Fisheries Committee on May 12th, 2009

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

Thank you. In the context of the earless seal hunt, I would not like to see us embark upon a witch hunt. An awful lot of people most certainly have criticisms to make with regard to what has been done these last years because, obviously, it has been a failure. But a failure is not an end in itself; one learns from failures. And what I mean by learning from failure is that one realizes that some things worked relatively well and others not. In the end, European parliamentarians chose demagogy; so be it, but come on!

Given what has happened, do you agree with me that we must take the time to do a post-mortem of this whole file, of the way this affair played out?

[Gail Shea, Conservative, Egmont, PE]

Well, we're open to any suggestions, but we know what didn't work. I don't know how we would identify what would work. I certainly had an eye-opener when it came to how much money these special interest groups have at their disposal to carry out these media campaigns. They've been talking about banning the Canadian seal hunt for quite a while. They made it a mission and they've spent millions of dollars on this issue. We always analyze the actions of the department and take note of.... What we hoped would have been effective here has not been—I'll admit that—or we wouldn't have this ban today.

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

Allow me to point out, in part, what did work. For example, I well remember that when I got involved in this issue, in the beginning, people in Europe were saying that the resource was threatened, that the harp seal was a resource that was on the verge of disappearing. Just last year, there was talk of climate change.

However, thanks to our interventions — those of the members of this Committee —, I note that the abolitionists are no longer saying that this resource is in danger. We have done work together and, fortunately, the seal hunt file is one on which we are unanimous in our action, which is rather rare, especially these days. It has been a success, because this was part of the propaganda campaign: the resource was in danger, it was a massacre and the industry meant nothing to the communities. There is no more talk now about the resource being in danger, at least not as much, even in official statements. That helps; we have moved forward in this area. This means that everything that was done was not in vain. There have been concrete results.

However, as for the idea of a massacre and the economic viability of the communities, we unfortunately must recognize that it has been a failure. This is why I say that it would be appropriate and opportune, just as it is for the lobster fishery, to take the bull by the horns, if I may use that expression, and take the time to do a post-mortem with all of the stakeholders. An action plan might eventually flow from all of that. As you are aware, I have already put forward a few ideas in this regard and I have not finished; there will be more to come. The people who are getting in touch with me these days are providing me with very bright ideas. It is not ideas that are lacking.

What happened in Europe has, so to speak, awakened people. Do you agree with me on the idea of carrying out a post-mortem, in order for an action plan to eventually come out of this? What actions do you plan on taking, as minister of Fisheries and Oceans, in order to ensure that this take place?

[Gail Shea, Conservative, Egmont, PE]

Thank you very much for the question.

I have to say, the honourable member always has ideas, and we certainly appreciate getting them.

We have to do a post-mortem on what has worked and what hasn't worked. You mentioned specifically the number of seals we have and that our seal population is healthy, that we've done some public media campaigning, and that the notion has disappeared.

Well, I can tell you that the notion hasn't disappeared, because it was still being sent around by personal e-mail in the European Union when I was there. The special interest groups are still spreading that kind of rumour.

One interesting story that I had heard happened back in the 1960s, and it is still being used. It was about the guy from Prince Edward Island who was asked to pay $300 to torture a seal while the special interest groups filmed it. This issue didn't start yesterday, obviously. It has been ingrained in people's minds for a long time, and it's very unfortunate.

Anyway, what I can say is that we have a plan to go ahead. We're going to continue. There are some people now, the regulation writers, as a result of this vote.... There'll be regulation needed, and there will be the interpretation that will be used to write those regulations. We'll be looking at that to see if there's any way we can have some flexibility for the Canadian seal hunt, and then, of course, we have said we will take this action to the WTO. We know that's a long process, and we have said that to the European Union.

The other thing is the perception out there that the Canadian seals are only hunted for their pelts. More and more Canadian seals are being hunted for other reasons. There are other uses, other opportunities. That is an area that we need to pursue as a government to support the Canadian sealing industry; we need to find other uses and find new markets.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Thank you, Minister.

Go ahead, Mr. Stoffer.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Minister, I thank you and your staff for coming today.

I'm going to preface my remarks, because you're here, with four things. I was wondering if it's possible to get briefings or letters on them later.

First, how is the coast guard replenishment of the 12 midshore vessels going along?

Then there is the halibut concern, and the allocation for the recreational and the commercial sector. I had a briefing with Mr. Bevan, which I really appreciated, but can we get something on how that process is going?

Also, once you've had your meeting with the various ministers and stakeholders on the lobsters, is it possible for the committee to get an up-to-date synopsis of where we're going forward on this?

As well, I asked the parliamentary secretary last Friday about the fact that not one fish species has ever been listed under SARA. The great basking shark off the west coast is in extreme peril right now. I'm just wondering why that fish, for example, would not have been listed under that particular act, but that's for later.

I just wanted to show you something here. This is a beautiful, as they say en français, chapeau de phoque , a seal hat. Now, Minister, you're the Minister of Fisheries. Can you or the deputy minister or the ambassador, who's from Newfoundland, tell me by looking at it if it was caught by an Inuit person or a non-aboriginal person?

[Gail Shea, Conservative, Egmont, PE]

That's a very good point.

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

Of course not.

They have this exemption for Inuit seal products. If you're walking down the streets of Berlin or Paris or Amsterdam wearing this, no one's going to know the difference, so this ban is going to severely restrict our first nations people. I would hope that when you argue those points, you mention that this has been a traditional way of life for literally thousands of years.

I suppose that when one door closes, another door opens. If the EU is going to shut its doors to seal products, is the government looking at other markets--China, South America, or anywhere else--to promote and enhance seal products? One of the concerns I have is that the Americans, as you know, put in their own ban through the Marine Mammal Protection Act. We negotiated free trade deals with the United States, but we still have the ban. We're negotiating the EU deal right now, and I don't think we're going to be quite successful. As you said, after the deliberate lies by these groups about the seal products, I don't think we're going to be all that successful in getting this through. I'm hopeful, of course, but if we're not, we'll have to look at other markets.

The Ambassador for Fisheries Conservation said something privately to me about wanting to mention a certain process to the committee. Madam, I was hoping you could comment and then allow the ambassador to clarify something that he wanted to bring to the committee as well regarding the seal harvest.

I thank you very much for coming.

[Gail Shea, Conservative, Egmont, PE]

Thank you.

I just want to mention that when we did go to Prague, we did have a sealer from Iqaluit who came with us. He told the committee in no uncertain terms that if you impose a ban but you have an exemption for the Inuit, it's nothing but an insult to the Inuit. And he was very, very clear about that and very passionate about that.

Anyway, I'll turn the mike over to—

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

I just want to let you know that that hat was made by Odette Leblanc of Îles de la Madeleine. That was a little plug for Odette there.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I spoke with the honourable member when he raised the issue about the vote in the European Parliament. I responded and said that most people don't understand the dynamics of what's happening in Europe and how this came about, and they think it's Parliament only. That's all I've seen in the media. I've heard it from honourable members. They've raised it in the House of Commons. I've heard it in committees and in public. They have a basically wrong view.

Parliament in Europe is one entity. On September 26, 2006, the elected members of the European Parliament—785 of them who come from all countries, not representing the governments of their own countries, but elected generally—signed a declaration. The 425 members of Parliament who signed said, “We want the bureaucracy of the European Union to give us legislation banning seals.” Parliament was only one entity in this issue.

That's why our focus wasn't on Parliament only. And it wasn't a vote in Parliament that occurred in May that decided this. This was decided before the vote in Parliament. Parliament had never, in that period of time, changed its mind on this issue. They said to me, “You should have been here before September 2006. You should have been here several years ago. Parliament has made up its mind.”

So we focused not only on Parliament. We focused on the member states, because under the European Constitution, and even prior, when the Lisbon Treaty was not even in effect, they'd have more power, the parliamentarians, but the council can veto and they must agree for this to proceed.

So we focused on the 27 member states. Up until February of this year we had a blocking minority within that council. I went to 27 countries, we took scientists with us, we taught them about sustainability, and we told them how the products are marketed, from heart valves to oil capsules, you name it. We gave them all of this. The countries bought in and wanted to assist. There was a blocking minority.

In council there are 355 votes. Actually, out of 345 they must get 255 in favour. The big countries, the main four—U.K., Germany, France, and Italy—have 29 votes, Spain has 27, Poland has 27, right down to Malta, which has 3.

So we went and targeted all these countries to build a blocking minority. They needed to get over 70% of those votes. Up until March, there were 128 that they didn't have. They could only afford to lose 90, and they had 128. They only had 217 out of the 255 they needed.

So we pushed. The working group representing those countries all met. They couldn't get agreement. They met a second time with no agreement. And they still didn't get an agreement, so they passed it on to the next level and said, “We can't get an agreement among the council to get support for this issue”.

Then it went to the COREPER, which is the office of the permanent representatives, the ambassadors of those 27 countries that are stationed in Brussels that are the senior people there, and they tried to deal with it. They tried to get an agreement. There was tremendous pressure from parliamentarians and everybody else to say, “Come on” to those countries, “Let's get on side”. And there were several countries—I could name them—that stood firm, stood tall until the very end. And we needed one more country with 27 votes—there were six of them—to get a blocking minority. That fell short by one large country at the end because of the efforts to drive it through.

I knew Parliament would never save this issue. In 2006 they made up their mind. They said, “Give us the legislation.”

They have elections in June. Parliament must confirm the new commissioners after the elections. They may not be reappointed if Parliament doesn't agree. They didn't want Parliament's advice to be ignored. The commission could have pulled it off the table because the proposal they put forward on July 23 wasn't what they wanted, and therefore that's the element.

So--the final sentence--before the vote, the COREPER, the countries, had already agreed on the wording and this just went through a formality in Parliament, where Parliament all along, three years ago, would have voted the same way. We lost the country battle the week leading up to the vote in May. That's when the countries who were on the fence threw in the towel, and it put them over the hump with their 255 votes. That's the focus on this issue. It almost got there within a couple of weeks, and countries just fell off the train.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Thank you, Mr. Sullivan.

Mr. Allen.

[Mike Allen, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Minister, and the officials for being here today. I appreciate that.

I'll focus my questioning on a couple of areas. Number one is where we are, based on what's happened, and maybe more importantly, where do we go? I guess this next vote on the Council of Ministers is going to happen in June or the fall, but basically the European market represents about 30% to 33% of the market.

On the impact of what's happened here, how does that impact...? I understand quite a number of the product gets shipped out and is transshipped through Europe to other markets. Has there been an impact on the product going to other markets, based on this vote?

Is it going to be a matter that nothing will be able to go into the European Union, even if it has to be shipped to another country? I'd like to understand, are there any transshipment issues on this? Based on the vote of 550 to 49 in the Parliament, it suggests to me that it's really not that close. Having run a few elections, I know what it means to be close and not close.

Having said that, I think the misinformation campaign got way out ahead of us. What did we really expect we could have gained up to this point in time, realistically?

[Gail Shea, Conservative, Egmont, PE]

I want to respond to the transshipment question. At one point in time, we expected that the term “ban of transshipments“ would be in the text, but I believe it's not there. Our trade lawyers are looking at the wording of what actually was voted on and should be able to determine that. But at this point in time, we're hopeful that transshipments are excluded.

I will ask the ambassador to respond to the second part of your question about the votes, because there were two critical votes, and I remember a vote that happened before the parliamentary vote. It was a committee vote, and in talking to some of the parliamentarians over there, they led us to believe we were going to do okay in the vote. In talking to them after the vote, to find out what happened, they said that people changed their minds half an hour before the vote. They were astonished.

[Mike Allen, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Before Ambassador Sullivan answers the question, is this Council of Ministers' validation simply a rubber stamp, or is there anything we can be doing and should be doing, right now, assuming that this is going to...? Let's assume it's going to happen in June. Is there something we should be doing right now?

[Gail Shea, Conservative, Egmont, PE]

I will ask the deputy minister to answer that one.

[Claire Dansereau]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, for the question.

We cannot at this point determine if it's a rubber stamp. There is a school of thought that says there will be a rubber stamp approach to this and that in fact it won't even be voted on. It will be an annexed item not even up for discussion. There are others who say there is still room to move, so we are analyzing where we may go and what the next step will be. We're a little bit in the same state of mind as we were when we had the last conversation in camera in terms of strategy and how things are changing on a day-to-day basis. It may be worthwhile for us, if possible, to have another in camera discussion on negotiating strategy.

There is also a school of thought that the vote may not happen until the fall. That gives us even further room to move.

There's no simple answer to your question; both options are currently open.

[Mike Allen, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Based on the fact that Norway has now come out in support and has clearly indicated it is of the belief that this contravenes the WTO, can you say what kind of help...? It's almost like a motion that comes from the committee. What kind of help does that give us, and can we use those member states? I refer to the comments, the trade in seal products position of the Government of Canada, made by Mr. Beaupré on April 2, 2009, and one of the last things was:

Fourthly, the development of acceptable international standards should be done through dialogue among sealing nations....

What can those sealing nations do to help us make sure this doesn't happen or is in the best interests of Canada?

[Claire Dansereau]

We have been working with those sealing nations from the beginning on this, and we have shared information and we have shared our positions. Our position has always been that our nations should be the ones that determine how the seal hunt occurs and what happens with the product.

Norway coming out in support of a WTO action was not a surprise to us because we had been working with them on that, and it's been the position of this government that a ban would result in a WTO action. So we will continue to work with them. If it's possible that the WTO action is done together, we have a WTO person here who could speak to that question. I'm not sure if that's a route to go. It will be a matter of strategy. Again, if there is room for parliamentarians from Canada to go and work with member states between now and when the Council of Ministers votes, that's something for us to look at and for us to debate. If the decisions are signed, sealed, and delivered, and the deal has been struck between the council and the Parliament, then there would be no point in doing that. We're not sure yet where that will lie.

I can let Mr. Gauthier speak about the WTO actions.

[Mike Allen, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Yes, please, Mr. Gauthier.

[Gilles Gauthier, Director General, Multilateral Trade Policy, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade]

Thank you, Madame Dansereau.

Essentially, any WTO member can file a complaint against one of its members. In this case it would probably be two separate complaints, one from Canada and one from Norway. Typically the process is merged and one WTO dispute settlement process deals with the two complaints together, but technically they are two separate complaints. The process is merged, so we have one decision affecting the ban, because the ban is the defendant party. The European Union is the only defendant in this particular case. We'll have one decision against the European Union from two separate complaints.

[Mike Allen, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Is the market for seal products in Europe primarily Canadian? What constitutes the other market in Europe? Are there other countries that ship seal products into Europe that would have a vested interest in lining up with us to really hammer these guys on these WTO challenges?

[A voice]

Good question.

[Claire Dansereau]

The products are primarily Canadian. The second largest would be Greenland. There's also Namibia, but that's a different story. The people most affected by this, without a shadow of a doubt, are Canadians.

[Mike Allen, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Minister, you made a remark in your opening statement about reciprocal actions. You said “seemingly unlimited funds”, and then there could be reciprocal action. Is there a worry--I think I picked that up--from our lobbying and our work that we've done in Europe? Is there any concern by some of the member states that there will be reciprocal action and it will be severe?