FISH Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON FISHERIES AND OCEANS

COMITÉ PERMANENT DES PÊCHES ET DES OCÉANS

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Wednesday, April 14, 1999

• 1540

[English]

The Chairman (Mr. Charles Hubbard (Miramichi, Lib.)): We are calling our meeting to order to resume our consideration of the sealing issues under Standing Order 108(2).

Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands, Ref.): I have a point of order, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Yes.

Mr. Gary Lunn: I have a point of order and it's quite important that we deal with it before we proceed.

The Chairman: If it's not an issue that has to be decided—I'm not sure we have a quorum just yet to make any decision. If you'd like to bring it to the table—

Mr. Gary Lunn: I'd like to raise it here for a minute and then we can.... I'm at the discretion of the chair, here. Mr. Chairman, I noticed my colleague, the parliamentary secretary, brought in a motion yesterday bringing P.E.I....which I supported, although we didn't have notice. We're dealing with seal issues for three days—yesterday, today, and tomorrow. When I received notice of the meeting, it said sealing groups were to be determined. I assumed—and I guess I should not have—that we would have had the Canadian Sealers Association and the Seal Industry Development Council for this very important development so that we'd have a very balanced presentation.

Yesterday we had Dr. David Lavigne, as you know, who I would suggest is de facto representing IFAW. We've got IFAW again today. To have nobody from these groups is absolutely unacceptable for a balanced discussion on this. So I would move that we invite them early next week as part of these three days and see if we can get them in here on Tuesday or Wednesday so that we are well-balanced on all sides of the issue. With respect to the Canadian Sealers Association, it would be Tina Fagan. I think they would also have expressed an interest to come.

The Chairman: You see, Mr. Lunn, our regular clerk is not here today, but he did make an effort to get those groups here without success. Tina Fagan will be leaving Newfoundland this afternoon and will be here tomorrow. So we will get representation from the sealers' association. The second group you mentioned was the—

Mr. Gary Lunn: I think Tina Fagan actually represents both. So if Tina Fagan is on the agenda tomorrow....

The Chairman: Tina should be on a plane by now to meet with us tomorrow.

Mr. Gary Lunn: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Chairman: Mr. Stoffer.

Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NDP): Mr. Chairman, this is certainly not in any way to tell you how to do your job, but yesterday—and I mean this in all respect—the language became kind of colourful. I would hope, as chairman, you'd calm down that kind of language just a bit. I know emotions run high sometimes, but it certainly doesn't further the debate.

The Chairman: I would agree with that, and the person involved has been cautioned directly by me. As you noticed in the meeting yesterday, I did make an attempt, but other than to have him taken from the room, it would have been most difficult.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: No, no, he's got to stay here. I love the guy.

Mr. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.): I've got the two of them right here.

The Chairman: It is a very special meeting we're having today in terms of our newest area, Nunavut, being represented, and we're very proud today to ask to come to our table—and I hope that no member would object—both Senator Adams and Senator Watt. We want to welcome them. As you see, our good member from Nunavut, Nancy, has good support today and she certainly—

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Congratulations.

The Chairman: The first witnesses will be from the Labrador Inuit Association. Mr. Edmunds' chair is vacant. Mr. Andersen, I guess, will be leading that. We'd like to mention that we hope you will keep your presentations to 10 to 15 minutes at the very most. If you haven't appeared before committees before, I'll just explain that after you make your presentation, we go around the table and various members will have an opportunity to bring matters to your attention or to ask you questions. It starts with the Reform, then goes to the Bloc, and there's a routine way of doing it. But we certainly want to try to keep our questions and answers as concise as possible. We have a period of time here for the two groups from 3.30 p.m. to 4.30 p.m. this afternoon.

Mr. Anderson, you may start.

• 1545

Mr. Mervin Andersen (Labrador Inuit Association): Thank you, Mr. Chair. I must say this is new for me, but I'm glad to be here.

Mr. Chair, hon. members, ladies and gentlemen, there is probably not a lot more for LI to say about this issue than what has already been said. However, much of what has been said apparently has not reached the interest of those who deal with these issues at the federal level, or has been ignored. LI made a presentation on sealing—excuse my pronunciation of this—to the Malouf inquiry on seals and sealing in which it maintained that Labrador Inuit had an aboriginal right to harvest seals for both subsistence and commercial purposes.

Seals have always been an integral part of Labrador Inuit economy prior to the ban on seal products, especially marketing and harvesting. Labrador Inuit have had the basis of their economy taken from them with the closure of the northern cod, Atlantic salmon, and seal fisheries, and a serious decline in fur trapping through no fault of their own. Labrador Inuit have never been compensated for loss of their cod or seal fishery, while other fishers through Atlantic Canada have been handsomely compensated.

Since the ban on the seal fishery, the federal government has allocated financial support to the Canadian Sealers Association to enhance marketing and processing of seal products. None of this funding has ever been specifically earmarked for Labrador Inuit and not one cent has ever come down and been spent to assist the enhancement of the sealing industry within the Labrador Inuit region. Further to that, Labrador Inuit sealers are not members of the Canadian Sealers Association.

The Labrador coastal region, in which Inuit live, is the only region in the province that can successfully harvest adult harp seals during the late fall, when the seal fur is in its prime and the fat is three to four inches thick. October through December has been a traditional Inuit adult harp seal fishery period; however, due to the ban on the harp seal pelts and the absence of financial support to revive markets and diversify harvesting and processing methods, our sealing industry is basically dead.

Labrador is striving to revitalize the Labrador Inuit sealing industry, but without some financial assistance the task is near impossible. LI understands that markets for seal products are on the rise. The Labrador Inuit region has adult harp seals in prime abundance; however, Labrador Inuit need federal support to upgrade existing processing facilities and secure markets for seal products. Inuit should be funded the same way the Canadian Sealers Association was and still is funded today.

LI's submission to the Malouf inquiry into seals and sealing includes extensive detail respecting Labrador Inuit dependence on seals and sealing for subsistence and economic purposes. The important issue is the fact that federal dollars have come down from Ottawa to benefit the Labrador Inuit since the ban on the seal fishery, the fur trade decline, and the closure of the salmon, char, and cod fisheries.

Inuit weren't rich, but neither were they as dependent on government programs and funding as they are today. After their summer fishery ended, a fall fishery began, followed later in the fall by a fur trapping season. In the spring there was another short seal harvest that led them into the fishing season, and so the cycle continued. It's as I mentioned. This has all been carried through before. The report is here. Rather than going through it now, anybody who wants a copy of it can certainly have it.

I'd just like to thank you for the chance to speak and once again bring our concerns forward, because the concerns I bring forward are the concerns of the people.

• 1550

Seals are very abundant. There are not only harp seals, but we also get what we call the jar or ringed seals. They are just different species of seals. We get a lot of rangers and dotters, which of course are the major species of seals that do a lot of damage to char and salmon.

I heard it said this morning that seals are going up the rivers, and those are the seals that are going up the rivers. They actually live in the rivers. At one time we could kill dotters and get paid for the jaws, as a sort of bounty to cull the herd, but that has since gone with the closure of the seal fishery, so those seals are very abundant.

I can't speak for the island portion of the province, but in Labrador they are very abundant and they are very visible. When you put out your nets you have to tend your nets literally non-stop or the seals will take them. They're very smart animals. They know not to come out when people are around. When you leave, they come.

We notice this because we live with it, as fishermen. I've fished for years, and we have evidence of that. We knew salmon were being taken from our nets, so we just hid and waited. We could see the seals approaching after we left.

Those seals are just as dangerous to the salmon and char fishery as the harp seal is to the cod fishery. They live in the rivers and go right up into the fresh water.

I think I'd better stop there because I have a time limit.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Andersen. I think what we'll do—

Mr. Mervin Andersen: I could go on forever because it's in my blood and we've been talking about it for years. I'm open for questions if anybody wants to ask questions.

The Chairman: Mr. Andersen, I think I'll hear both presentations and then we'll ask our questions. Do members agree with that?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chairman: Mr. Nobel, are you leading the group? Your name is first on the list.

Mr. Jim Nobel (Executive Director, Nunavut Wildlife Management Board): No, sir. I'll defer to Mr. Kovic for the opening statement.

The Chairman: Okay. It might be best to introduce your people too. The camera will pick them up individually and everyone will know we are here and what we're doing.

Mr. Ben Kovic (Chairman, Nunavut Wildlife Management Board): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'll introduce myself first. My name is Ben Kovic. I'm the chairman of Nunavut Wildlife Management Board. I have a history of facing the panel in Iqaluit, which was a very successful way to learn from each other. We'll probably understand better where we want to go before the day is over.

With me is the executive director for the wildlife section, Mr. Jim Nobel. From the new Government of Nunavut, Department of Sustainable Development, we have Ken Toner and Larry Simpson. We also have Jerry Ell from the Qikiqtaaluk corporation, and Henry Copestake is a staff member from Sustainable Development.

We have limited time to give our presentation. You will see clips on the television screen, and I'm going to take more time to explain that presentation to you, even though, as Mervin says, I could speak all afternoon about seals.

• 1555

Since the presentation is quite self-explanatory, I would rather have that explained to the audience.

We are pleased today to be given the chance to speak to you. The reason I say that is because we are the first delegation from Nunavut government. When you were in Iqaluit, we were part of the Northwest Territories. Since we have had the transition to the Nunavut government, we are officially from Nunavut Territory.

It has been very pleasant in the last 14 or 15 days in our new home called Nunavut. Everybody is running all over the place trying to get settled in; trying to get office space and homes. It's been very exciting, especially the Nunavut Day that was celebrated so tremendously. Every person I met was smiling with excitement. This is where I learned Nunavut has its own special talent. I knew it but never thought I could witness it, but I did that day. It's a very pleasant and comfortable feeling to be part of Nunavut. You will always be welcome to Nunavut. We're still pure Canadians, so don't leave us out of anything.

This is also our first time giving a presentation to you. We would like to remind the members that under the land claims we have an article that the Nunavut Wildlife Management Board is responsible for. Some of you have probably read article 5. Under the article, the Nunavut Wildlife Management Board is the main instrument of wildlife management and the main regulator of access to wildlife within Nunavut settlement area. That is very important.

With its exclusive wildlife management jurisdiction, the NWMB has exclusive decision-making authority with respect to establishing, modifying, or removing quotas on all species, and other restrictions on wildlife harvesting in the Nunavut settlement area. In addition, the NWMB has exclusive discretionary decision-making authority. Those are the main authorities NWMB has under the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement.

As I said, I don't want to spend too much time talking about it, so I can explain what's happening in Nunavut. In closing, as most of you know, I am very supportive of conservation. I have voiced this to other groups, such as FRCC, on conservation of fisheries. I'm also very supportive of conservation of other species, such as seals and other marine mammals.

All species within the Nunavut settlement area have to be utilized to the extreme. That means to me as long as they're sustainable. The question always asked by different people is, what is sustainable? What is that question? Maybe I don't have the answer either. What is sustainable?

We have to know the number of species out there before we can determine what is sustainable. Under my culture, sustainable means as long as a species can daily give me what I want and be there every day. To me that is sustainable. As long as I, as a hunter or an aboriginal person—not being a scientist, but being an outdoor person and being with the animal every day—don't see any decline in the stock, to me, I'm harvesting sustainably.

• 1600

That's the way I see it. That's coming from a non-biologist. But from a biologist's point of view, “sustainable” means you have to know what's out there before you can harvest a number of species. I guess that's what I'm trying to say. You have to harvest animals within sustainable yield, no matter what they are. It could be polar bears, or small crustaceans, and so forth.

In closing, I would like to thank this committee for giving us a chance to give you a presentation, and also give you a chance to see what Nunavut has been doing. This is not new. It's the same as what Mervin was saying earlier. To us in Nunavut, this is not new.

My executive director, Mr. Nobel, before he came to our area, was sort of a co-founder of seal strategy, way back in the early or mid-1970s or 1980s. So this is not new to us. It has been ongoing, but it really never got off the ground because of other uncertainties of marine mammal regulations and the lack of funding for economic opportunities, feasibility studies on markets, and so forth. It has gone very slowly, but with the new Nunavut government in place, we would probably like to see this in a rapid change. We would like to be independent and self-determine our own economic opportunities in Nunavut.

So, again, I would like to thank you for giving me and the people who are in front of you today an opportunity, and as the chairman says, we'll wait for the questions at the end of the presentation.

Thank you. Qujannamiik.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Kovic.

You have a short presentation here with...?

Mr. Ben Kovic: I will give the presentation to Larry Simpson and Ken Toner.

Mr. Larry Simpson (Sector Development Specialist, Renewable Resources, Nunavut Wildlife Management Board): Thank you, Ben.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and to everybody here, hello from Nunavut.

We're going to do a little show and tell about sealing in Nunavut, and we're also going to touch on some fundamental questions about Inuit and sealing and relationships between man and nature.

As a point of departure from yesterday's session, I think we're going to move away from population estimates and sustainable yields, to some extent, for purposes of this power point. We want to show what we're doing with our strategy, and right through the strategy, of course, sustainability and whole use of the animal. All these things are fundamental themes. We'll see that coming up in different slides.

In Nunavut, we hope to build on the wisdom of the past and also have some bold new visions for the future. The name of our department is Sustainable Development, and by “sustainability” we mean sustainability in terms of economics and the environment and people and communities. There's a major focus on community development in our strategy in our department.

The minister of our new department is Peter Kilabak from Pangnirtung. You'll probably be hearing from him in the future.

What we have on the screen right now are the elements that are basically captured in slides coming up. We'll talk in more detail about the supply side and conservation, markets, business, public relations, and education.

• 1605

We're watching this in English. There are copies on the table for people to pick up later.

The Nunavut sealing committee is comprised of a number of groups in Nunavut, right from the resource management side to the cultural-political side and women's rights, and we work together on this. We have a consensus approach to all aspects of the strategy.

The next slide contains our mission statement. It sums up what we're trying to do. Sealing is pretty small scale in Nunavut. We harvest only about 20,000 ringed seals a year and only a few hundred harp seals. Ringed seals are the preferred kind of seal for food purposes, and probably also for skin, for making clothing, and so on.

We want to see sealing preserved as a means of Inuit cultural expression and economic livelihood, as an option to limited wage employment opportunities, which will help independent hunters finance the growing costs of subsistence hunting for their families. We'll see more on this a bit later, how cash income to the hunters translates to food value, food on the table, and also nutrition from the seals. Seal has been proven to have extremely high nutritional value.

Objectives, key words, and themes, right through the strategy, are sustainable use, use of the whole animal, humane harvesting, increased income for hunters, and greater market demand, which will basically feed back in production and viability, and business opportunities too. In many respects, our objectives are not too much different from the objectives of other sealers in other jurisdictions.

On the supply side, when the market crashed a number of years ago, partly because of the activities of animal rights groups, which didn't target Inuit but nevertheless crushed markets everywhere, the hunters had no place to sell their skins. The Hudson's Bay Company stopped buying them; the co-op stopped buying them. That had a major impact on hunters, who got a lot of their cash income from selling skins as a by-product of the hunt, and that affected their ability to hunt and to put food on the table. It also affected people in other ways: culturally, socially, and nutritionally.

So about four years ago, we tried to kick-start the sealing industry again by coming up with a fixed price of $30 per skin—just one price. This was successful. It sort of rekindled interest in sealing. It made it viable again.

At this point, we're in the process of introducing a grading system, to basically fix the quality of the skin to the price that's paid.

Also, at the supply end, we're looking at a family unit here. The hunter kills a seal and brings it home, and the animal's skin is prepared for sale. To some extent, the skills have survived, but there has been some need to offer workshops and so on, where the older women would encourage the younger women to hone those skills again. We're working at things like that, basically to increase the production levels beyond what the hunter can get done now.

This is the fur price program again. This is the fixed price, which has resulted in a production of up to 7,000 ringed seals per year. That works out to about $200,000 per year in cash, which brings a food value of about $10 million. It has been a very cost-effective program. Because the skins are selling for about $30 at the auction in North Bay, it just about breaks even. Obviously we have some administration costs and so on.

• 1610

It benefits over 1,000 hunters, some of them almost full-time and some of them part-time, but all of whom put the food on the table. The programs help to make outpost camps more viable. Outpost camps are alternatives to community lifestyles where people stay out on the land all year. This is one way people out there can make money, by hunting seals. Also, of course, it maintains other things like traditional knowledge.

On the market development side, we're working with advisers in the fur industry and so on. We're trying to access markets and the fashion industry through fur shows and other venues. We have an annual high-fashion collection that comes out in Montreal, and that travels around the world. We advertise internationally in Redbook and, again, at the fur harvester's auction, which brings in buyers from around the world, including China and Europe.

This year, 1999, is the special Nunavut year. We're having some special initiatives in Montreal. This year there's going to be a special salute to Nunavut, a tribute to Nunavut by the fur industry.

We're going to have arctic foods there and northern models. The gala, which is the introduction of all the new fashion collections from around, will have an opening by Inuit performers. We'll have a booth there, a press conference with a prominent Inuit speaker, and we'll introduce a new book we've been working on that explains the relationship between Inuit and sealing. We'll do some more visits to schools. We've started a program where Inuit travel to a few schools in different areas and talk about Inuit and sealing. That's been very successful in terms of public education and public relations.

The northern market and the tourist market have been found to be among the strongest, so we're maximizing those to the extent we can. We're promoting products as functional and attractive, linked to the traditional hunting culture and so on. Also, northern markets create new economic opportunities in production, design, and modelling. We're working on improving access to dress skins. We don't have a tannery in the north at this time, so we want to make dress skins available at the highest quality. And we're facilitating trading and production efficiency in costing. We have a growing relationship with people outside Nunavut. It's a mutually beneficial relationship in terms of design and other components.

Business development. We're working on the northern market. We're working on production in design workshops and exchanges between Nunavut and outside, we call it, including northern photo shoots and models. We're assessing trade opportunities. We're looking at the feasibility of using by-products from seals in different ways. And we're looking at partnerships with the private sector. Basically the government continues to cut the risk of new ventures in what is still a high-risk area.

Some of our public relations strengths relate to some of these issues here. We have popular support from the southern public, mainly because we are small scale and non-industrial. It's a subsistence-based hunting style for ringed seals. We use humane harvesting methods. Skins are by-products of the hunt, and there's a strong cultural and social basis for the hunt. This has been the case, and to the extent that we try to deviate from this, even if we use by-products in a sustainable way, sometimes it's difficult because it's seen to be non-subsistence related. So we have a bit of a dilemma there.

• 1615

Educating the public. As I mentioned, we're working on a video, a sealing book, and a grading manual to implement a grading system for buying skins to tie quality to price. In terms of brochures and labelling, here's an example of the kind of labels we use in our high-fashion collection. It says “sustainable use in a subsistence economy”.

Media relations and public presentations including schools-we have found that to be useful. We can only do so much there because it's very expensive.

Overcoming trade barriers. This is a fundamental aspect of our strategy, which we probably will need help on. We're not looking for a lot of financial assistance or subsidies, but we need help in removing trade barriers so that we can access markets. In the U.S. we have to deal with the Marine Mammal Protection Act. We have found that the U.S. market is probably our best potential market for seal coats, for example. The Americans who go to the Montreal fur show love the coats but they can't take them into the U.S. Again, we're maintaining key principles, sustainable use of the whole seal, and humane harvesting. So within those parameters we demand the right to trade.

Results of our strategy. Our strategy has been going for four years now, and we've seen positive results in terms of quality of the sealskins, the number of skins sold, hunter revenues, market awareness of Nunavut seal products, increased sales of sealskin products and spin-off opportunities. We've had modelling workshops and design workshops in the north and we have links with international producers. This is a growing thing.

Where do we go from here? We implement the skin grading system. Sealskin vests are becoming standard issue for our department, hopefully not so warm as this one. In terms of public relations and education initiatives, the video and the book will be distributed around Canada, the U.S., and Europe. The video is made for TV. We're looking for new partnerships with business, some of our Inuit development corporations and so on. We're looking at developing the northern market and continuing our relationship with international fur shows.

This is the last slide. If you look at those three rings, people, economy, and environment, that's the focus of our department. We look at them all as one. They're all related. Hence the name of our department, Sustainable Development.

That's going to bring it to a conclusion. I would emphasize once more that we want, more than anything else, to be able to trade. We want to tell the story to the public about Inuit sealing, the relationship between Inuit and sealing. Those are the two things we need help with.

Access to markets, knock down trade barriers, and educate the public. We want to undo some of the damage that has been caused by other people.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Simpson. I saw a lot of beautiful girls there with your product being displayed, but maybe one of you would like to stand up. We do have some cameras here and we could do a little promotion for what you.... Mr. Toner?

[Editor's Note: Applause]

The Chairman: We won't charge for that.

Gary, would you like to go ahead?

Mr. Gary Lunn: I will be brief, as I appreciate that we are behind, Mr. Chairman, and I think Mr. Baker would like to have some of my time. I'm going to make one or two quick comments on an issue, and then George is looking at some other issues on the export barriers we've discussed. He can probably better reflect that than I can.

One of the issues that comes up right now, and it seems to be the issue of the day, is the quota, which is currently set at 275,000 seals. I would anticipate that you're part of this quota. Do you need more access to the resource? Do you have markets where you can sell those products?

• 1620

I appreciate it's twofold. We have to increase our market potential and share and then get more access to the resource. Do you think the size of the herd could bear increased quota levels without any significant impact on the herd?

If one of you can respond to that, then I will defer to Mr. Baker. Maybe Mr. Andersen from the Labrador Inuit Association could respond.

Mr. Mervin Andersen: Our herds could certainly sustain a harvest, because there's none in our region. The main harp herd is off Labrador, but for the others, like the ringed seal and the one I mentioned earlier, the dotter, the ones that live in the rivers, there's no quota on those seals.

There's no market, and they have substantially increased since.... We continue to hunt for food; that's never stopped. The dog population has gone down a lot, and that's how we used to feed our dogs. And we used to sell quite a lot of sealskins, dry them to sell them, and use them for mitts and boots and everything else. But all that stuff has been lost as well, because there's no value to the skin. It was a very substantial part of our economy in northern Labrador, because we used to fish in the summer, but in the winter, as soon as the fall came, we used to get a few seals to buy bullets and put food on the table, that kind of thing. So it certainly can sustain a harvest.

Mr. Gary Lunn: Thank you.

The Chairman: Okay, Mr. Lunn? George, do you want to say something?

We have representatives from two constituencies before us today, both Mr. O'Brien's and Mrs. Nancy Karetak-Lindell's, and if you wouldn't mind, I'd like to ask you to allow them to maybe.... Lawrence, would you like to say something?

Mr. Lawrence D. O'Brien (Labrador, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it, Mr. Lunn.

I want to certainly thank the representatives from our two great northern lands, which are certainly a part of Nancy's and mine. I think, Mr. Chairman, what I'm reading in Mr. Andersen's comments versus the comments the Nunavut delegation made is quite different. I think our friends farther north than Labrador have a very developed plan, in terms of how they want to proceed, and a very developed strategy.

I think what I'm hearing from Mr. Andersen, and certainly I share his view, is that we need a developed strategy as well in Labrador. I also heard Mr. Andersen make a very good point, that the Canadian Sealers Association in large part is being funded by the Government of Canada in some ways, and we're not in any way getting a share of that. Things should be on balance. I don't feel it is on balance.

Plus, our concentration has been on the harp population, which I have major concerns about, as I have expressed several times and will continue to express, but it goes deeper than that. It goes into the bay fields, what it does to salmon and char, and the likelihood of people to be able to harvest that.

So I share the views of both delegations, and I commend the Nunavut delegation for its strategy and where it's going, its products. I'd like to think our friends to the south of us in Newfoundland and our friends to the north of us in Nunavut, together with our own thinking and forwardness...maybe we can bring this as something more of a strategy than we've seen.

• 1625

The other quick point I want to make is that the way seals were marketed in Labrador prior to the big issue of groups like the IFAW and others was through the Hudson's Bay Company. That's basically the way we did it then. Things have changed substantially. We haven't caught up to it. I want to make that point. It's not so much a question as a comment.

Mervin, do you share those types of views, which I've commented on? What would be your suggestion for bringing us into the mainstream of the processing and marketing of seals along the Labrador coast?

Mr. Mervin Andersen: I agree, Lawrence, and thank you for your comments, because they are along the lines that we're talking about. We find this very difficult. If we sound negative...we don't want to be negative, but I have to bring the concerns of the people in our district whether I want to or not. All we are asking for is a chance to have a viable little industry where our people can make a few dollars.

As I mentioned in my report, and I think not too many people are aware of it, we've been bowled over four times. The closures of the cod fishery, the seal fishery, the salmon fishery, and the fur-trapping trade have just killed our...and it's just because we love our home. That's the only reason we're there. We're not there because there's a whole lot there for us.

People talk about Voisey's Bay. My mother was born and raised in Voisey's Bay. We're a land people. We like to stay on top of it, not go beneath it. We're hunters and trappers and fishermen. That's our lifestyle. I'm sure a lot of people in Newfoundland and Labrador...that's our lifestyle. We lost the fishery, and the whole province has been devastated by it.

All we're asking for is some way that we can get that industry going and make it a viable industry. We don't want to be coming to the government every year for money. We understand that wouldn't be economically viable. We want to get something started. We know the product is there. There are millions of them and we can't sell them.

As it's been brought up, I think the big thing that has hurt us is the regulation of the MMPA. It's the same thing with polar bears. We've got polar bears. We can go out and shoot a few polar bears, but we can't sell them unless we sell them within Canada. There are tourists in the States who want them. We would make a much bigger profit if we could sell them in the States, but we can't, and that goes for all our fur products. So it is a serious problem.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Bernier.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Bernier (Bonaventure—Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Pabok, BQ): I apologize, but my English may not be adequate for my purposes this afternoon.

I understood that we were to keep our comments very short. While you are adjusting your interpretation receiver, I will take this opportunity to tell you a little story. When I travelled with our former chairman, Mr. Baker, to Island Lake, I was surprised to hear my comments in French being translated into English and then into an Aboriginal language. That was very impressive. I did not have an opportunity to hear you speak Inuit or Inuktitut today. Nancy taught us a few of the basics of this language during a recent trip.

• 1630

Although I'm not familiar with the agreement on the creation of Nunavut—perhaps we could get a copy from you or the clerk—I think I noticed that section 5 of the agreement gives you responsibility for managing the seal hunt, and responsibility for the resource. I would like to know whether these 7,000 skins mentioned in your video are included in the 275,000 Canadian quota, or whether you were given your own quota. How does that work?

Second, you seem to be referring to problems related to tariff barriers. I would like the clerk to give us a more detailed explanation about this. Do some countries have laws banning the import of your resource? I would like to know, out of curiosity, to whom you sold your 7,000 skins last year. Did you sell them to Canadians only? By the way, I would like to know the price of the very attractive vest you are wearing. Since you are advertising it, we need to know the price.

Fishers reportedly received some $200,000. How much did each one get? Should we talk about "seal fishers" or "seal hunters"?

That is all for the time being, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Thank you, Yvan.

Mr. Ken Toner (Regional Superintendent, Nunavut Wildlife Management Board): My vest is hand-made and costs about $350. With your permission, I will answer in English, because my French is not that good. I apologize.

Mr. Yvan Bernier: Of course.

[English]

Mr. Ken Toner: To answer one of your questions, our biggest barrier to selling is the American Marine Mammal Protection Act, of course. It's the largest market there is, and we're not able to enter that market at all. It goes even beyond our furs. If our carvers make beautiful carvings and there is any ivory in them, we can't export them to the United States. So it blocks a lot of our products, and that's the single biggest market we have.

As far as whether the 7,000 form part of the quota, I'll have to ask Ben if he can address that one.

Mr. Ben Kovic: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The 7,000 are different species. They're ringed seals; they're not harp seals at all. What you are seeing here in the vest is ringed seal. That's not a harp seal. It has a different price, by the way.

We're not part of the 5,000 that are allotted for harp seals. If we were, our harvest would be much more different in the Nunavut settlement area than it would be off Newfoundland, because when the harp seals come up into the Nunavut settlement area, we have no ice. Everything is done in water. It would be a much different harvest. You have to be a marksman to hunt harp seals in Nunavut. Everything is all in water.

Does that answer your question? The 7,000 you saw in the video are mostly all ring seals.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Bernier: If your vest were made using harp seals, would it cost more or less than $350? I am trying to determine whether there is a market for this product. We have mostly harp seals on the Magdalene Islands. The woman at the leather shop, Les Cuirs ODY-C, told me that harp seal was quite expensive. I would like to have a vest like that, but it may be a little too expensive. If a harp seal vest were cheaper, I would be interested in buying one.

• 1635

In any case, I am interested in these matters. Are your sales points connected to various seal hunting groups or associations in Quebec and Canada? Do you have connections to ensure that your product line is equally well known everywhere?

The final point I picked up from your comments is that you are trying to do some public education. No single group can handle public education for Canada as a whole or for North America as a whole. All seal hunting associations in Canada need guidelines to help in this task. Although the recognition of the territory of Nunavut and your government is an excellent starting point, we must also continue to seek out allies in the other provinces.

So I have two questions. Are these skins less expensive? And what is your strategy for finding allies in Canada?

[English]

Mr. Larry Simpson: In November 1997, I believe it was, we went to a meeting of the North Atlantic Marine Mammal Commission in St. John's, Newfoundland, at which time we had a lot of opportunity to have a dialogue with other sealing groups and organizations. We made good contacts, and we still talk. We're going down to Gaspé, as a matter of fact, in May to a small tannery there. That's a result of some of the contacts we made there.

So we are trying to continue a relationship in terms of trade, moral support, cooperation, whatever. Does that answer your question?

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Bernier: Ms. Line Beaudin has a seal skin tannery in L'Anse-à-Beaufils. You could perhaps show her your products and she could try them out. I will get in touch with her about this. Since she lives in my riding, I may have an opportunity to greet you when you visit her in May.

[English]

The Chairman: Nancy, do you have any questions or points you'd like to make?

Mrs. Nancy Karetak-Lindell (Nunavut, Lib.): We were talking a little bit before this meeting about what we could do as a committee, and I guess I would like to ask all of you this question. What kind of recommendation would you like to see us present as a committee to try to help with the sealing industry?

I guess I could address a little bit of what I said yesterday. When you talk about public education and the fact that we're trying to counteract possibly 10 to 12 years of being accused of being hunters of little white seals, which we know has been banned for the last 12 years...and yet that's the kind of misinformation that is being used by other groups to turn people away and to turn public opinion against sealing. Is that included in your public education? When you go to schools, are those the kinds of facts that you feel the general public should know?

We all know that there has been a lot of damage by groups against sealing; they have spread misinformation. It still bothers me, as I said yesterday, that someone would come up to me and ask me how we can hunt baby seals. I told her outright, “Did you know it was against the law to do that?” No one hunts the baby seal commercially. I think those are the kinds of things that we have to make sure get out through public education. That's more or less a comment.

Again, going back to my first question, what would you like to see come out of this committee, if we had to do one recommendation on sealing?

Mr. Larry Simpson: I would say help from the federal government in terms of breaking down trade barriers, specifically the U.S. market with the Marine Mammal Protection Act. We know there's a market there, but we can't get to it. We also need help telling the story, the way it really is with sealing and the relationship between Inuit and sealing in particular. We're working towards that now through things like a video and a book we're producing. They should be out in the next month or two, and they'll be widely available.

• 1640

We have visits to schools in Canada. Possibly, we have to do more public education in the United States. We have to find out where the people who sit on the Marine Mammal Protection Act committee live, who their constituents are, and what groups there are down there. I'm told this is what's going to be necessary to turn it around. It's not just writing a few letters. You have to go after hearts and minds and also have a lot of good facts. That all costs money.

So those are the two issues: breaking down trade barriers, and public education.

The Chairman: Thank you, Larry.

Peter, do you have—

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for your presentation. I have two questions, one of which is along the lines of what Mr. O'Brien, from Labrador, had said. Are you considering or have you considered possibly a joint cooperative somehow between the Labrador Inuit and Nunavut? I know you said that for fourteen days now you've been smiling about the territory of Nunavut. That's right on.

I have another question. The other day my colleague from Nunavut mentioned something very important. When I lived in the Yukon, I heard this as well when it came to caribou, elk, moose, etc. Scientists, regardless of where their angle is coming from, refuse or don't like to interpret traditional knowledge in terms of their findings or their decision-making. You live there, so I would just like your comment on that. You know that area, you've been there, it's your history. Why do you find a reluctance on their part to use traditional knowledge in terms of the fact that, as you say, you've seen it, you know it, and everything else?

My last question is in regard to Mr. Kovic. A while ago, a former Minister of Fisheries and Oceans did something that saw the Nunavut wildlife branch take him to court. The court ruled in favour of the Nunavut wildlife branch, and then it went to appeal. The appeal still ruled in favour of Nunavut. Because of that and because of the fact that you're a new territory, how is the relationship between the Nunavut wildlife branch, the Nunavut government, and DFO? Is it improving, or are there still some roadblocks in the way?

Thank you.

Mr. Mervin Andersen: In response to the first part of your question, I personally have thought quite a bit about getting involved. We did it with the shrimp fishery. We formed Northern Coalition, and that worked very well with different groups right across the north. I think it would work the same way with the sealing industry, because we are very similar in our environment. One of our major problems is what people call isolation but what I call freedom. The north is very difficult to get products out of because of our weather. We're very restricted in terms of transportation. It's basically by plane in the winter. But from what I've heard Ben comment on, a good sealing time of the year for us would be in the fall, when seals are in their prime.

In regard to the sealing issue itself, like the gentleman said, the major issue is education of the public. We don't hunt the white coat; we never did. So it's that kind of education that's needed. And that's banned anyway. They don't even do it in Newfoundland anymore. But it's just public knowledge, general information. The general public should know and understand that this kind of information is false information.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mervin.

Peter, did you have something else?

Mr. Peter Stoffer: I'm just going to ask for an answer to the other parts of the question.

• 1645

Mr. Ben Kovic: On the question of the relationship with DFO, DFO is still there and we are still there. The relationship is very close within the district area—what I mean by that is the DFO office in Nunavut. We're pretty close. We work pretty close with them, and we get along very well. The only barrier we have that I notice is that when we want something, it's always the minister's decision and we can't get it. Even though the court ruled in favour of Nunavut, nothing has changed. Nothing probably will change until such time as Canada says it shall change. Besides that, if the minister says it won't change, it won't change. Canada has to tell the minister it shall change. That's the only way.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you, Ben.

Does any other member have a very short question they might want to ask?

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Mr. Chair, I have a question for our senators.

The Chairman: I was going to get to that, but what about our members? George, do you have a question?

Mr. George S. Baker (Gander—Grand Falls, Lib.): Yes, Mr. Chairman. There was a meeting of the members of Parliament from Nunavut and Labrador earlier today—Nancy Karetak-Lindell and Lawrence O'Brien and I respectively. We arrived at a consensus on what we think we should suggest in this committee relative to this testimony today. I'd like to just mention it briefly and then ask you what you think of our conclusions.

As Mr. O'Brien pointed out, and as Nancy Karetak-Lindell has pointed out, our own regulations regarding marine mammals should be updated to recognize section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982—I see you nodding—to say that aboriginal peoples have certain rights that should not be overshadowed by legislation or regulation. That is the first thing that we decided would be a good idea: to bring the regulations up to date to recognize our aboriginal peoples in Nunavut and in Labrador as they relate to certain sections of the marine mammals act in which there is discrimination, as there presently is, as members have pointed out.

Second, we feel we should ask that the Marine Mammal Protection Act in the U.S. be challenged, because the legislation gives an exclusion for Inuit peoples who live in Alaska. There is a free trade into the U.S. from Alaska because there's an exception made in that legislation. That would violate agreements made between Canada and the United States recently, but particularly the 1794 agreement made between Britain and the United States that aboriginal peoples for all time shall not be impeded in trade and navigation across the U.S. border.

Those are the two main suggestions we arrived at—Nancy Karetak-Lindell, Lawrence O'Brien and I—and that we will be putting to the committee for consideration in this report. I want to ask you what you think of those two suggestions.

I also want to ask one question, and the question is this. Mr. Andersen mentioned that he has a report there, and I presume it's the report made by that inquiry, the Malouf inquiry, into sealing in the north in a certain section of the report. It showed that for the Hudson's Bay Company, 60,000 seals were killed prior to 1983, and 40,000 sealskins were marketed. After 1983, the bottom fell out of it. Three-quarters of the income of the people in northern Labrador that came from seals disappeared, along with one-third of their total income. The report recommended that there be a $4-million fund set up every year to assist in diversifying the seal enterprise and a $1-million support program for the Inuit. That is in the report as a yearly recommendation.

• 1650

Mr. Andersen, is that what you're referring to, that the Government of Canada should have respected that portion of the recommendation? And what do you think of the recommendations we arrived at this morning?

Mr. Mervin Andersen: I agree with you on all counts.

Mr. George Baker: I was sure you would.

The Chairman: That was very brief.

Before we close this afternoon, we have two senators here. We usually are not graced with having two senators come to our meeting, but I know they have represented the north for many years. Willie, would you or Charles like to make some remarks?

Senator Willie Adams (Northwest Territories): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'm not a member of the committee here, but I'm a member of the Senate fisheries committee. I would just like to ask you to come to our committee, too, sometime in the future.

I have a couple of questions.

I think you have some kind of a ceiling with regard to the seals and the skin and the meat. I heard you say you have a harvesting limit of up to 25,000 seals every year in Nunavut. Are you looking just at Nunavut or are you looking at the area with Labrador or with Greenland? How are you approaching that? I know you're looking for other partners. In Newfoundland, I know they had 280,000 seals a year for the harvesting at one time. I don't know if every one of them has been sold to other countries or whether part of that 280,000 should be bought for Nunavut. How is that system working right now for the future for sealing? What are you planning? Right now, does it begin at 25,000 for the harvesting in a year for Nunavut, or is it more than that? I see you have 7,000, but I figure your ceiling may be up to 25,000.

Mr. Larry Simpson: The estimated harvest at this time for Nunavut is about 20,000 for ringed seals. Of that, we buy about 7,000 sealskins, but other skins are used domestically in the home and so on.

If the market does expand, we can produce more. We're much lower than our sustainable yield for ringed seals. I think the sustainable yield is estimated to be about 100,000 ringed seals.

Senator Willie Adams: Is your market right now mostly just clothing? Do you have anything besides the clothing?

Mr. Larry Simpson: We have the northern markets and the southern markets for clothing. There are other goods, like purses and packsacks, and they would be for the northern market. And the new legislative assembly has seats that are covered in sealskins.

Do you have anything to add to that?

Mr. Ken Toner: We don't have a market for the meat or anything like that, at this point in time. It's pretty well the fur that we're putting into high fashion and items like that.

Senator Willie Adams: Are you looking at marketing the meat outside the country?

Mr. Ken Toner: We're willing to explore anything that will allow us to advance our sealing issues, yes.

Senator Willie Adams: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Thank you, Senator Adams.

Ben, would you like to make a one-minute summation, or would you like to make a few parting remarks? We're over our time, but we want to offer you and Mervin a minute each if you'd like to speak further.

Mr. Ben Kovic: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

In closing, I would like to suggest to the committee that I'll speak for Nunavut and Mervin will speak for Labrador, even though we're still families and units as Inuit.

People in Nunavut don't want to be left behind in the sealing industry. I think Nunavut would like to be as good as Newfoundland is, and we would also like to get back to where we were when the seal industry was good. We have other reasons why we want to get back. It's not just for market purposes; it's also for social purposes. We have social problems in our communities, but if I go back to the real roots of the hunter, I would take more than a minute to speak.

• 1655

The hunter in the family is a bread-giver to the house. If there is no market for seal, the hunter doesn't go often enough to make money. The hunter only goes when there needs to be something on the table.

Prior to the collapse of seal markets, the hunter was there every day putting food on the table, plus making money—fairly good money. When that went down, the family unit broke up by means of suicides in the family, family problems or separations, kids getting into trouble, that sort of thing, because there was not enough enjoyment within the family itself. Those are the things that are really the root of our problems. We'd like to see the market for seal products improve so those roots can improve. That's all I want to say. Yes, we like to make money. But there are other problems we also need to solve within that framework: family problems, suicides, and so forth.

I would like to give you that sense. If you had that problem within your culture, white culture, I think you would understand. We don't have much to make money on in Nunavut. We don't have trees. We don't have major mining industries. We don't have oil industries. We don't have highways, period. We have runways and shipping routes. So the sealing industry, or a fishing industry for that matter...we need those opportunities to be independent in Nunavut territory. As I said, help us to bring that marine mammals act into the Constitution so we can have some of the enjoyment that Alaska Inuit people have.

Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Kovic.

Mervin, did he speak for both of you, or would you like to add a few more words? He spoke very well.

Mr. Mervin Andersen: I'd like to say a few more words. I would just like to recognize ITC. Inuit Tapirisat of Canada has been doing a lot of lobbying about the fur and sealing industries, and they have been working on the MMPA; they've travelled to the States and things like that. So they are being active in that.

I know I don't have very long, but I want to say I agree with what Ben says. We live in different regions, but our regions are very similar. Our problems are similar. Ben touched on a very sensitive, personal, and sad issue. The suicide rate has been extremely high in our region. I can't speak for his, but it's been sadly high in our region because we've lost a way of life. Our traditions and things that we value have been devalued by others, probably not intentionally, but simply because they don't understand our values, where we come from, how we live, and those kinds of things. It has devastated us. And it's sad, because the largest part of our population that is being lost is the young people. And it hurts us. It hurts us deeply.

But I guess the main thing, Mr. Chair, for us to do is just keep pushing, keep talking, and hopefully somebody will listen. Suicide in small communities is very dramatic. But we lost so much in such a short period of time, our lifestyle had to change. A lot of us decided to stay where we were, but we can understand in the meantime that in a lot of regions people are leaving because there's no economic value there. But if we all work together, we have resources. We have lots of resources.

• 1700

One thing our elders taught us is that everything in nature has cycles. I think we're going through the top of the cycle in the sealing industry, and we should benefit from it. All Canadians would benefit from it. But we should be the main producer. It's sad when our youth are losing faith in us, and everything seems so endlessly hopeless for them that they go and take their lives. That's sad. People from another country who don't understand the way we live and operate have had a lot to do with that, whether they want to realize that, whether they want to accept that or not. I know that's a very difficult thing to say, but they did. They devastated the people. Hopefully, we can come out of it.

The Chairman: Mervin, I want to thank you, and in fact, thank both groups for coming here today. You were certainly very impressive with your presentation, and I would hope that as viewers watch this across the country, they'll get some recognition of what has happened in the north, and also be with you as we make changes that will hopefully improve your culture in terms of the attack that has been made upon it by people from another country, for the most part. With that, we want to wish all of you the very best with your new territory, your new government in Nunavut, and the same to those from the great province of Newfoundland and the district of Labrador.

So thank you for coming. We'll take a five-minute break now before we begin the next session.

• 1702

• 1710

The Chairman: We'd like to reconvene our meeting now, and we'd ask that members come back to the table. We are running short of time, so it's quite important that we do get started again.

I would like to welcome to our committee hearings at this time the International Fund for Animal Welfare.

Mr. Smith, I think you're probably familiar with the type of operation we have here. We would ask that you try to limit your presentation to 15 minutes, if you could, and then we'll proceed with questions and statements. Would you please introduce the other members of your group, and we'll proceed from here.

Mr. Rick Smith (National Director, International Fund for Animal Welfare): Thank you very much, Mr. Chair and members of the committee, for the opportunity to appear today.

[Translation]

Thank you for inviting us to appear before the committee.

[English]

I'd like to introduce my colleagues with me today. Andrea Addario is campaigns coordinator for the International Fund for Animal Welfare in Canada, and Sandra Sorensen is our national organizer in Canada.

As you know, the controversy surrounding the Canadian commercial seal hunt has been going on for about 30 years now, and speaking as a former Montrealer who actually grew up at the height of the controversy, I'm very conscious of the fact that many Canadians think they've heard it all on this issue. Certainly at family gatherings I'm told that a lot. Having my father's family from Newfoundland makes me even more acutely aware of this fact.

I have a vivid memory of debating the merits of the commercial seal hunts in my grade 4 class and winning. Given the organization that I currently represent, you may be amused to know that I proudly chose to debate in favour of the commercial seal hunt that day. I have thought better of my position since then. My views have changed, and the seal hunt issue has changed as well.

I only came to my current views of the commercial seal hunt in the last few years. When you work on a Ph.D. in seal ecology in Canada, as I'm currently doing, you quickly learn that people expect you to have an informed opinion on the commercial seal hunt, and certainly the terrible events of the early 1990s very much shaped the opinion I hold today.

I well remember the feeling of dismay that I felt as I watched the cod moratorium being announced in 1992. I was, and I remain, deeply saddened at the impact of this moratorium on thousands of good and hardworking women and men in Newfoundland and Labrador, and I was amazed, frankly, when many political decision-makers refused to honestly acknowledge the real cause of the cod decline—namely, years of overfishing with destructive industrial technologies—choosing instead to scapegoat seals for human-caused problems.

Subsequently, I made a decision to forego a career as a professional scientist in order to begin work for the International Fund for Animal Welfare in Canada. I opened the new office of the IFAW in Ottawa in January 1997.

I did so for two reasons: first, a conviction as a trained biologist and someone who cares about the proper treatment of animals that harp seals are being unjustly blamed for fisheries problems for which they are not responsible; and secondly, a desire as a former president of a union local and someone who believes in social justice to see the challenges faced by commercial sealers in rural Atlantic communities addressed in an honest and constructive way.

It's my view, personally, and the view of the International Fund for Animal Welfare that the current commercial seal hunt does everyone a disservice. It certainly does a disservice to the seals. It also does a disservice to the men who hunt them, and it does a disservice to all Canadian citizens who are told by political leaders, who should know better, that the complicated and deep-seated challenges being faced by our fisheries and Atlantic rural communities will only be solved if we kill more seals.

• 1715

In my short presentation today—and I don't want to take up a lot of your time; it's late, and I appreciate your attention—I'd like to focus on a few key areas: firstly, a brief introduction to the activities and philosophies of my organization, the IFAW; and secondly, an explanation of the problems we see in the current commercial seal hunt and why this hunt stands out as an anomaly on the international stage. Also, I'd like to outline for you briefly the new consensus that has formed amongst Canada's conservation groups and scientific community regarding the unsustainability of the current commercial harp seal hunt quota and the extent to which this is threatening the harp seal populations.

As you probably know, the IFAW was founded in a basement in Fredericton, New Brunswick, in 1969. It was through our work and that of other concerned Canadians that the first quota management system was implemented in the commercial seal hunt in 1971. Over the years, our areas of expertise and interest have diversified substantially and expanded, and we are now the largest international animal welfare organization in the world. We have offices in over 10 countries, close to 2 million supporters, and campaigns on behalf of a wide variety of animals and their habitats, from snow leopards in Tibet, to elephants in southern Africa, to Mediterranean monk seals in Turkey, to foxes in the United Kingdom.

In Canada, our membership has grown substantially over the past two years, and we now represent nearly 50,000 Canadians. Our activities in this country are focused on the welfare and conservation of wildlife and are concentrated in three main areas: firstly, working to ensure that Canada establishes the best endangered species protection in the world at the federal, provincial, and territorial levels; secondly, working to end unethical hunting practices at the provincial level, such as the Ontario spring bear hunt; and thirdly, working to end the excesses of the commercial seal hunt.

I'd like to clarify something that's a frequent misconception. The IFAW does not oppose all forms of hunting. We do not oppose, for example, legitimate subsistence hunting. Our recent campaigns against such things as the Ontario spring bear hunt have been focused on particularly abhorrent hunting practices that an increasing number of hunters themselves have begun to criticize, rather than recreational hunting per se. We've actually formed some very interesting alliances with members of the hunting community in this regard.

Both subsistence and recreational hunting are defined differently from commercial hunting in Canadian and international law, and with good reason. Our opposition to the commercial seal hunt is premised on well-known and well-documented problems with commercial hunting.

North America was home to many commercial hunts, right up until the early days of this century. It was quite common to walk into the 1900s equivalent of the supermarket and be able to buy songbirds or migratory waterfowl or wild meat for dinner. The result of these commercial hunts was uniformly depleted animal populations and unacceptable levels of cruelty.

If any of you were able to make it to the Audubon exhibit at the Canadian Museum of Civilization that ended just a few weeks ago, you'll know that even the most numerous species were destroyed or nearly destroyed by commercial hunting, including passenger pigeons, the great auk, the buffalo, and virtually every whale stock. When you're trying to make money at a wildlife hunt, you try to kill as many animals as you can, as fast as you can. It's no surprise, then, that under these circumstances many animals are killed in inhumane ways. As a result of this disastrous experience with commercial hunts, Canada and the United States passed a series of pieces of legislation, changed policies throughout the early 1900s, and ended virtually every commercial hunt, to allow their animal populations to recover.

For some populations, that protection came too late. The commercial seal hunt is the last large-scale commercial hunt for wildlife in North America. All of the problems it exhibits, including unacceptable levels of cruelty, unsustainable kill levels, and insurmountable problems of enforcement, have been demonstrated by countless commercial hunts in the past, and all or virtually all of these hunts were ended precisely because there was a public demand to resolve these issues.

The IFAW believes, quite simply, that it's time to bring the management of seals in line with the way in which virtually every other North American wildlife population has been managed for years. It's our view that it's time to heed the lessons of history as opposed to repeating the mistakes of the past.

• 1720

In addition to being the last large-scale commercial hunt for wildlife in North America, the commercial seal hunt is, almost by an order of magnitude, the largest hunt for marine mammals anywhere in the world. It should be no surprise then that Canada's commercial seal hunt garners as much international attention as it does. It's truly a phenomenon of world-class proportions.

I'm glad I'm here today to hear so many references to the Malouf commission reports. I will now make another reference. In 1986, the Royal Commission on Seals and the Sealing Industry in Canada stated:

There is, however, substantial weight of opinion that if the killing of any wild animal is to be accepted as ethical, it should satisfy the following conditions: the existence of the species should not be threatened; no unnecessary pain or cruelty should be inflicted; the killing should serve an important use; and the killing should involve a minimum of waste.

The Royal Commission recommends that any killing of wild animals should minimally satisfy these conditions.

I note with some interest that these conditions very much mirror the objectives of the Nunavut sealing strategy.

There now exists ample evidence, more than ten years after the royal commission report, that the current commercial seal hunt fails on all four of these counts.

The commercial seal hunt issue has changed fundamentally in the last six months. The compelling nature of the science, demonstrating that the current hunt quota is unsustainable and is likely leading to the depletion of the harp seal herd, has prompted an unprecedented number of national conservation groups, animal welfare groups, and scientists to begin expressing alarm. They fear the same mistakes that led to the collapse of the northern cod stock are being made again with harp seals. I've included all of these policies for you in the briefing book.

The World Wildlife Fund Canada, which as you know explicitly supports a sustainable seal hunt, changed its policy in the late fall of last year. That policy now states, “If anything, the TAC should be lowered”.

The Sierra Club of Canada, which is the oldest conservation group in North America and has never spoken out on this issue before, has recently implemented a policy for the first time expressing grave concern.

Greenpeace Canada, which contrary to popular belief has not been active on this issue since the early 1980s, has recently sent a letter to Minister Anderson.

The Canadian Federation of Humane Societies and 25 other Canadian animal welfare and animal rights organizations are all expressing similar concerns.

In the scientific community, 22 prominent Canadian marine biologists, 11 of whom are from Memorial University of Newfoundland, sent a letter to David Anderson just a few months ago asking the minister to limit the size of the hunt. Most recently, in response to Minister John Efford's aggressive and jingoistic campaign to not only ignore the best available scientific evidence but to force the federal government to institute an unprecedented cull of harp seals, 30 graduate biology students—pretty much the entire graduate biology group at Memorial University of Newfoundland—wrote to Minister Anderson asking him to ignore the recent “seal mania” Minister Efford is helping to generate.

Similarly, the Newfoundland Natural History Society, which supports a humane and sustainable seal hunt, wrote to Minister Anderson two weeks ago disagreeing with what they call Mr. Efford's inference that seals are interfering with the recovery of the groundfish stocks in Newfoundland.

In addition to these new voices of concern being raised in Canada, the size of the 1998 harp seal kill prompted almost 200 European parliamentarians and a bipartisan group of American senators and congressmen to write to the Governments of Newfoundland and Canada to express their opposition, and that of their constituents, to the escalating seal kill. This international concern has been heightened even further since in 1999 the harp seal quota was set.

Minister Anderson and the DFO deserve credit for beginning to conduct the government's peer review of seal science in a more transparent and open manner. It is our hope, and indeed the hope of all the conservation groups across the country, that this trend will continue, particularly with respect to the modelling of the current harp seal census.

As Dr. David Lavigne pointed out yesterday, it's important to note that were this hunt being conducted and the quota set in another jurisdiction that uses more advanced potential biological removal calculations, the Canadian harp seal quota would be closer to 100,000 animals or even lower. Given this fact, the current hunt already qualifies as a cull. The scientific fact is that seal culling will not help Canada's fisheries. Indeed there's a lot of evidence it would hurt commercial fisheries.

• 1725

With respect to the second criterion laid out by the Malouf commission, the marine mammal regulations that specify how sealers act on the ice are actually weaker today than they were in previous versions of what were then called the seal protection regulations. The regulations used to make it clear that hunters needed to ensure every animal was dead before moving on to their next target. This is no longer the case. In fact, a legal opinion commissioned by our organization concludes that the marine mammal regulations, as currently drafted, are fraught with so many problems they actually countenance behaviour that is illegal, according to section 446 of the Criminal Code of Canada.

Even if the regulations are substantially tightened up, the fact of the matter is that the hunt occurs over thousands of square miles of ice, and DFO enforcement efforts are simply not keeping pace. Consider that since 1996, all charges laid in the hunt that pertain to serious cruelty-related offences, such as skinning a seal alive or failing to kill an animal quickly, were laid as a result of videotape our organization obtained through our own investigations and turned over to the RCMP and DFO. We did so in 1996, 1997, and again in 1998.

This year we were observing the hunt again in the Gulf of St. Lawrence. In fact we were there just a couple of weeks ago. The DFO officers present there seemed much more interested in constraining the ability of visiting European parliamentarians, independent journalists, and our employees to observe the hunt than they were in monitoring sealers' activities.

With respect to the third criterion laid out by the royal commission, the contribution of the sealing industry to the economies of the Magdalen Islands and Newfoundland and Labrador is frequently exaggerated. The last year for which there's good documentation is 1996, and these reports come from the industry itself. At that time, the industry reported it had contributed $10.8 million to the Canadian economy. When a natural resources economist actually corrected the industry's arithmetic for double-counting and subtracted the millions in federal and provincial government grants, the value-added of the industry dropped to $2.9 million.

What remains to be subtracted from this amount is the cost to the taxpayers of Canada for such things as ice-breaking and policing the hunt. If you compare this number with the hundreds of millions of dollars the tourism industry now brings into the Newfoundland economy, and the extent to which some tourists may very much be less keen to travel to Newfoundland knowing the details of a huge commercial hunt that occurs there in the winter, I think that's an important comparison to make.

Today's hunt operates in contradiction to the royal commission's recommendation that the killing involve a minimum of waste. Just a couple of weeks ago my colleagues and I and a number of independent journalists, including fisheries broadcasts from St. John's, were observing the hunt in the Gulf of St. Lawrence and found, as in previous years, tens of thousands of abandoned carcasses littering the ice. This is business as usual in the commercial seal hunt these days. As with many commercial wildlife hunts, only certain parts of the animal are valuable enough to bother bringing back to shore.

This has been most recently explained in the very interesting book by Michael Dwyer called “Over the Side, Mickey”, a sealer's firsthand account of the 1997 seal hunt. From our observations of a couple of weeks ago, the pelt is collected and the rest of the carcass is left to rot. This is a fundamentally different kind of morality than most Canadians are prepared to accept with respect to hunting, especially when that hunt is subsidized with our tax dollars.

In conclusion, the commercial seal hunts of today do not fulfil any of the criteria for acceptability, as laid down by the Malouf commission. In fact, harp seals are managed differently from virtually every other wildlife population in North American.

Second, it's not surprising that the International Fund for Animal Welfare opposes the excesses of the commercial seal hunt; in fact we've done so for 30 years. I'm a bit new to it myself, but certainly my organization has been doing this for a while. What is surprising is the unprecedented number of animal welfare organizations, conservation organizations—some of whom support a sustainable seal hunt—and scientists across this country, including in Newfoundland, who are expressing grave concerns that the hunt quota is too large and is depleting the harp seal population.

Third, the same mistakes that led to the collapse of the northern cod stocks are currently being replicated by harp seal management. Canada is already killing too many seals, and there is no scientific justification for a cull at this time.

• 1730

Lastly, given the abhorrence with which much of the international community views this hunt, it clearly does significant damage to Canada's reputation on the world stage, and it's reasonable to conclude that this is already having an adverse impact on the Canadian economy.

I'd like to thank you very much for your attention. I've included a number of background documents for your perusal, and I'd be happy to take your questions.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Smith.

Mr. Baker, do you have any questions?

Mr. George Baker: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I have a couple of questions, and then perhaps some in the second round.

Mr. Smith, you observed a few minutes ago representatives from Nunavut and from Labrador. As they told the committee, in 1983 their economy was reduced. Their family incomes were reduced by one-third, and three-quarters of the money they made from seals disappeared in 1983.

Mr. Smith, you were writing a Ph.D. in seal ecology. You would know—

Mr. Rick Smith: I think I was still in short pants in 1983.

Mr. George Baker: —from looking at history that when the European ban was presented, there was an exception there for aboriginal hunting. Why, then, would there be such a drop in the incomes of our aboriginal peoples? It was because of your campaign, the campaign of the organization you represent, a campaign that says.... Here's your annual report for 1997. What do we see when we turn to pages 3, 4 and 5? We come, first of all, to seals. What kind of seals? White coats.

Mr. Smith, don't you realize that on December 20, 1987, a regulation was brought in making it illegal in Canada to sell, trade, or barter white coats? This law has been there since December 20, 1987, and in fact we—I say “we”, Canadians, Newfoundlanders, and people up north, people around les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—do not kill white coats.

Mr. Rick Smith: I'm very much aware of that, Mr. Baker. Thank you for that question.

I'm not sure if you're aware that according to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans' definition of white coat, at least in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, and I believe in Newfoundland, an animal ceases to be a white coat as soon as it begins to moult even one hair.

So animals that to the vast majority of Canadians—certainly, I think to you and I—would look like white coats certainly look a lot like that animal. Those animals are in fact the target of much of the industry around les Îles-de-la-Madeleine. Sir, I'd very much appreciate the opportunity to bring you out to see that hunt next year if you'd care to come.

Mr. George Baker: Mr. Smith, that's a white coat in your advertising.

Mr. Rick Smith: Indeed. Yes.

Mr. George Baker: That's a white coat, and those are the sorts of animals on which you conduct your financial campaign. I could show you...well, you know it; it's the ads you send to people and the fact that you tell people they're still killing white coats, because they still have some white coat on them.

Mr. Smith, you know from your investigations of white coats, of course, that a seal goes through various stages. As Mr. Lavigne testified before this committee yesterday, it's born as a yellow coat, for about three or four days until the rain washes it off or the sun bleaches it, and then it becomes a white coat. From a white coat, it then becomes a grey coat. Why? Because the grey skin is starting to form, and the black blotches....

You get where I'm going now; we haven't arrived at a raggedy jacket yet.

Mr. Rick Smith: You're well informed on seal biology.

Mr. George Baker: Yes.

After the grey coat, we come to the raggedy jacket, and at that point, as you're probably aware, Mr. Smith, there's not much time between the raggedy jacket and the point we get into a beater, that silver coat with the black blotches.

• 1735

That pelt, after the raggedy jacket, is worth $30. What's a raggedy jacket worth to a sealer? Less than $10. You tell this committee why a sealer would not wait for the coat to change, to make it worth $30.

Mr. Rick Smith: Again, Mr. Baker, that animal you're holding up—

Mr. George Baker: Is a white coat.

Mr. Rick Smith: —is an animal that is legal to hunt in Canada at this point in time, as soon as it has moulted one single one of those white hairs.

Mr. George Baker: Mr. Smith, there are—

Mr. Rick Smith: To continue on with that point about beater seals, you are well informed about seal biology, obviously, so you will know that you're quite right, that a very large number of beaters are taken by the industry. In fact, approximately 80% of the catch in any one year is animals that are young of that year, whether they're animals like that, which you and I might call white coats, or animals that are raggedy jackets, or animals that are beaters. Approximately 80% of the catch are animals of that age class.

Beater seals, as you know, are animals that have just moulted the last of their white fur and have, in many cases, not taken their first meal yet. They're weaned, but they're animals that haven't been dumped in the water by the melting ice or that have taken their first swim. You gave the impression with your seal biology talk that in fact these animals were older than they actually are.

Mr. George Baker: Mr. Smith, I can assure you that a beater has been weaned.

Mr. Rick Smith: Absolutely.

Mr. George Baker: Why then do you use the white coat in all of your advertising if in fact it's illegal to sell a white coat, it's illegal to barter it, and it's illegal to trade it? In Canada today it is absolutely illegal. There are no white coats that are being sold, because it's against the law to do it.

You use it in your ads in print and in your television ads. You talked about your tapes being...oh yes, there is one white coat I noticed on the videotapes you just spoke about that you presented with Clayton Ruby at a press conference in Ottawa. There was a white coat on that particular newsreel; you saw a fisherman, sealers, actually clutching a white coat, with no explanation. It just went by, and of course, every time CBC replays the tape, they pick out that tape. CTV, Global—no matter who we're talking about, they show that particular white coat.

So there is a white coat, but I'll tell you, sir, that white coat right now is in a gentleman's house. His name is Dwayne Shiner of Smith's Harbour. Your representative from the International Fund for Animal Welfare went down to Mr. Shiner's house and saw the white coat. Sometimes the white coat is in the basement; sometimes it's upstairs. They said, will you bring this white coat out to the ice and let us shoot some shots of it with the ice in the background? So Mr. Dwayne Shiner and Mr. Wally Shiner said, okay, we'll do that. So that's what they did.

The Chairman: Mr. Baker, I want to interrupt here because I don't think you have any immunity in this committee. You're making some very, very serious accusations.

Mr. George Baker: Just a second now, Mr. Chairman. I'll complete my statement.

The Chairman: I want to—

Mr. George Baker: The person who can give evidence is their member sitting with us today, Mr. Paul Shelley. He's a provincial member.

The point is this, Mr. Chairman. There is a white coat that the International Fund for Animal Welfare claims that sealers are touching, and it's still in Mr. Shiner's house. You see, it's a stuffed white coat.

The Chairman: It's stuffed?

Mr. George Baker: It's stuffed.

The Chairman: Oh, Mr. Baker, you don't expect this committee to believe that witnesses would come here—

Mr. George Baker: Well, I could assure you, Mr. Chairman—

The Chairman: This is a very reliable organization.

Mr. Lawrence O'Brien: On a point of order, you have no right, Mr. Chairman, to make a comment like that. You're being biased, you're being selective, and you shouldn't do it.

Mr. Rick Smith: I'd love to answer that question, sir.

Mr. George Baker: I wonder, Mr. Smith, if you could explain.

The Chairman: Could the witness please tell this committee if this has actually happened? Have they used stuffed white coats?

Mr. George Baker: Is that actually on your tape that you presented here in a press conference in 1997 with Clayton Ruby present, and you gave the tapes and the media summary with a white coat in that tape? Was that not, sir, a stuffed white coat?

Mr. Rick Smith: Sir, you clearly have more information on this than I do. But let me address your points in turn, if I may.

I think you and I perhaps agree on this problem with the white coat definition, and it seems to me that your problem is not with us; it's with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, because that animal in that picture is legal to hunt.

• 1740

If you want some documentary evidence of this, I draw your attention to the submissions from the Magdalen Island sealers that were made to the marine mammal regulatory review currently under way, which the department is running. You're probably aware that one of the recommendations the department is making is that rather than this ban on the commercial sale of white coats, the department is recommending...or the question was “Should we ban the taking of white coats altogether?” The Magdalen Island sealers say no, in their submission, because that is one of the targets of the industry in that area.

Mr. George Baker: Now, Mr. Smith—

Mr. Rick Smith: You can look that up for yourself, sir.

Mr. George Baker: —one final question. You brought up these videotapes you have presented to the Government of Canada to prosecute people with—sealers. And boy, they have been prosecuted. The federal government, most of us here believe, have led the world in conservation. We're not allowed to kill an adult. People are not allowed to kill an adult seal in a breeding patch. They're not allowed to kill an adult seal in a whelping patch. They're not allowed to buy, sell or barter a blueback of the hooded seal or a white coat. The Government of Canada has done all of that.

So when you present your tape and show that to all Canadians, you forget to mention, number one, that there was a stuffed white coat seal there, but number two, that that tape was down in Utah, in Salt Lake City, for about a year in a television production studio called Paradore Television Communications, which you know all about. The best editing in the world is done there. And you expect—

The Chairman: Mr. Baker, your time is up. I'm going to have to move on. You've made some very, very serious comments here.

Mr. Rick Smith: Mr. Chair, just to respond to that comment, that videotape was clearly good enough for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans to lay seven charges. We're quite happy to let Canadian courts decide the outcome of that.

Mr. George Baker: That's my point.

The Chairman: Moving to the other side, Yvan, would you like to be on now, or Peter? Yvan, are you ready, or would you like to hear more?

Mr. Yvan Bernier: I'm ready.

[Translation]

I'm going to take this first round, Mr. Chairman, because you seem to be very picky about time today. If I'm entitled to speak for five or ten minutes now, I should be able to speak for five to fifteen minutes on the next round.

I apologize to witnesses for not being here for their presentation. I was involved in a telephone conference at the time. Nevertheless, I have read your brief quite quickly, and I understood from your dialogue with Mr. Baker, that things were getting heated.

My assistant took some notes that show that you seem to be in favour of the seal hunt—and I would ask you to confirm that for me—and of a quota of some 100,000. I would like to know how you arrived at this figure. Was it determined on the basis of the biomass? Since we stopped hunting seals and white coats, the biomass has multiplied five or ten times. That means that the figure that was correct at the time, no longer is. How do you evaluate this figure with respect to the biomass?

Second, at the beginning of your paper, when you talk about the philosophy of the International Fund for Animal Welfare, you say you are working to end inhumane hunting methods. What do you consider an acceptable way to hunt seals? According to the definition used by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, the objective is to end the animal's life quickly. The definition also refers to the use of a riffle or a club, both of which kill the animal instantly. There's a reminder that cattle and pigs are killed in the same way.

Could you tell me briefly how you determined the quota and how you define an acceptable hunt, since you seem to agree with the hunt? Thank you.

Mr. Rick Smith: Thank you for your question, Mr. Bernier.

[English]

I'm going to answer in English. My French isn't the best.

• 1745

Our position is based on an opposition to commercial hunting because commercial hunting exhibits a number of problems time after time. One is unsustainable kill levels. When you inject a commercial imperative into hunting, as we found with passenger pigeons and whales, it's very difficult to maintain sustainable levels of killing once the hunt has begun.

We also oppose commercial hunting because of the problems of cruelty that are inherent in those enterprises. Once again, when you're hunting for money, the very nature of the enterprise is that you're trying to kill as many animals as you can, as quickly as possible, because that's the only way you make money at it. And under those conditions, which are fundamentally different conditions from a slaughterhouse, for instance, or an abattoir, it's very difficult to maintain standards of humaneness, because you're working out in the open, with uncontrollable weather, on shifting ice. Or in some cases, the seal hunting takes place in the open water, so you're shooting at animals at a distance and you're not sure whether you're going to recover those animals or not. Certainly, there's evidence that a lot of those animals suffer in the water before the boat can get to them to dispatch them humanely.

The third problem with commercial hunts that we've seen time and time again is the problem of enforcement. Again, this is substantially different from the killing of animals that happens in an abattoir. Certainly, abattoirs have their own sets of problems, but they're different sorts of problems than what exist when you're hunting over hundreds of square kilometres of ice or water and the enforcement agency has to manage that enforcement activity.

So that is the basis of our position. It's not just a question of sustainability for us, although certainly we think that's a primary crisis at this point in time. The number of animals being killed out there is depleting the population, and that is our focus at this point in time. But it's only one of the problems we have with commercial hunting.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Bernier: I don't understand, Mr. Chairman, that his group can disagree with the commercial hunt, but support a subsistence harvest. The animal dies one way or the other, whether it is killed by a commercial hunter or by a sport hunter whose objective is to feed and clothe his family. I have trouble understanding the distinction. The Good Lord put animals on earth and gave me the ability to kill them so that I can eat and grow—I think this is all part of the natural order. I don't see any difference between killing an animal in the commercial hunt because I want to feed my children and killing an animal because I want to buy my children books for school—that too is necessary.

[English]

Mr. Rick Smith: On that point, we agree with the distinction that already exists in Canadian and international law between commercial and non-commercial hunting. The law treats subsistence and commercial hunting differently, because an aboriginal person going out and shooting a ringed seal for dinner is a different enterprise from that of somebody going out and killing 300 harp seals in a day so they can sell the pelts to Southeast Asia, the difference being that there's a much better chance that the aboriginal person killing that single seal will be focused on that animal and will use it in its entirety, and that activity is easier to regulate, from an enforcement point of view, than large-scale commercial hunting. That difference between commercial and non-commercial hunting already exists in law and we support that.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Bernier: May I ask another question?

[English]

The Chairman: Just a very small one, then.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Bernier: All right. In the definition you just gave, you say that Aboriginals should be able to hunt for subsistence purposes. How do you describe people who were deported to an island in the 1750s—the Acadians? I think they are Aboriginals of the Magdalene Islands, whose only way of earning a living in the winter or spring is to hunt. They need to buy things from elsewhere in order to survive on their island. Whether they are called Aboriginals of the Magdalene Islands or commercial hunters who have to hunt to live and support their families, I don't think there is much of a difference. We may be in agreement when you say that the main instrument used for hunting seals on the ice floes of the Magdalene Islands is the club. This method allows hunters to be quite close to the animal and avoid losing it in the water. But these are the very images that were used to destroy the seal hunt. I find your comments contradictory.

• 1750

[English]

Mr. Rick Smith: You're quite right with respect to the hunting that goes on in Îles-de-la-Madeleine, and you'll notice that we're not campaigning against subsistence hunting, as you say, by Magdalen islanders or by rural Newfoundlanders.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Bernier: They could sell what they hunt, which is their only way to earn a living.

[English]

Mr. Rick Smith: Again, if I go out in the woods in northern Ontario, for instance, to shoot a deer in the fall, I can't then go to my local Loblaws and sell that carcass so that they can sell it to the public. Once you begin hunting for money, Canadian and international law treat that as a different enterprise.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Bernier: Yes, I quite agree with you, but have you ever tried to eat macaroni 365 days a year? People get tired of eating macaroni. The people of Îles-de-la-Madeleine want to sell their seal products in order to be able to eat something else, for example, beef raised in Western Canada or lamb from the Rimouski region. We are talking about the possibility of exchanging the fruits of our labour for goods produced by other people, while respecting the hunting principles that you recognize yourselves, that is, that the hunter should be neither too near nor too far from the animal so that it does not escape and disappear, and to prevent waste. We are interested in all that.

When I go to Îles-de-la-Madeleine, there is seal meat in sausages, spaghetti sauce and a dish like beef bourguignon. It is delicious, people wear seal skin clothing and it helps us keep warm. But at some point, girls in Îles-de-la-Madeleine become more fashion-conscious and have a right to buy something other than seal skin. How can they do that if people cannot exchange the fruits of their labour? That is what I'm wondering.

In my religion, we like to eat meat. Vegetarians must not like it when we mow our fields, since we are spoiling their meal. How can we reconcile our two religions? We can come together if we go by the hunting rules that you seem to be defending and use these herds appropriately. I would remind you that seals have no other predators, unless I have missed something along the way. Neither cod nor turbot have big enough teeth.

[English]

Mr. Rick Smith: I'd say once again that the history of commercial hunting almost uniformly involves depleted animal populations and inhumane levels of killing. It doesn't matter whether you're talking about animals that were originally not very numerous, such as the dodo, for instance, or certain whale populations, or if you're talking about animals that were at one point the most numerous animals in our continent, namely the buffalo and the passenger pigeon. Commercial hunting for money has the capacity to render animal populations extinct or deplete them very seriously within a very short period of time.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Smith.

Now I'm going to move to the other side. Denis.

[Translation]

Mr. Denis Coderre (Bourassa, Lib): This is going to be one Montrealer speaking to another, Mr. Smith.

[English]

They call me the urban cowboy here. But anyway, I can talk about several issues.

[Translation]

Are you a vegetarian?

Mr. Rick Smith: I am a "fishetarian". I eat fish.

Mr. Denis Coderre: You don't eat meat?

Mr. Rick Smith: No.

Mr. Denis Coderre: You eat fish?

Mr. Rick Smith: Yes.

Mr. Denis Coderre: The next campaign might focus on putting an end to fishing because of the threat of extinction. We should be careful.

[English]

Mr. Rick Smith: There are actually differences between commercial fisheries and mammal hunts, the difference being that fish have the capacity to reproduce.

[Translation]

Mr. Denis Coderre: Mr. Smith, I am not an admirer of Brigitte Bardot. When I look at the vicious and inflammatory campaign concerning the white coats and when I read your annual report, I agree with my colleague George Baker. I think that people's emotions are being played with a little bit, and that the situation is being falsely represented.

• 1755

I would like to know how much money your organization raised last year to fight against the seal industry.

[English]

Mr. Rick Smith: I've included that in the annual report, which you have in front of you, and you can see what our international budget is.

Mr. Denis Coderre: Tell me.

[Translation]

I don't have time to read it. Tell me how much you raised.

[English]

Mr. Rick Smith: The budget of the organization worldwide last year was between $50 million and $60 million U.S.

Mr. Denis Coderre: $60 million.

Mr. Rick Smith: Fifty and sixty. I don't know the exact number.

[Translation]

Mr. Denis Coderre: Where does this large amount of money come from and who collects it?

[English]

Mr. Rick Smith: Our organization is funded by supporters, just under two million around the world, including about 50,000 Canadians

[Translation]

and many Montrealers.

Mr. Denis Coderre: It must be more than just the $5 sent in by individuals; some companies must be helping you.

[English]

Mr. Rick Smith: That's right. It's people like my Aunt Pat in NDG who donate $5 a month.

[Translation]

Mr. Denis Coderre: Besides your aunt, what organizations or companies provide your funding? I don't know anything about that aspect and I am only trying to understand.

[English]

Mr. Rick Smith: Do we have other organizations we fund?

Mr. Denis Coderre: No. Who is funding you? It is not only personal, $10.

Mr. Rick Smith: Our contributors are largely individuals. As with many non-profit groups, we have some corporate collaborators.

[Translation]

Mr. Denis Coderre: You aroused my curiosity when you said that you were in favour of the seal hunt at first and that you later saw the light and changed your mind. I don't know if you left one religion and joined another one.

[English]

You saw the light somewhere, somehow. I'd like to know what happened and why you changed your mind.

[Translation]

You lived in Newfoundland and you saw what was happening. You know full well that the seal hunting industry was not threatening this species with extinction and that it is not the case now either. What made you see the light, Mr. Smith?

[English]

Mr. Rick Smith: Personally, and again I mentioned this in my presentation, but it's become quite clear to me over the last five or ten years that commercial hunting involves a tremendous amount of cruelty and also results in unsustainable killing of wildlife populations. As a biologist and someone who cares about animals I find that offensive, and as somebody who has spent a lot of time working for a variety of social justice organizations, somebody who is a president of a union local—

[Translation]

Mr. Denis Coderre: We agree, Mr. Smith, that hunters, including Aboriginal hunters, have a certain respect for the animals. Was it not the clips that you were showing us that changed your opinion? Was it seeing a white coat being hit that made you change your mind? Is that why you got caught up in this and then joined this cult?

[English]

Mr. Rick Smith: I think different people are in their jobs for different reasons. Certainly some of my colleagues—

Mr. Denis Coderre: What about you?

Mr. Rick Smith: I'm trying to tell you. I come at the issue largely from a biological viewpoint, a sense of injustice at the way people, including a lot of political decision-makers in Canada, talk about harp seals, which has no basis in reality, and also a feeling that this sort of rhetoric does a disservice to rural communities, whether it's in Îles-de-la-Madeleine or whether it's in rural Newfoundland, and that rather than grappling honestly with some province or Canada—

[Translation]

Mr. Denis Coderre: The people in Îles-de-la-Madeleine are trying to survive. I bridled at your statement earlier that you were not referring to the people of Îles-de-la-Madeleine. You should go meet with them so that you can understand the damage that is being done by your work and the misleading and inflammatory publicity that you are disseminating. In that region, not only is there an industry that is struggling to survive, but there are families who are in dire straits. Those families want to survive, they care a great deal about this industry and especially about the animals. If we adopted your approach, we would have to stop eating beef and chicken, since if we keep on killing chickens the way we are doing, there won't be any more. So $16 million should be spent on advertising to tell the public to stop eating chicken. Poor little chicks! Maybe you can show a chick being killed. That is going to be terrible.

[English]

Mr. Rick Smith: Sir, you are absolutely incorrect in your characterization of our campaigning over the last two years, absolutely incorrect, and I would issue a challenge to you. If there is anything in that annual report that you can demonstrate is not factual or is incorrect, I would be quite happy to recant. But everything I have said today, everything I have said over the last two years, and that my colleagues have said over the last two years, is based on scientific evidence, legal information, and I can provide that to you or anyone else who's interested later on today. The animals that you're pointing out in the annual report, once again, are legal to kill for commercial purposes, according to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.

• 1800

Mr. Denis Coderre: Merci, monsieur le président.

The Chairman: Thank you, Denis.

I'm going to move now over to Peter. I'm going to caution members. I don't want you attacking witnesses the way some of you have done. They should have time to respond, and we have to be fair on both sides.

Peter.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

It proves what I've been saying all along and what our party has been saying. If you don't have constructive dialogue, you get into rhetoric; it doesn't matter what side of the fence you're on. And that does absolutely no good for anyone.

I do want to say publicly, on the record, that it's very unfortunate that the Reform Party of Canada used its veto power to not allow us to go on a trip to see the hunt or to see the seals this particular winter. I was distrustful when it happened. I didn't like the idea that they could do this, but it was done. Because of that, we lack some visual knowledge. We can get videos and all that sort of stuff, but I thought it was very important to be there. Regardless of what happens in our recommendations and in our reports, I think it's imperative that we go there next year or as soon as possible.

Mr. Smith, I'm going to say this will all due respect. As a member of 11 national and international environmental organizations myself and one who cares deeply for the sake of our planet and all species that are in here, which I know you do, I respect any organization that is trying to protect other species along with the human species on our planet, because it is a finite system. But if what Mr. Baker says is true....

I'm not going to ask for a response. What I would like is a written response to the committee on his allegation, and I'll end it right there.

Mr. Efford, the minister from Newfoundland, and you and the people we have seen before should be—in a perverse way, I guess—commended for bringing this issue to the committee and the Government of Canada, because the fault of this entire thing, the common denominator.... Regardless, Mr. Smith, of whether we're on your side or on the side of the sealing associations and that of the Government of Newfoundland and the all-party committee that's here today, there is a manager to this entire system. There is a federal department that is responsible for all of this, and that department is called the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. I put it to you, and I will put it to Mr. Efford tomorrow, that they are ultimately responsible for gathering the scientific evidence, based not only on scientific fact but on traditional knowledge, on historical precedents, and also for setting up markets for the seals and assisting those in rural coastal communities.

As you know, we've toured Newfoundland and Labrador. I look at the perspective and I thank you for bringing out the fact—I said it again at a news conference this morning, and I will say it until I'm blue in the face—that what destroyed the fisheries of the planet, not just of the east coast, is destructive technology and the corporatization of our fishery stocks on both coasts in a system of what I call ITQs, or individual transferable quotas, and enterprise allocations, which took away the resource from the inshore, small community-based fisheries and put it into the hands of the large corporations to the tune of billions of dollars, restructuring Canadian tax dollars to do this.

We have seen the output of over 40,000 people in Newfoundland and Labrador leaving their homes. It's absolutely disgraceful that the Government of Canada can allow that to happen and to sit back and wash its hands of the matter, and organizations like yours and organizations like the Government of Newfoundland are engaged in propaganda wars on every side. I'm asking you, and I'll be asking them tomorrow, to stop the rhetoric and sit down and talk with each other so that people from Labrador and Nunavut aren't caught in the crossfire. That's exactly what's happened.

I have only one question for you. Mr. Baker brought up a very valid point about entry into the United States, that Alaskan Inuit people and traditional people have access into the United States for their product. Will you, or are you able, to consider a meeting with the Nunavut wildlife branch and the Inuit group of Labrador to assist them in any way to market their product into the United States? I know that's not your mandate. I realize that we're talking dollars here, we're talking cooperation, and we're talking consultation. Would you at all consider a meeting with them to discuss ways to assist them to live in their communities and to act upon the resources they have?

• 1805

Mr. Rick Smith: Thank you for the question. We're absolutely willing to meet with anyone involved in this issue at any time. I regret to say that some of our letters to a variety of Inuit organizations have gone unanswered. We're very much interested in constructive dialogue on this subject.

The Chairman: Mr. Easter.

Mr. Wayne Easter: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Partly spinning off what Mr. Stoffer had to say, the bottom line here is to take out the emotion and deal with the facts. Rick, you said in discussion with Mr. Bernier that the history of a commercial hunt is that it leads almost to the loss of the species. That has been the history.

But in terms of the seal hunt, DFO and the Government of Canada have put in place extensive regulations and enforcement measures and have tried to ensure that the seal hunt is done in a humane way. If we do not handle the seal herd at levels that are sustainable but also not excessive, then the seal herd itself, we are sure, will kill other species. We are doing studies in terms of the impact on the cod fishery. You're saying that the commercial sealers are so interested in the money, they're going to do it as quickly as possible.

As an organization, you are caught in the same contradiction in terms of white seal pups. Whether or not you can argue that this is a legal seal, we can argue that it isn't. In the calls I get from people who give us hell for allowing the seal hunt, who are often seniors from my riding and across the country, they believe we're actually killing white seal pups. That's what they actually believe.

So there's a problem on both sides. You have an inherent interest as a fundraiser in terms of this picture and this seal hunt, or opposition to it. Like it or not, you have an inherent interest in that.

Now, how do we come to a bottom line here? Do you agree with a hunt if it's done at sustainable levels? The next problem we have—and we'll be arguing with Minister Efford tomorrow on this, no doubt—is in terms of what science is right and what the numbers really are. If we have in place the regulations to ensure that it's humane and done in the fashion of sustainable numbers, would you at that time agree with the hunt?

Mr. Rick Smith: Thank you for that question. Let me address your comment about fundraising first. There is a frequent misconception about that in this debate.

We have no interest whatsoever in the commercial seal hunt as a fundraising issue. I regret to say that there are many animal issues around this planet and in Canada that we're deeply involved with and that we would like to put more organizational resources into. Unfortunately, the reason we're engaged in the commercial seal hunt debate is that it's the largest thing of its kind in the world, and it attracts all of the international attention and all of the international concern you'd expect such a phenomenon to attract. That's why we're currently involved in this debate.

With regard to your question of if you made the hunt sustainable, if you eliminated the cruelty, and if you beefed up the enforcement, would we accept it then, my answer to you is that you're a lot more optimistic than I am that this is a reasonable hypothetical eventuality. Maybe we can talk about that at that point.

• 1810

Again, we are opposed to commercial hunting because, with no exception, commercial hunts exhibit those sorts of problems. They're fraught with them, and we don't see any way around that.

Mr. Wayne Easter: With your experience in terms of biology and a number of other areas, do you then believe seals do have an impact not only on the Atlantic cod but also on the food chain the Atlantic cod depends on in order to come back? That's another species we do not want to make the same mistakes about. If we ignore an expanding seal herd, which Minister Efford will tell us tomorrow is very high, then are we not preventing the Atlantic cod from coming back and endangering other species of fish as well?

Mr. Rick Smith: I think that's one of the most important points in front of the committee for consideration. Very clearly, there is no scientific evidence that seals are impeding the recovery of the northern cod stock. In fact, to quote a professor from Memorial University of Newfoundland, there has never been any evidence anywhere in the world that culling a marine mammal population has benefited the commercial fishery.

The reason is quite simple. A lot of people involved in this debate, including John Efford, would have the committee believe the northwest Atlantic operates like a teeter-totter, with harp seals on one end and codfish on the other. If we push down on the harp seal end of the teeter-totter, the codfish end is going to pop up and those fish are going to leap into the nets of fishermen.

There is the entire ecosystem of the northwest Atlantic, with hundreds of species out there, all of whom eat each other at various points in their life cycles. One of the figures David Lavigne showed yesterday with regard to the simplified food web for the northwest Atlantic showed just a few of the hundreds of different species out there and the complicated interactions among them. I hope that has informed the debate here about how complicated that ecosystem is.

The Chairman: Thank you, Rick. Thank you, Mr. Easter.

We have time for two more quick interventions. Nancy.

Mrs. Nancy Karetak-Lindell: Thank you.

I'm sure you know that I probably cannot be rational about this, because I only see things in black and white. I have to come to the conclusion that I would think you were more open-minded in grade four than you are today.

I hear you talk about cruel killing and senseless killing, and yet half an hour ago I heard comments from other communities in both Labrador and Nunavut that talked about useless killing and senseless killing, but of people. I'm trying to put the two together in order to justify in some way in a black and white situation what I'm hearing from different witnesses. I can only see it as humans versus animals.

I don't think you can say that actions of your organization have not had an impact on communities. You say that Newfoundland will benefit from tourism, but I don't think that's an option for a community in northern Labrador whose livelihood is dependent on the seal hunt, or for some communities that participate in the commercial seal hunt. We're talking about senseless killing and cruel killing, which you're against, and yet your very actions cause those very same situations in the human scenario.

I'm trying to understand how an organization can justify their actions, which have such a detrimental impact at the human level. Again, I only see it in black and white, one side versus another side—how you can support the life of a seal versus a child's promising future. That's the only way I can see the situation: if you have nieces and nephews and children, you would chose a seal and ensure that the seal goes from being a newborn, past the whitecoat stage, and on to becoming an adult seal, but you cannot afford the same options for some child living somewhere to go through to a promising future.

• 1815

I know I'm doing one extreme, black and white, but I'm sorry, that's the only way I see it. We're trying to help people in that part of the country to be able to take their natural resources and provide a living for their children. I heard witnesses earlier today talking about a market so that they can have a life for their children, have an economy for their families, yet actions by a group that probably does not know how it affects people at the human level stop those opportunities from happening.

I guess that's more a comment than a question, but I have a hard time putting things into perspective with this.

Mr. Rick Smith: I'd like to respond to that.

The first thing I'd say is that the majority of my colleagues, in our office just down the street here in Ottawa, come from not even so much an animal welfare background or biology background, but a background in which they were involved—and I would include myself in this mix—in social justice organizations and in organizations that have worked very closely with aboriginal groups throughout the years. We have worked very hard with projects of solidarity with aboriginal people.

Mrs. Nancy Karetak-Lindell: Which groups would those be?

Mr. Rick Smith: Andrea, for instance, worked for the National Action Committee on the Status of Women. Sandra has worked for a wide variety of social justice organizations. For my PhD, I worked extensively with Cree people in northern Quebec. If I thought for one second that our activities were resulting in the sorts of problems that you describe in aboriginal communities, I would quit tomorrow.

Mrs. Nancy Karetak-Lindell: It's not only aboriginal communities. I'm speaking for every fishing community.

Mr. Rick Smith: With respect, on the idea that the campaign against the commercial seal hunts holds a large amount of the responsibility for the sorts of problems that exist and the sorts of challenges that exist in northern communities, I think that really diminishes the other important things that have contributed to those challenges, like forced relocations, like residential schools, like the lack of political autonomy for so many years. I watched the Nunavut ceremonies on television, and I was very moved. I'm delighted that Nunavut has come into its own as a political entity in Canada.

The Chairman: Mr. Smith, I don't want to have to cut you off, but we do have another group coming. I would certainly want to thank you and your organization.

I have always tried to crunch numbers, as you noticed yesterday. I think someone referred to religion here today—I guess it was my friend Yvan—but the strength of your organization economically makes it one of the largest charitable organizations in this country. I'm not sure if I heard right, but I think it's about $50 million to $60 million. We're talking about an industry here that is only generating $10 million or $12 million or $15 million a year. It doesn't seem to be put into perspective. You could almost buy this industry out tomorrow and have $40 million left over.

We're not dealing on the same level playing field with a group like Madam Karetak-Lindell's. She comes from a community in which 25,000 people are trying to make a living, and you have enough money to support all of them.

Mr. Rick Smith: Mr. Hubbard, that figure you quote is our international budget. It's for all offices, everywhere in the world.

• 1820

The Chairman: Yes, but it is a tremendous resource that you have. Now, I'm not going to allow Mr. O'Brien to ask a question here, because I know he wants to get into that.

In any case, I want to thank you for coming. You have brought to our committee a certain perspective, and we certainly recognize your objectives. I would hope you would take back to your group some degree of sympathy for the many people who have lost their livelihood as a result of the decline not only in seals but also in other fur-bearing animals. This country was opened up by the sale of skins and fur from fur-bearing animals, like the beaver and others, which we sold to Europe. Today, of course, that industry is pretty well in decline.

So thank you for coming. We appreciate the fact that you've put in a different perspective, and we'll certainly benefit from your information.

Mr. Rick Smith: Thank you.

The Chairman: We have another group coming. Is Mr. Jerry Ell in the—

Mr. Denis Coderre: I have a point of order.

[Translation]

Mr. Chairman, I do not know if this is a Point of Order or a request for clarification. I looked at the annual report of our last witness, who was saying that the publicity campaign was in the report's financial figures. That is what he said, if I understand correctly, in both English and French.

When I look at the document, all that I see is $53 million for operating revenue growth; then there is a percentage for campaign expenses and supporter growth. With your permission, I would like the organization to be asked to send us the relevant documents indicating how much the advertising campaign on the sealing industry cost and where the money came from. I was told that it was in the document, but I don't see anything about it.

[English]

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Mr. Chair, in all fairness, I can understand why the honourable member would ask that, and he probably has a very valid point. But we have never asked that of any witness. We've also never asked it of, for example, other organizations that get support coming from the government. For example, your own Prime Minister won't do something on a simple matter that we've asked about. So I can understand, and if they wish to do that, that's fine. But in that regard, I think it's an unfair request to specifically point that out.

Mr. Denis Coderre: Mr. Chairman, when I asked a simple question, they told me to read that piece, and they said all the information is in there. I read it carefully. I read

[Translation]

about the white coats and everything

[English]

and there's nothing in that paper that shows me where the money comes from in that specific campaign, and how much it costs. The only question I'm raising in the point of order is that I want to know where it is. They told me to read it. I read it, and nothing is in there, so I'm just asking the witness to send those figures to the committee, because they were supposed to be in there but they're not. That's my point.

The Chairman: Mr. Bernier, on the same point of order.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Bernier: I also had a question of clarification, Mr. Chairman. Some people found that what was said earlier was a bit too enthusiastic or that the language was too strong. I would like to end on a calm note and ask the witnesses a simple question. Since they are opposed to commercial hunting but not to all hunting, if they were given a harvesting model that meets the criteria of subsistence hunting, which is acceptable according to its philosophy, would the organization commit to praising Canadian hunters rather than destroying them, as it doing at present?

There is a model that would do just that, Mr. Chairman. What they don't like about the commercial hunt, is that a large number of animals have to be killed quickly. If the Standing Committee of Fisheries and Oceans could propose such a solution, would they agree to study it?

[English]

The Chairman: Sorry, I'm going to have to end with this. We'd like to thank you again for coming.

We invite Mr. Ell to the table.

Mr. Rick Smith: I'd be happy to provide the details.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Smith.

• 1824

• 1828

The Chairman: We'll reconvene our discussion. We'd like to welcome Jerry Ell, who is the president of Qikiqtaaluk.

Jerry, welcome to our meeting. We apologize for the lateness of the afternoon, and also for the fact that some members had to go to other meetings. We certainly want to hear your concerns, though, and there may be some short questions from members of the committee after you present those concerns.

Welcome.

Mr. Jerry Ell (President, Qikiqtaaluk Corporation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Lawrence O'Brien: Mr. Chairman, if I may, I'd like to say that I really enjoyed Jerry's presentation to us last year in Iqaluit, but I have to go as well. There's an assembly meeting of MPs and senators, and as you can tell, we're a bit overdue. So I apologize.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. O'Brien.

Mr. Jerry Ell: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I am from Qikiqtaaluk Corporation, from Iqaluit. I had the pleasure of meeting some of the committee members when the committee visited Iqaluit as a result of Nancy's effort.

• 1830

I just wanted to very quickly identify two other possible recommendations this committee should consider, and I'll try to highlight why I feel this committee should recommend them in addition to what was suggested this morning, which was that the Marine Mammal Protection Act should be challenged legally and that aboriginal rights under the Constitution do not conflict with Canadian legislation.

In addition to that, I feel this committee should recommend as a priority to identify the population estimates on harp seals and what a sustainable population is, based on the concern of fishermen. Too often the views of aboriginals or of fishermen have been ignored, and as a result we get into situations such as the collapse of the cod fishery. If you remember, a lot of fishermen were trying to identify to DFO that the number of fish were in decline and that efforts needed to be made to address those concerns.

When we look at the population of harp seals expanding into different areas, I know for a fact that in Iqaluit the number of harp seals are increasing, and I know that any animal, whether it's a harp seal or something else, will go where there is food. Every animal does that instinctively. I don't need a biology degree to know that where they currently are there's less and less food available for them, so they're expanding into other areas. That's what the fishermen are saying, and eventually that's what the Inuit will be saying.

Based on the effects on the ecosystem, if you have more of one species, it affects other species within the ecosystem. The north has a very fragile ecosystem, and to have an imbalance created as a result of the impact of human rights activists in the south on a fishery in the south, which also has an impact on the ecosystem in the north.... That all has to be factored in. I hope you'll use a more common-sense approach than what biologists and scientists are using.

Yesterday the scientists were saying the harp seals are in decline. For me, as the chairman stated earlier, I look at the numbers. There are 275,000 harp seals taken out through the quota, and the estimates are that there are 800,000 pups being born. To me, that means there are more harp seals being born than there are being taken, and just through those two numbers, I don't see a decline in the harp seal population. I hope you would use more common sense than the scientists are using. If I were to use their methods to examine this table, I would probably have to come back to you and say it didn't come from a tree.

I would hope that more common sense prevails when you make the recommendation to identify as a priority the population estimates and what a sustainable population is. Is it two million harp seals? Is it three million, or four million? What is a sustainable population of harp seals, given the ecosystem that was pointed out to be very complex by scientists, but that for fishermen and Inuit hunters is very simple? I would hope you view it in that manner.

The fourth recommendation I would hope this committee makes is to have the Department of Fisheries and Oceans identify funding for educational programs designed and implemented by Inuit to counteract the actions of the animal rights groups. The propaganda that's presented by animal rights activists is false. It's misleading. And even though those groups have stated they have nothing against Inuit subsistence harvesting, their actions are affecting our ability to hunt for ourselves.

• 1835

In some cases, the animal rights activists have even said they have no problem with us hunting as long as we don't use rifles, or boats, or skidoos—as long as we don't use any modern technology. Some groups are even advocating that we go back to the way we were originally, and that the method of harvesting has changed, therefore they're justified in their actions.

As explained in some of the statements by witnesses earlier, we are part of Canada. The normal evolution is to advance, and as Inuit we are advancing. We are trying to survive, still in a hostile environment—although it's changed somewhat, it's still hostile—and the conditions are very different from what you're faced with in southern Canada. The challenges are greater. The social implications of not meeting those challenges are such that we have to take advantage of every opportunity that is there before us for economic development. Sealing is one such factor that we must take advantage of. We need your support to educate the public that what we are doing is humane and sustainable, and that the ringed seal and harp seal populations are not endangered.

So very briefly, Mr. Chairman, I would hope the two additional suggestions I'm making before this committee are accepted and that they are recommended to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.

[Editor's Note: Witness speaks in his native language]

The Chairman: Our research staff have taken good notes on that.

George, do you have a quick question?

Mr. George Baker: Yes, I have a quick question, Mr. Chairman.

The best Greenland halibut or turbot, as we call it, in the world comes from Pangnirtung's plant. I believe it is because, Mr. Chairman, it's fished through the ice by hook and line and it's immediately bled when it's brought up on the ice. It's the best-quality turbot in the world.

What I presume you're saying, Mr. Ell, is that you are afraid that with the increased numbers of harp seals that are now appearing off your coast, which are actually born off Newfoundland and the province of Quebec but go north to moult, and then go north for the summer months.... What you're telling the committee is that there are so many of those seals that fishermen are saying that the prime product you produce, the best in the world, may come to an end if there are too many harp seals.

The second question—the chairman probably won't allow me a second question—is this, Mr. Ell. Some organizations, as you claim, are suggesting you go back to the old ways—in other words, you go back to a dog team if it's on ice, and you go back to rowing a boat if it's on water. Could you briefly explain to the committee the number of kilometres you have to go to get a seal when the ice is in, when you're doing it through a breathing hole? It would be 40 or 50 kilometres sometimes for a seal, wouldn't it? And if you're shooting a seal in the water, you have got to get to it quickly or it'll sink, because a skinny seal would sink to the bottom, is that correct?

Mr. Jerry Ell: Mr. Chairman, thank you.

Yes, it is correct on both questions. The potential detrimental effect of a large population of harp seals on the winter turbot fishery is definitely there. Also, the scientists yesterday identified that Arctic cod is a primary source of food for the harp seal. It is also a primary source of food for other marine species, such as the ringed seal, and potentially other marine mammals. So the increase in harp seals will have a detrimental effect.

• 1840

When we're dealing with a more fragile ecosystem, as in the north, where the colder water temperature requires more time for growth of certain species, if the harp seals are allowed to decimate any particular species in the north, it will take forever for that species to return.

It is true that Inuit travel great distances to harvest the ringed seal. Especially in the summer months, when the ringed seals are at their skinniest and tend to sink more quickly, there is a requirement to move very quickly to retrieve the animal.

The Chairman: Do the members have questions or points? Yvan.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Bernier: I would like to thank our witness for his patience as well as for his wise words. I would first like to have him comment again on the following fact. He said that one doesn't need a university degree to know that seals have a large appetite and that they go after food. You said that in the area where you live the seal population is growing, perhaps because you still have fish stocks there. I understand your concern.

I would just like to make one little comment. You have the wisdom of the northern people, who are patient enough to watch things happening. I come from the south, from the Gaspé region of Eastern Quebec. This is the first time that I have seen an animal population grow when hunting or fishing is controlled by government officials. When Fisheries and Oceans controlled the cod, the stocks collapsed.

Earlier on, we asked people from the North what their relationship was with Fisheries and Oceans; they told us that things were always centralized here in Ottawa. I will let you think about my question. How is it that the only species controlled by the government is growing more numerous when all the others are collapsing?

The witness might like to comment on that, but I would like to ask him what his corporation is expecting from the federal government on the seal hunt issue. You mentioned assistance to educate the public so that people understand and let you do things your own way. What does that mean exactly? Are you asking the Canadian government directly to undertake a publicity campaign to counter the negative image that has been given to the seal hunt?

Groups like IFAW say that they are not against subsistence hunting by Aboriginal people, but when they attack the commercial hunt in the south, it provides bad publicity for the products that you want to sell. What specific request are you making to the federal government through our committee?

[English]

Mr. Jerry Ell: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

A recommendation was suggested earlier that there be a legal challenge of the Marine Mammal Protection Act that prevents any seal product from entering the United States. I would ask this committee to recommend that action, because of the marketing efforts that are being made, in terms of ringed seals, and the additional opportunities for economic activity associated with seal hunting.

• 1845

The federal government should challenge that Marine Mammal Protection Act, based on what was suggested earlier in terms of the previous agreement, but also based on free trade. I know from talking with other groups from Newfoundland and northern Quebec—other Inuit organizations—the possibility is very high that a legal challenge based on those premises would win. The only problem is the lack of dollars to pursue that avenue. That's where we're getting very specific, and three of the potential recommendations would require dollars.

The Chairman: Thanks, Mr. Ell.

Mr. Easter.

Mr. Wayne Easter: You talked about using a combination of science and common sense to try to find a sustainable number for the herd. Do you believe there is an imbalance now, and what do you base that on? We heard from scientists yesterday and we will likely hear some more figures tomorrow, so I'd like specifically your information on that.

Secondly, under questioning from Nancy Karetak-Lindell earlier, I believe Mr. Smith from the IFAW indicated to us, in his response, that they don't believe their opposition to the seal hunt has caused problems in terms of some of the Inuit, Labrador and northern communities. What specifically is your position on that? Has your community been hurt as a result of IFAW's tactics in opposing the seal hunt?

Mr. Jerry Ell: On the second question first, the animal rights activists are always saying they're not against Inuit or aboriginal people, but their campaigns don't differentiate between products. They don't specify that Inuit products under this brand are not being targeted; the product and the campaign are very global in nature. When animal rights activists simply put out a message that sealing is no good, that's the only message that gets out. The consumer at the other end accepts that message, and it has had a very negative impact on Inuit communities.

A lot of Inuit hunters were self-sufficient, based on the subsistence harvesting and the selling of by-products. The by-product for Inuit hunters in this case was ringed seal skins that were being sold on the open market through the North West Company. When the animal rights activists targeted the Newfoundland seal hunt, they painted everyone with the same brush. Whether they were from Newfoundland, southern Quebec, northern Quebec, Labrador or Nunavut, they painted everyone with the same brush—every sealer is no good, every seal skin is no good.

That impact is still being felt today. We are still fighting the negative image of seal skins that was presented by animal rights activists. That continues today, while the Inuit have always maintained that the ringed seal population and even the harp seal population are not endangered.

One of the key messages that brought down the seal industry was that the seals being harvested were endangered, which again is a false statement.

• 1850

The Chairman: Thanks, Mr. Ell.

I'll conclude with Peter.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: I apologize, sir, for not being here for your presentation. I had to go to the House and do a four-minute rant on the government. They're okay now; I straightened them out.

Mr. Wayne Easter: We've got that on the record: it was a rant.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: I keep going back to traditional knowledge. It's my experience in the Yukon and of course travelling up north with the committee.... When I lived in the Yukon there was quite a battle against the fur hunt for marten, for lynx, for all those other animals. When there was quite a crunch against those species, especially the marten, for example, a lot of mostly first nations people up there lost their income. Not being dry communities or anything, they resorted to substance abuse, as we do in the non-native communities when we lose our jobs or when we lose our livelihoods: we resort to substance abuse or spousal abuse, and ultimately suicide.

I do want to caution the parliamentary secretary on one thing. The slant of the questioning—and I could say this very well—is that Minister Anderson should resign because he's responsible for suicides in Shelburne County, for example, for the downturn in the groundfish fishery. No, I'm saying I could say that, but I'm not. The fact is that there are many people in non-native communities in Nova Scotia and in Newfoundland who unfortunately have gone to an ultimate act of committing suicide because they no longer fish, for example. I've said that, and people are saying “No, Peter, you're nuts. You can't say that. They didn't commit suicide because of that.” Well, it's one of the various reasons.

When people commit suicide, it is a very tragic act. Yes, actions beget other actions, and that is one of the reasons, obviously, why someone would do that. We should be very cautious in how we state that. I know for my colleague from Nunavut they're black and white issues, and it is very valid for her to state those issues. She lives in the community and has witnessed it first-hand. It is extremely tragic.

I could say the same thing on the government's side when they input policies that hurt the groundfish industry when they gave the fishery resources over to the corporations. That's leading into my question, by the way, Mr. Chair.

Do you have any information or any input or any concerns regarding what draggers have done to the Nunavut areas and up in the Greenland area, zero A and zero B, to the ocean floor and also to turbot stocks and everything else? I've always said there are two issues: we obviously have a predatory issue in dealing with seals, but we also have a dragger technology issue that does just as much or even more damage.

The Chairman: I'm not sure.... We're dealing with seals here. I know you have the best intentions, but I think Jerry came here to talk about seals.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: I know.

The Chairman: I don't want to put him on the spot, unless he's comfortable with answering that question.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Okay.

Mr. Jerry Ell: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. There's no problem in answering that question.

Perhaps I'll just talk briefly first about the traditional knowledge of seals and the common knowledge that's out there. It's common knowledge that harp seals have been harvested for years and years and years and that the level of harvest has been in the hundreds of thousands prior to the collapse of the seal economy.

It's also common knowledge that as a result of the collapse in the price of seals, the level of harvest decreased. As a result, the harp seal population was increasing. The recent level of harvest is increasing again, but it's such that it's not affecting the harp seal population. That increase may potentially affect other species and the northern ecosystem.

If there is another collapse in the fishery, if there is another indication that the Inuit economy is going to be affected again, then some of the impacts you are talking about—substance abuse, alcohol abuse, family violence, and suicide—may be the result of new social strains on the Inuit. It's very possible for that to happen.

• 1855

With regard to the turbot fishery and the impact of draggers, I think at the last committee meeting, when I presented information with regard to the northern turbot fishery, the greatest concern we had was not so much the draggers but the ghost fishing of gill nets and the potential impact that unretrieved gill nets may have on the turbot stocks. The discussion at the communities in terms of draggers was that although there is a concern, it's also understood that the impact is very marginal and is on a very narrow field if we look at the bottom of the ocean. The bigger concern was more with ghost fishing.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Thank you for bringing that up. It reminded me of something.

The Chairman: Mr. Ell, on behalf of the committee, I'd like to thank you very much for your patience and for your presentation.

For committee members and those who were here, it's been a long afternoon.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: A very fruitful afternoon.

The Chairman: We'd like to thank everybody for being so patient.

We reconvene tomorrow morning at 0900 hours. So we're back again. Until that time, the meeting stands adjourned.