point home and also deal with parliamentarians in other fora to be able to show them the truth and the facts and to make decisions not on emotions but to make them basically on science and based on sustainability and other factors that we've been putting forth.

[The Chair, Conservative, Fabian Manning]

Thank you, Mr. Simms, and thank you, Ambassador.

When I give seven minutes to someone, that includes the questions and the answers. So could you tidy it up a bit at the end? I realize that it's very informative, but at the same time, in the interests of time....

Mr. Blais, seven minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good morning, Mr. Sullivan.

[The Chair, Conservative, Fabian Manning]

Just a second.

We need more than one interpreter here this morning.

Mr. Ambassador, can you hear the interpreter?

[Loyola Sullivan]

Yes, I can.