FISH Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON FISHERIES AND OCEANS

COMITÉ PERMANENT DES PÊCHES ET DES OCÉANS

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, April 15, 1999

• 0917

[English]

The Chairman (Mr. Charles Hubbard (Miramichi, Lib.)): I call this meeting to order under Standing Order 108(2). We'll continue our discussion on sealing.

With that, this morning we'd like to welcome to our committee hearings representatives from Focus Technologies, Dr. Winters and Mr. Lomax.

Some of you were here yesterday, and are familiar with how we proceed. We will have a short presentation followed by discussion and questions from various members of the committee.

With that, Dr. Winters, I assume you have the brief. We'd like to turn the meeting over to you for consideration of your presentation on the sealing industry.

Dr. George Winters (Senior Fisheries Consultant, Focus Technologies Inc.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen.

I'd like to introduce myself. As the chair said, I'm Dr. George Winters, senior fisheries consultant with Focus Technologies. I'm an ex-DFO research scientist and research manager. My background includes extensive analyses of harp seal population dynamics, going back to the mid-1970s. I'm a former chair of the National Marine Mammal Subcommittee. I've chaired international assessment bodies that have done assessments of harp and hooded seals.

In this morning's presentation we will present the results of two scientific papers we produced under contract to the provincial Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture. These papers were peer reviewed by the National Marine Mammal Subcommittee in February, and they came through with very few critical comments.

In the first paper, we have simulated through a modelling exercise the response of the harp seal population to a variety of alternative harvesting strategies.

• 0920

Perhaps you can turn your attention to the screen. I assume most members, if not all, have copies of our original scientific papers.

In doing the analyses on alternative harvesting rates, we initially reviewed the DFO harp assessment model and suggested several analytical improvements to that model, which resulted in some changes in the population status but significant increases in the replacement yield. The presentation you received from Dr. Lavigne on Tuesday used the uncorrected estimates.

The first slide shows the change in the harp seal population since the early 1950s. It's now estimated to be around 5.4 million seals. That's a tripling from roughly 1.5 million in 1971, when quotas were first introduced. It's also 50% higher than the estimated population in the early 1950s, when the population was considered to be fully recovered after cessation of hunting in the Second World War and reduced hunting in the Depression era, when there was a fairly low demand for seal products.

It's our conclusion that the harp seal population at its current level is likely larger than at any time since the hunt began.

We also reviewed the current and historical management regime for harp seals. When I was initially involved in harp seals in the 1970s, the federal government had a policy of allowing the population to increase slowly towards what was then an estimate of the maximum sustainable yield population. That is a population that will allow the hunt to extract the maximum yield over the longest term without decreasing the population size.

The current policy is based on a periodic update of replacement yield. As I understand it, that was explained by Dr. Stenson as the yield that can be taken from the population without having it go down. This is a short-term-yield policy. However, normally you would only use the replacement yield in a situation where you have reached your target population. It is not appropriate in a situation where you have not a defined target.

In our analysis, we looked at what is called “density-dependent” effects. These are changes that the population makes naturally to changes in its own abundance. As populations increase, the per capita food supply decreases, and consequently there are effects on the rate at which they mature and their ability to produce pups.

The next slide shows the pregnancy rate, which is the proportion of mature females producing pups. The most recent data point is from 1992. It shows the fertility rate decreasing steadily down to 70% from a norm up around 95% in the early and late 1970s, when the population was fairly low.

In other words, as the population has increased, the fertility rate has declined dramatically and is now at the lowest level observed.

The next slide shows the mean age of maturity as a function of population size. The expected response that would normally occur is that as the population increases, the mean age at maturity would increase—that is, seals are maturing older and older.

That is in fact true for this population. The only exception is the 1992 data point, which is well below the line. It may be due to the fact that the harp seal population may now be temporarily above its long-term carrying capacity, or maybe that sampling error is substantial, and the point is underestimated. In any event, as with the pregnancy rate, the mean age at maturity is showing a density-dependent response.

• 0925

Not shown in the graph is a reference from the literature in which the growth of juvenile female seals was analysed. It was found that currently they are growing much more slowly, in both length and body mass, than they were in the 1970s, when populations were low. In other words, the current population, which is probably as high as it has ever been, is resulting in the population being reproductively stressed and showing less than optimal growth.

These are our significant study findings. To repeat, the population is extremely high right now, causing reproductive stress and growth that's less than optimal. Our estimate of the replacement yield for 1999 was 402,000 animals, I think fairly close to the DFO estimate.

We also estimated what the maximum sustainable yield would be from this population—280,000 animals. That would occur at a population size of between 3.5 million and 4 million animals if the density-dependent response in our model appropriately describes how the population will respond in the future.

We also looked at a variety of alternative harvesting strategies. Some of them are listed there. A harvest of 400,000 taken annually would reduce the population to what's called the “MSY” level over a period of several years. Obviously, if you had a higher sustained harvest, the population would reach MSY in a shorter period. Our review of the literature and estimates of the maximum level the population had achieved shows that the current population has eclipsed most of those estimates already.

Our recommendation is that the management authorities should reconsider regulating the harp seal population at the MSY level. This was the policy that was in place in the late 1970s and abrogated when the hunt was reduced in 1983, allowing the population to explode.

An MSY population has a variety of biological and conservation benefits. We've listed them there. They will bring the growth and the reproductive rates of seals to a more optimum level. They will improve the overall ecosystem yield.

We give an example in our report of the consumption of food by the biomass of harp seals there now, which is approximately 450 tonnes. They consume 7 million tonnes of fish, 16 times their own weight, and yet their surplus production—that is, their incremental addition to the ecosystem—is a mere 15,000 tonnes. The equivalent biomass of cod would consume between three to four times its weight—in other words, maybe 1.5 million to 2 million tonnes—and would produce about 100,000 tonnes of yield.

As well, there is an increased probability that depressed cod stocks would recover. There's no certainty that there is a cause and effect, but if there is one, then certainly reducing the seal populations will improve the probability of a recovery.

The maximum sustainable yield level is consistent with the United States' Marine Mammal Protection Act, in which they require that for all imports of seal products, those populations should be at an optimum production level. The MSY is an optimum production level.

We also deal here with a second paper, where we looked at the conservation risk of what's called “sinking loss”. Sinking loss, or “struck and lost”, as I think Dr. Lavigne defined it a couple of days ago, are animals that are shot and that then sink, and are not recovered. They do not appear in the official recorded statistics.

Sinking loss is a straightforward factor of what we call “negative buoyancy”. Seals do not have enough blubber to allow them to float. Their blubber levels will vary on a seasonal basis.

• 0930

In our analysis we modelled the seasonal change in blubber thickness and calculated what sinking loss would be, based on seasonal distributions of catches.

In our sinking loss model there are three factors that affect sinking loss—the proportion of seals shot in the water; of those seals shot in the water, the proportion that have a negative buoyancy; and of those shot in the water with a negative buoyancy, the proportion that the hunter can retrieve because of his skill and his experience.

We contacted experienced DFO observers and acquired information on a variety of these factors. Our modelled estimate provided a best estimate of 8% sinking loss. This compared with Dr. Lavigne's estimate of a minimum of 19% to a maximum of 87%, I think.

The data DFO has collected and we've analysed indicates that their empirical estimate is 8%, which is identical to our modelled estimate. Our estimates, like the DFO estimates, do not include estimates for west Greenland. The west Greenland area has no data on sinking loss.

The scientists at the marine mammal meeting in February from west Greenland reported that about half the hunt was taken by professional hunters, whose sinking loss rates would be equivalent to the professional hunters off the front. As for the other half, which is hunted by subsistence hunters, he had no idea.

In terms of the implications of the 8% sinking loss, it would produce an extra 32,000 kills that would not occur in the reported statistics of an expected kill of 360,000 animals in 1999. About half of those unreported kills would be included in the current estimate of the natural mortality rate. If you adjust your replacement yield for the unreported kill, you are still well within conservation limits.

As a final conclusion there, it's desirable to acquire additional information on the sinking losses. It is a significant factor. However, if you're going to displace other higher-priority research projects, I would not advise it.

If I may have your indulgence for 13 seconds, I would like to answer a question the committee asked Dr. Lavigne two days ago, and for which he gave an incomplete answer. I think the question was, what preys on adult cod? I happen to have with me a paper, presented at the National Marine Mammal Subcommittee in February, that reviews the predators of cod in the northwest Atlantic.

I'll read out their conclusion: “The only recorded predators of adult cod are harp and hooded seals.”

Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you, Dr. Winters.

I must say, I am impressed. I've spent a good part of my own life dealing with science and mathematics, and you are, in my opinion, what your vocation calls for. I'm glad to see someone who is willing to put hard facts, hard figures, and definite conclusions on the table before our committee.

Gary, you have ten minutes.

Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands, Ref.): Thanks, Mr. Chairman.

I'm actually just reading up on some of the sealing issues. We all seem to have made the papers in the last few days with this issue here in Ottawa.

George, we've had discussions about this, you and I, many times, on many previous occasions. I'm very impressed, as our chairman has stated, with your research and your numbers. I think it's very complete. But I'm going to try to simplify this and bring it down to some issues that the general public can really grab hold of.

As you know, the Minister of Fisheries is from Newfoundland. Quite clearly he's advocating and would like to decrease the herd in a substantial way. We have the sealers coming out saying they're very pleased and quite happy with the current quotas at 275,000. We have other people who seem to be adamantly opposed to any seal hunt.

• 0935

You're a scientist, and I would like to get your feeling on this. There is a suggestion that the seal population in the Atlantic today is somewhere around 6 million seals. That number seems to come up. DFO is suggesting 5 million to 6 million. Some suggest 6 million to 8 million, but let's say, for numbers' sake, it's 6 million seals.

DFO's own scientists and top seal advisers are telling us that the pups out on the ice this year are going to come in somewhere around 800,000. Some people are suggesting as high as 1 million, but let's take it for granted it's about 800,000.

I know you've talked about this maximum sustainable yield, which is the maximum number of seals the industry can harvest without hurting the population. Without looking at the markets for now, I just want to know what you see as the solution to this problem with the seals. Where do you think we should be going, and at what quota level?

I think what this is all boiling down to is that right now we're at 275,000 seals. The markets are another issue, completely separate from the science side of it. I really want to know what would be your four- or five-year plan. Quite specifically, if you were advising the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans today...and I know Minister Efford is here today with us. We'll be hearing from him later. He is saying he wants a sound management plan. We hear the same kind of talk coming from the minister.

I think we all want that, but there's lots of data out there. So without waiting for this latest seal count but with the assumption that it's as suggested, that it will come in around 6 million seals and 800,000 pups, I would like you to tell us what advice you would give the minister over the next four or five years on where the TACs should be set, specifically in numbers. Then we can go on to the markets, and whether they can sustain that.

So I'd like to hear your proposals to Minister Anderson.

Thank you.

Dr. George Winters: As scientists, we don't set policy. Our role is to provide estimates of impacts once the policy objectives are decided. That we can do.

If they wish to reduce it to 2 million TACs or 1 million or 3.5 million or 4 million, then as scientists we would provide advice as to the impacts on the population and sustainability, and sustainability yield.

As scientists, we normally keep our noses out of policy matters.

Mr. Gary Lunn: Oh, oh! You'd be a good politician. You didn't answer my question.

Dr. George Winters: It would be unethical for me to answer your question.

Mr. Gary Lunn: I guess that means it's unethical for us to answer any questions.

Let me try this another way, then.

Do you agree with the 275,000 TAC right now, today? Would you agree with this quota set by the current DFO, with the data currently available? Obviously that's what the current minister has.

What are your thoughts on that, then?

Dr. George Winters: The current quota of 275,000 is for the Canadian zone. There's an additional projected take of probably 75,000 to 80,000 in west Greenland, for a total kill of about 350,000 to 360,000 animals. The replacement yield is somewhere between 400,000 and 420,000 animals. So it's a safe biological quota that, if the parameter estimates are correct, will allow the population to marginally continue to increase.

Mr. Gary Lunn: I guess what I'm hearing is that the total catch right now, today, including what's up in Greenland, is around 360,000, and that there's some scientific evidence that it could go as high as 400,000 or 420,000. It's not that far off the mark, then. Would you agree with that?

Dr. George Winters: Yes. The expected kill for 1999 will come close to the replacement yield.

Mr. Gary Lunn: Okay.

• 0940

As a scientist, do you think the size of the herd out in the Atlantic is out of control, or too high?

Dr. George Winters: When you see signs of reproductive stress in a population, as we're seeing here for harp seals, with pregnancy rates the lowest observed, elevated age at maturity, and suboptimal growth, the population is at a level that probably should be reduced.

You can make a case right now that the environment along the east coast of Newfoundland is very favourable for harp seals. The groundfish resources are very depressed, so there's very little competition for common prey. Prey species like capelin and Arctic cod, which harp seals prey on, are at fairly high abundance levels. If the environment should change and/or the groundfish stocks make a stronger-than-expected recovery, the food available to harp seals would be less than it is now, and you may see a sudden reversal—an increase, for example, in pup mortalities, or fertility rates going down to 40% or 50%.

So right now, certainly in my opinion, the environment out there is very favourable for harp seals, but it may not continue.

Mr. Gary Lunn: I know it's hard to pin you down on a number. I've gotten out of you so far that the current TAC totally is about 360,000 and it probably could go as high as 400,000. We're talking possibly a 10% increase.

If we're trying to achieve a certain goal in the size of the herd in Atlantic Canada—right now, 5 million or 6 million, something like that—then what do you think about, say, 4 million? I know that number has been tossed out there.

What do you think is a number we should be looking at on a long-term basis at DFO in a management plan? Is there a number?

Dr. George Winters: The management strategy we adopted in the 1970s was to allow the population to increase slowly until it reached what we had then estimated to be the maximum sustainable yield population level. That is a level that is scientifically defensible. It's a safe level. It's a level that will maximize the long-term returns from the resource, and it's a level that will also allow the population to bring itself within sustainable carrying capacity limits.

Mr. Gary Lunn: What level is that?

Dr. George Winters: The estimate we have in our paper is between 3.5 million and 4 million.

Mr. Gary Lunn: Thank you.

I have one last question before I defer to some of my colleagues to provide them with some more time.

Last year the fisheries committee travelled out to Atlantic Canada. In fact, this issue came up over and over again through some 15 to 20 communities throughout Atlantic Canada, through five provinces. We wrote an east coast report. It was chaired by George Baker.

We came up with a recommendation to the Minister of Fisheries that something had to be done. Although none of us on the committee were scientists and didn't want to pretend that we were, we felt at the time that we should be bringing the industry and the scientists and the communities together to a symposium or a forum of some description where all of this information could be looked at, could be brought together, and invite all the parties, including the sealing associations, to come up with a model to make a recommendation to the government. We felt that was the most effective way.

That was a report that was supported by 16 members of Parliament from all five political parties. Of course, that has not been done.

I would like your comments on that recommendation, how worthwhile that would have been, and what it could add to this situation or this problem.

Dr. George Winters: This problem is not unique to the Newfoundland area. They have a substantial problem with grey seals in Scotia-Fundy. That population is now at a level that's unprecedented. They're spreading to places like the south coast of Newfoundland, the southern Gulf of St. Lawrence, and so on.

It's probably a good idea to bring together the harvesters, the people who will be impacted, the scientists, and the policy-makers into one forum to discuss this.

Mr. Gary Lunn: You would support that recommendation?

Dr. George Winters: Of course I would, yes.

Mr. Gary Lunn: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Thank you, Gary. Your ten minutes is up.

Mr. Bernier.

• 0945

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Bernier (Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-de-la-Madeleine— Pabok, BQ): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would first like to thank the witnesses for coming here this morning and then express the ambiguity in which I find myself this morning.

I have been informed of Mr. Winters' reputation, and I read the brief he provided. I am happy to see him here this morning, although I do have a problem, as I am a novice when it comes to managing seal hunting. Mr. Chairman, it may be necessary to invite Mr. Winters again, along with other witnesses.

I am trying to find out where the truth is and what arguments I can base my decision on. In his brief, Mr. Winters spoke of the maximum sustainable yield for seals and indicated in section 6(4) (c) of his summary, if I am not mistaken, that if 2 million animals were killed, the rest of the population would reproduce enough to continue harvesting 275,000 animals a year thereafter. I have some difficulty understanding this. Many hunters back home would applaud this statement. I want to give everybody a chance to clearly express their opinions and be fair to everyone.

Mr. Winters, who is a scientist, might help me structure my reflection process. Yesterday, we heard the declarations of the International Fund for Animal Welfare representatives who, based on Mr. Lavigne's calculation method, recommended that the maximum number of animals be 100,000. There seems to be a world of difference between your two opinions. If I considered that the witnesses we heard yesterday adopted extreme positions, yours, Mr. Winters, seems to be at the other extreme. It seems to me that the truth must be somewhere in between. You may be absolutely right, but I may need to consult with a third scientist to fully understand the situation. However, I do not want to shop around this morning as one would for buying a car.

Imagine the Canadians or Quebeckers who are sitting in their living rooms, who have never set foot on the ice, and who are wondering how we are going to manage seal hunting. I would tend to act as a family man and first think of feeding and clothing my family. But how will these people understand that I am making this decision by instinct, while a calculation process and methodology that will satisfy everybody must be defined? We must be able to determine the appropriate number and explain to those who oppose our evaluation that our calculation is based on something specific.

I wish we could get out of the emotion involved in this issue, the emotion that animal protection groups resorted to when they used the image of the white pup and caused us to loose our means of subsistence. How can I avoid the emotion of this issue and establish the right number? You see what kind of problem I am faced with.

[English]

Dr. George Winters: I'm glad you asked that question, because there is an analysis of short-term yield, which is a replacement yield, and an analysis of long-term yield, which is what I referred to with the MSY.

To address your second point first, in Dr. Lavigne's analysis, as I pointed out at the beginning, he used the uncorrected estimates of replacement yield provided in a DFO publication. In our analysis we reviewed the DFO model, and indicated to them that they could make improvements in their analytical procedures, which they did. Replacement yield increased from about 286,000 to around 400,000 to 405,000. So Dr. Lavigne's estimates are off by approximately 125,000.

• 0950

Dr. Lavigne also used sinking-loss estimates from his paper that both the modelled estimates we presented and the empirical data from DFO observers indicated to be a very large overestimate. So that will explain the 100,000 or 110,000 that Dr. Lavigne had. It is in error and not consistent with either the current replacement yield or the estimates of sinking loss.

To go back to your first question, there is for any population a sustainable yield. That is the long-term yield you can take from that population and have it remain, at the long-term level, stable. There is then the short-term yield, which is the replacement yield. A population may currently be above its carrying capacity because of very favourable survival conditions or a larger-than-normal food supply, which may very well be the case for the current harp seal population. So you can have a replacement yield that is much higher than sustainable yield from the same population.

Does that explain the dichotomy in the two estimates?

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Bernier: I am beginning to understand the difference between the two evaluations. I will repeat your answer to make sure I understood. You say that Mr. Lavigne did not use the right numbers and is wrong when he says that, if we harvest 275,000 animals a year, stocks will decline. You say for your part that, on the contrary, if we only harvest 275,000 animals, the herd will increase. The mechanics must be clear.

Secondly, if I am not mistaken, you estimate that the herd is too large and is not reproducing enough right now, and that if we want an optimal hunt, that is if we want to maintain a sustainable herd, 1 or 2 million animals will have to be killed to restore a balance. But you warned us that we would have to make a decision on the number of animals to be harvested in the future. Based on this number, could you tell us how many animals must be killed to have a sustainable yield? Did I get it right?

[English]

Dr. George Winters: Yes.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Bernier.

Mr. Easter.

Mr. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Welcome, Dr. Winters, and thanks for the presentation.

I have much the same problem as Mr. Bernier—namely, that the scientific opinion we've had before the committee thus far has been different, the difference between day and night. I've been going through Dr. Lavigne's presentation here of two days ago, and there is a wide divergence of scientific opinion.

Can you go back to what I think was your third or fourth slide, called “Current and History”? I can't find it in your documentation.

Mr. Terry Lomax (President, Focus Technologies Inc.): It's figure 1 in the documentation.

Mr. Wayne Easter: Okay, but the commentary isn't with it, and it's the commentary I need.

You're basically saying the current herd is 50% higher than in the early 1980s, when the herd was considered to be fully recovered.

Dr. George Winters: The 1950s.

Mr. Wayne Easter: That's right, the 1950s. I need my glasses checked.

Can you explain that a little further?

Dr. George Winters: Historically, let's say 20 years ago, when we were analysing this population and its population trajectory back through time, it was considered that in the early 1950s this population was fully recovered after 150 years of unregulated hunting.

The basis for that was the population estimate for the early 1950s, which was in the range of 3 million to 3.5 million animals. During the Second World War there was virtually no hunting of harp seals, and prior to that, during the Depression, the kill levels on harp seals were fairly low because markets were depressed. The combination of those two factors would have allowed the population to undergo a substantial renewal and recovery, and it was considered, because of those two factors, that by the early 1950s that population would have been near what we call “pristine”, or maximum, levels.

• 0955

We now have a population that is 50% higher than that. When we go back through the literature and look at what estimates there are—and they're fairly rough, going back through the 19th century—they suggest that around 4.1 million animals would have been the original population size at the beginning of the hunt in the late 18th century.

We now have, according to DFO figures, 5.4 million animals out there. That's the basis for our conclusion that this population is probably as high, if not higher, than it has ever been.

Mr. Wayne Easter: Okay.

What I'm leading to—and you may or may not be able to answer this question, and a couple of others as well—is this: What level should the herd be at to get the best balance in terms of the fishery as a whole?

We started out with the regulation in terms of the seal fishery—let's call it that, or perhaps the seal “harvest”—in terms of sustaining a herd at a certain level. But is that level too high or too low in terms of ensuring the viability of the Atlantic cod, the northern cod, the fish food chain, etc.?

I mean, we have to look at that balance as well. Instead of just taking a number, we want to sustain the seal herd here. We need to sustain it at a level that, yes, in terms of the viability of the seal herd, we're sustaining, but also in terms of the viability of the fish food chain, everything from capelin up the line, in terms of that chart Dr. Lavigne had the other day, and in terms of recovery of the cod. What level are we talking at there?

Dr. George Winters: That's a very complicated question—very complicated.

Mr. Wayne Easter: And that's where we have to get to.

Dr. George Winters: It would lead to a significant amount of speculation on behalf of any scientist.

What we can say is that for the migratory offshore cod population off the east coast of Newfoundland, very few of those cod are surviving into the adult stages. The only known predators are harp and hooded seals. So you can make inferences that by reducing those populations, you would improve the survival rate.

We know, for example, that the current population of harp seals is highly stressed. Therefore, reducing it to a level such as the MSY, which is biologically defensible, would certainly increase the probability of recovery of our cod stocks and reduce, at the same time, the harp seal population to a level that is perhaps more in balance with its environment.

Other options beyond that would be, I think, highly speculative.

Mr. Wayne Easter: Last question, Mr. Chair.

You had mentioned, and you did now as well, the fact that the fertility is low. Do you have any reasons for what would be causing that? You talked about herd-size stress and stress factors in terms of density. The other point you mentioned is that the growth rate is slow.

Now, especially in the growth rate, what we're hearing from non-scientists—the Inuit, the Labrador people, and fishermen themselves—is that seals, harp seals in particular, are being found in bays further inland—even in the Miramichi, Mr. Hubbard—further up than they have ever been seen before.

Can you give us a reason for that? Is it due to lack of food supply?

Mr. George S. Baker (Gander—Grand Falls, Lib.): Too many seals.

Mr. Wayne Easter: What is the situation there?

Dr. George Winters: For most wild populations, there's a very strong relationship between the size of the population and the area of its distribution. As the population increases, the size of the range, or the habitat, expands and expands and expands, because it depletes local food density. That's a well-described phenomenon in literature.

For example, it's clearly evident that as the northern cod collapsed, it was reduced to a smaller and smaller area. What you're seeing for seals now quite likely is the reverse of that. As the population has expanded, you're now seeing a significant number of harp seals, for example, down in the Cape Hatteras area.

• 1000

So they're searching for food. They're opportunistic. They will eat anything.

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

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Easter.

Mr. Stoffer, for five minutes.

Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NDP): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Again, thank you to the witnesses for appearing today.

You say that the report you gave to the Newfoundland government was presented before the NMM subcommittee—for review, I take it.

Dr. George Winters: Yes.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Can you very quickly explain the difference between giving that to them for peer review, as I take it, or giving it to a normal scientific journal for their peer review?

Dr. George Winters: There would be very little difference, but there would be less what I call “pro forma”. In a subcommittee, there's more give and take, whereas in a submission for a primary paper, there will be a formal distribution of your paper to referees.

You would get their response. You would consider their response. You would either accept it and revise your report or reject it, providing a reason why you rejected it. In some cases, your analysis may be totally flawed and completely unacceptable.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Okay.

I don't profess in any way, shape, or form to be a scientist, but you've mentioned Dr. Lavigne in terms of statistical information, and errors he has done, and yet, as you do yourself, he presents these to peer reviews and gets them published. So obviously you're not arguing only the point that his figures are wrong but also that the people who do his peer review are wrong. But that's another story.

Just to reiterate, what is the total number of seals being taken out right now in the regulation kill between Canada and Greenland? You said around 360,000, was it?

Dr. George Winters: That's correct.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: The incidental kill is around 8% or 9%. Your figures here say 8%, but this says 9%, so around 32,000, for a total of 392,000. How many seals, when they're born, die through natural causes—the ice shifts, say, or they just fall over and drown? Of the total herd of 5.4 million, how many do you estimate will die?

We got a figure the other day that approximately 700,000 pups are born at one time. How many of those would die immediately through natural causes? Give me your best guess.

Dr. George Winters: Your replacement yield is in fact your losses due to natural mortality, because—

Mr. Peter Stoffer: I'm sorry, but just to simplify it, how many natural pups would die, seconds after birth or a few hours after birth, of all those seals that are born? How many?

Dr. George Winters: Less than 1% immediately after birth. Over a period of a year, you would get 8%.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Then that's approximately another 30,000 to 40,000. So we're looking at a figure of anywhere between 430,000 and 440,000 killed, by nature or professional sealers or incidental kills.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you said the natural mortality, taken out, should be around 440,000, right?

Dr. George Winters: Of the population.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Yes. So we're doing that now. It's already happening.

Dr. George Winters: Of the 32,000 I reported there, half is included in the natural mortality rate of the current model. So it's 16,000. If they take 360,000, their net take will be 376,000.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Very good. Okay.

For my last question to you, sir, perhaps you could take off your scientific hat for just a moment. We're all people in this. We're all human beings.

With regard to Mr. Bernier's question, if you're asking for a reduction—and I won't say the word “cull”—of, say, 1 million or 2 million seals, using your most humane or humanistic approach, not scientific, what should happen to those seals? How should we reduce them?

What should we do with them, sir?

Dr. George Winters: I'm sorry, but I can't answer that. I'm a scientist, and that's outside my area of expertise.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: I kind of expected that.

Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you, Peter.

Charlie, would you be ready with some questions?

Mr. Charlie Power (St. John's West, PC): Okay.

Again, I look at more the human side of this rather than the science side of it sometimes, which I guess is my job in this world.

First of all, let me thank you for being here to give us this information. It's also great to see Minister Efford and the all-party committee of the House of Assembly here as well, which shows the great concern there is in Newfoundland about this whole problem.

• 1005

I just got this little fact sheet from the federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans on the food that seals eat. The principal species consumed by harp seals were capelin, 1.1 million tonnes; Arctic cod, 600,000 tonnes; and flatfish, about 340,000 tonnes. Harp seals are estimated to have consumed almost 150,000 metric tonnes of Atlantic cod, and grey seals about 60,000 tonnes. So between grey and harp, you're talking 210,000 tonnes of Atlantic cod.

When you look at the area of Newfoundland that I represent on the south coast, Placentia Bay and St. Mary's Bay, we're talking about a 20,000-tonne fishery this year to sustain a significant number of families. We're hoping to get a 5,000-tonne quota on the southern shore of that area, which depends significantly on cod.

So these two species of seals are taking 210,000 tonnes in cod alone, and 1.1 million tonnes of capelin, the main food source for cod.

All your models deal with the maximum sustainable yield for seals. Have you looked at models for a minimum sustainable yield for seals? Maybe the converse of that would be that then we'd have a maximum sustainable yield in cod and other species that we need in order to employ people in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Is there a minimum yield you could live with?

Dr. George Winters: The seal population, like any wild population, can have a wide variety of sustainable yield. You can have a high population and a low yield and you can have a low population and still have a significant sustainable yield. There are limits below which you would not exploit a population.

For harp seals, when you get below perhaps 1 million, you would not exploit them, but at any level above that, the population would have a definable sustainable yield. You can either exceed that and cause the population to go down or you can be below that, if you wish, and allow the population to go up.

So you have a number of opportunities. It depends on what your objectives are.

Mr. Charlie Power: We're a long way away, with the seal populations in Newfoundland, from having seals being listed on the endangered species list. Are we a long, long way away from that?

Dr. George Winters: Oh, I think it's ridiculous to have them on the endangered species list.

Mr. Charlie Power: I have just one other question and then I'll finish, Mr. Chairman.

The strange part of it all is that when Mother Nature was in charge of management, things seemed to work pretty well. I mean, you had seals and you had cod and you had fishermen. You had a balance. When human beings got involved with managing the resource, everything went topsy-turvy.

An hon. member: Hear, hear.

Mr. Charlie Power: I think the maximum cod quotas in Newfoundland were 266,000 metric tonnes back in the mid-1960s. We got the 200-mile limit through the efforts of the Government of Canada. Unfortunately, the downside was that we also got management from the Government of Canada. Hence, in 1992 we have neither codfish to catch.

What happens? How does man fool up a system so badly, and can Mother Nature solve this for us? How long before seal populations, just by the simple function of running out of a food supply...? There will be no cod. There will be no salmon fishery. There'll be no outfitting in Quebec. There'll be no outfitting salmon camps in New Brunswick.

How long before seals actually eat themselves out of house and home, the seal population collapses, and everything goes back to square one? How long will nature take to do that?

Dr. George Winters: I can't predict. All I can say is that a lot of the productivity in the system out there, and the variation in that productivity, is caused by environmental variations. That should not be understated.

Should it turn unfavourable, that can do a very rapid job on a seal population. It's not predictable, but it's a substantial factor in not only harp seal productivity but also cod populations, flounder populations, and any other populations. The environment is a huge driving factor.

Mr. Charlie Power: Just to finish that point, with these numbers of what seals eat, all these different species, how long, if the seal population goes to 7 million or 8 million, before there's simply nothing left to eat, and then the crash has to happen? How long do you think that would be? Is there any way to scientifically predict that?

Dr. George Winters: Not really. We did estimate that if the hunt were abrogated, and you had no more hunt, the population would reach 7.1 million animals and then it would level off with no net productivity. That would take—I can't recall exactly—probably a decade or two. At that point it would just level off. You may see pup mortality increasing, or further decreases in pregnancy rate, or the age of maturity going up. It may have a short-term mortality crash. These have been things that have been observed in other marine mammal populations.

• 1010

Mr. Charlie Power: Your literature also says that you've estimated that it could go to 7.1 million, but that's much higher than you ever expected before. You actually thought that the 4-million range would be the maximum amount of seals that the environment could carry.

Dr. George Winters: Right.

Mr. Charlie Power: Now you're saying it might be 7 million. That's only an estimate, isn't it? It could be higher than that again.

Dr. George Winters: Yes. The estimates I quoted before were from around 20 years ago. Now we have an extra 20 years' data. Presumably our estimation procedure might be improved. I can't really say it is, but it might be improved. On the other hand, we appear to have a much different environment out there now from what we did 20 or 30 years ago.

Mr. Charlie Power: Thanks, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Power.

Do any other members have a question?

Mr. Wayne Easter: I have one, if I may.

The Chairman: And then I have a couple of points.

Go ahead, Mr. Easter.

Mr. Wayne Easter: I'm wondering, Mr. Chairman, whether either Dr. Winters or the research staff could provide for us a copy of those slides with commentary alongside in terms of their opinion on what the various graphs say. I'd like to have that commentary for our internal review, if that's possible.

Dr. George Winters: That's no problem.

The Chairman: Thank you.

I would like to clarify something I have had some difficulty with. We have peer reviews, but we have very different opinions. Yesterday, as I understood it, Dr. Lavigne was attached to the University of Guelph, which is a long way from the seals.

In terms of your group, where do you base your geography in terms of the industry? Have you lived in Newfoundland? Do you see seals, and are they part of your weekly or monthly experiences?

Dr. George Winters: Yes, I am a Newfoundlander. I come from a sealing community. Professionally, my background has involved seals extensively. I managed the harp seal research program for about 20 years, so this is not a new field to me. Right now I'm a private consultant, so I'm not necessarily representing any particular group.

The Chairman: In terms of Dr. Lavigne's group, when he presented evidence we were led to believe that the International Fund for Animal Welfare were his supporters, and they're the ones who were financially and otherwise supporting his efforts.

In terms of your organization, Mr. Lomax, who are your clients? Is there any way we might draw the conclusion that you have reasons to present the kind of information you gave this morning?

Mr. Terry Lomax: Not really. Our clients are varied. One of the understandings we have with our clients is that we look at the data, and we follow that data. If the results we obtain are not favourable to the clients, they're still our results. They can either publish it or not publish it, but we will not be compromised in terms of our conclusions.

The Chairman: I see this has brought some....

Peter, we do have just a minute or two for your question, and then we'll ask for a brief summary from Dr. Winters and Mr. Lomax.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: I ask this question on behalf of both me and Mr. Power, my colleague from Newfoundland.

We're hearing a lot in the papers these days about a possible seal contraceptive of some kind. In your studies or discussions, are there any kinds of concerns or any issues you have on another way of so-called controlling the seal populations in that regard? I find it rather odd that they would try that, but I'd like the scientific approach on that.

Dr. George Winters: When I was chairman of the marine mammal committee I recall that this was one solution proposed to control the grey seal population on Sable Island; it was just finding people brave enough to walk up to the seals and inject them.

Voices: Oh, oh!

The Chairman: Thank you, Peter. I was wondering, when you started that.

We have a new industry in Canada with this Viagra—

Voices: Oh, oh.

The Chairman: —and when you talked about the low fertility rate, I thought Peter was suggesting his party might go out and invest in that new operation we have.

• 1015

Dr. Winters, would you like to make a concluding statement?

Dr. George Winters: With respect to the harp seal population, the current management strategy has no objective. From a conservation viewpoint, I think it must have an objective in order to achieve it. The faster they get one, the better.

The Chairman: Thank you both for coming this morning. It was very interesting.

We would now like to adjourn for approximately five minutes.

• 1016

• 1027

The Chairman: I'd like to reconvene our meeting now.

Welcome to our table. I understand that you are an all-party delegation from the great province of Newfoundland and Labrador, led by the Honourable John Efford, the Minister of Fisheries.

Just to show our members that all parties in Newfoundland are very much concerned with this issue, John, if it's acceptable to you, I would like you, probably, to say a few words, followed by Mr. Fitzgerald from the Conservative Party and Mr. Harris from the New Democratic Party of Newfoundland. I understand you have a video, which some people have seen before.

Welcome to the committee. If it's favourable to you, we will proceed with your short remarks, followed by Mr. Fitzgerald, followed by Mr. Harris, and then we will hear your general submission.

Hon. John Efford (Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, Government of Newfoundland and Labrador): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. If I may, before I make my few comments, I would like to briefly introduce everybody, make a couple of remarks, and then show the video. Then each of my colleagues of the all-party committee would like to have the opportunity to make a short presentation. I think that would be most beneficial, and that's the way we've done it so far. Is that fine?

The Chairman: The time is yours.

Mr. John Efford: Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for the opportunity for the all-party committee from Newfoundland and Labrador to appear before your committee.

As Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, I wish it were under more pleasant circumstances. I wish it were brighter, and I wish we had a lot more confidence in our future in Newfoundland and Labrador, but the circumstances that put this all-party committee together in Newfoundland bring us here with very troubled minds and a troubled outlook for the future of Newfoundland and Labrador.

I'll make further comments on that later. I'll introduce the individuals who are appearing with me in my capacity as Minister of Fisheries. We'll show you the video and then we'll make a short presentation. I think you'll have a better understanding of the abysmal outlook for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

With me today is Mr. Lloyd Oldford. Lloyd is here because he represents the fishermen of Newfoundland and Labrador. He is the individual who brought to my attention the impact of the destruction of the codfish by seal predation in his particular area. We'll talk about that a little later.

• 1030

Next to Lloyd is Roger Fitzgerald. Roger is the PC member for Bonavista South. He's also my critic in the House of Assembly. Next to him is Paul Shelley, PC member for Baie Verte. Paul represents a very large sealing area, whose people who are involved in the sealing industry and in the fishing industry. Next is Jack Harris, the leader of the NDP for Newfoundland and Labrador. Next is Mr. Gerry Reid, the Liberal member for Twillingate and Fogo, which also has quite a number of sealers and fishermen—not just sealers, but sealers and fishermen. Next is the newly elected Liberal member for Burgeo and LaPoile, Kelvin Parsons. Again, his constituency is very heavily dependent on the marine life.

With those introductions, I'll now ask for the video to be shown. As I said, a picture is worth a thousand words.

• 1031

[Video Presentation]

• 1042

Mr. John Efford: Mr. Chairman, that is the way it is. I've been noted as one of the most partisan people in Newfoundland and Labrador—I think some of my friends around the table, like Charlie Power and the PC people around the table, and probably George Baker, have tagged me that way—but this issue goes beyond partisan politics. This issue, which we're trying to bring to the recognition of the Government of Canada, is about the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, the people of Atlantic Canada.

This issue is not about increasing the TAC for 1999. Since we've come to Ottawa, and in my meetings with the ministers in Quebec and with the Honourable David Anderson, I did not ask for an increase in the TAC for 1999. The only thing I did in Quebec was to show that video so that all of the ministers across Canada could see what's happening in our province, so that they could take that information back home and build support, public opinion support, in our favour in Atlantic Canada. I did not ask for an increase in TAC.

I was supposed to have discussions the next day at the Atlantic ministers' meeting, but I do get emotional and I do get upset, because I see the destruction of an ecosystem, the destruction of tens of thousands of people in Atlantic Canada who have and should have the right to live in their own communities and to earn a living from that sea.

When John Cabot discovered Newfoundland and Labrador, this resource was so plentiful that he dropped a basket over the side and dipped up the cod. Today, in Charlie Powers' riding, in my riding, we cannot even take one codfish out of the ocean for food, and all of our fishermen in those small boats are left on the wharves, looking out over the ocean and wondering where their next meal is going to come from. That should not be.

• 1045

With such a resource as we had and with the mismanagement, the cause of the decline being the greed of large companies and foreign ships, the people left to suffer are the people living in those small communities. We want the sealing industry to continue and we want the groundfish industry to continue. The cause of the collapse of the groundfish industry was that it was managed wrong. It was managed inappropriately. Otherwise, the collapse would not have happened.

But the frightening part about it, the tormenting, aggravating part of it, is that six years after the collapse, after the closure of the groundfish industry in Newfoundland and Labrador, when some 40,000 people in Atlantic Canada were directly displaced, the biomass of northern cod is worse in 1998 than it was pre-1992, according to the FRCC, the minister's own advisory committee. I ask you: where is the appropriate management plan for the sealing industry and for the fishing industry, for the people living in our communities in Atlantic Canada?

Let me also tell you something else. While people argue with me because of my temperament or my emotions and because of some statements that I've made, while the people argue with me and say there's no scientific information, the NAFO science community, in 1997, reported clearly that the seals consumed 108,000 tonnes of juvenile northern cod—those less than 40 cm—which represents 300 million fish.

Had those 300 million fish had a chance of survival, whatever nature's percentage of survival is, and had they grown to the poundage at which they could be harvested commercially, how many people in Newfoundland and Labrador would have got back to work to feed their families? They do not have money. The compensation from the federal government is cut off. Why? They left us with an impression that the stocks were coming back, so they cut off all compensation.

Keep in mind that these individuals did not cause the collapse. They sat by and watched the draggers—the large ships—fish. The draggers have gone to other areas of the world now, but the people who are left holding the problem, living with the problem, and who don't look like they have any future, the people who are suffering, are those small-boat fishermen in Newfoundland and Labrador and Atlantic Canada.

Mr. Chairman, this is not about John Efford's career in politics or Jack Harris's career in politics. This is not about a government issue. This is not about what we're going to do today. This is an issue about people who are suffering; in that video, you saw the people living in their communities. This is not about an argument between the animal rights organizations and us; they have their objectives. Our objective is the people, and what is most disturbing to me—this is my final comment and then I'll allow my colleagues to speak, because I want you to hear from them—is that now, seven years after the closure of the groundfish industry, we have DFO, which manages our resource, and where is their management plan? There is no management plan.

I don't know of any other resource in the world, whether it be land-based or marine-based, where there is no management plan, but we cannot get a management plan.

Here is all that we are asking for. If the science resource is not in the Department of Fisheries and Oceans of Canada, the minister then has the responsibility to appoint a panel made up of appropriate people, whether they're industry stakeholders or scientists or a combination of one or both or all, to very clearly advise him on appropriate action for the long term—not for 1999, not for the year 2000, but beyond that. We want our resources managed such that the Newfoundland and Labrador economy, the fishing industry, and the sealing industry have a long-term plan for the future. Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Efford.

Mr. Harris.

• 1050

Mr. Jack Harris (Member, House of Assembly of Newfoundland and Labrador): I just want to add a few comments to what Mr. Efford has said. I think the fact that we're here as an all-party committee is indicative that for the purposes of making this presentation and raising the concerns that we share in this province, we are here as a non-partisan group. We're here based on a unanimous resolution of the Newfoundland House of Assembly, in fact, which was presented by Mr. Fitzgerald, a Conservative member, and supported by the minister and by the NDP.

We're here to raise the concern that the central Government of Canada, which has a responsibility, of course, for the whole country, is not, we believe, paying sufficient attention to the problems that we see as a result of the failure of the northern cod to recover.

I'll just make a couple of observations, one being that the fisheries and oceans department has recognized that the 2J3KL cod stock, the so-called northern cod, has been and remains—potentially—one of the largest in the world. Yet, what we've seen since 1992 is an almost total lack of recovery in that stock. In fact, there's been a slight decrease in the biomass.

The difficulty we have is that when we see the kind of predation that appears to be different—and Lloyd Oldford will talk a little bit about that—that behaviours of both the cod and the seal population have changed, probably as a result of...well, I guess we don't know exactly why. But when we see the fact that the biomass is not increasing, and we see several estimates.... There's the FRCC, the Fisheries Resource Conservation Council, which estimates that harp seals may be consuming as much as 140,000 tonnes of northern cod annually. NAFO, for a particular year, estimates it at 108,000 tonnes.

But the astounding number is the one that Mr. Efford mentioned: the 300 million individual codfish per year. That has to be contributing to the inability of that cod stock to rebound.

Obviously we're not looking at simple solutions here. We're looking at, we think, a failure of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans to adequately address the issue, to put in place a management plan, a management objective, and to play the kind of role that it could play in a more aggressive international marketing effort, a more aggressive education campaign to counter the very expensive campaign that is opposed under any circumstances, as we heard yesterday, to a commercial seal hunt. Any particular harvest with the word “commercial” before it will be opposed forever by certain groups—with their money. We expect the Government of Canada to play a role in countering that.

Also, I believe that the people of Canada and the Government of Canada have a political and moral responsibility to the international community to rebuild that food source, that single largest cod stock in the world. I believe that Canada has a moral obligation to the world to rebuild and to find the means of doing so.

We don't think there is sufficient play being given to the impact of the seals on the fish population. There has been criticism of DFO methods. For example, one method that is apparently used by DFO to estimate the predation of cod is to actually count the number of ear bones found in the stomachs of seals. As you have seen from the video here, if the seals don't actually eat the heads of the fish, you're not going to find any ear bones in the stomach, so your estimates are not going to be terribly accurate. We see a number of problems, but we also see a sense of urgency based on the kinds of behaviours that we've seen changed.

• 1055

We're looking at the obligation of the fisheries and oceans department to come up with a management plan and a management objective. If the political ability is not there within the department or at the governmental level, perhaps we need a committee of eminent persons to report on this issue in a fairly short timeframe.

There has to be some movement, I think, across this country, in understanding the fact that the sealing industry, harvesting, is a renewable resource just like any other, which has to be managed for the benefit of the resource itself and for the benefit of the people who depend on it. If it's having an impact that is destructive of another species and could potentially wipe it out, that has to be taken into consideration as well.

We're here with one voice to ask the Government of Canada to do that and to ask this committee to help us convince them to do that.

Mr. John Efford: Thank you, Jack.

I'm going to ask Roger to be a spokesman for his party, and then we'll hear from Mr. Oldford, who will make a short presentation. Then we'll get into questions.

Mr. Roger Fitzgerald (Member, House of Assembly of Newfoundland and Labrador): Thank you, Minister.

Mr. Chairman, as the minister stated earlier, we're here as an all-party committee. It's a place where I feel very comfortable, because this is the third time that I've appeared before this committee, twice in Newfoundland and now here today.

Mr. Chairman, when we come together on a common issue with the minister, who is one of the most partisan members in our House of Assembly, I can assure you that we have a serious problem. We're here today as one voice, together, because we do have a serious problem and because it needs to be dealt with immediately.

I'd just like to refer to the film that was shown and to say to you, sir, that this particular film contained no stuffed animals. This particular film, Mr. Chairman, was real. It wasn't sent to the United States for editing by some high-priced video company. In fact, most of the film was taken by amateur photographers-fishermen, and one of them is sitting right here today. I can assure you that what is on it is real.

The minister gave you some facts and figures about the harp seal herd and the need to have that addressed immediately. I'm just going to touch briefly on the human side of it. I'm going to put a human face on it, Mr. Chairman, because this is what this is all about. This is about people, about families, about communities, and about the survival of rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Chairman, your committee went to Tors Cove the first time that you went to Newfoundland and you saw a gentleman stand—it was probably the first time he ever spoke in public—and literally cry because he had to deny his daughter the chance of an education because the fishery was closed. You saw him place blame, Mr. Chairman. Those are the real faces and the real people that we're dealing with today.

When you went to Catalina, you saw a fisherman come up on stage and show Mr. Baker, the chairman at that time, a copy of two bank books, one that he had when he was a proud fisherman and another one that he had as a person who had to go begging to Ottawa to look for money.

Mr. Chairman, those are the faces, the people, that we're dealing with here today, and this is the reason why this committee is making this trip to Ottawa: to beg with you as a committee to put their voices forward to the decision-makers in order to have this problem addressed.

The sealers that we're talking about are fishermen. It's not that there are sealers here and fishermen over there; they are people who take part in the same industry. The sealers themselves are the people who are saying that we have a real problem here, because they see it happening in another part of this sector that's supposed to be providing them with a livelihood.

We're not asking for an increase in the total allowable catch. We know that markets play a big part in that. Down in my own district we have a new sealing industry that just opened up last year, and I would suggest to you that probably right now there might be in excess of 100 people working there, doing things that were never done before in Newfoundland. We're not irresponsible people who say that we now have to go out and do away with the harp seal herd and deny industries like that—with private money invested—the right to employ people. That's not what we're here for.

But we see a major problem. We're reminded constantly of what happened in 1992, when fishermen, the real experts, came to government pleading to be listened to and weren't listened to—and we've seen the results of that inaction.

• 1100

Mr. Chairman, we need something done. We need decisions right now, with no waiting until the year 2000 in order to get a count in order to decide what the total allowable catch is going to be or how many animals are in the harp seal herd. It needs to be done more quickly than that—much more quickly. I think the way to do it is the way the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture explained to you just a few minutes ago. That's the stand of our committee. The information you hear from other people is not as accurate as what you're hearing right now from this party and from this committee, which is speaking as one voice.

Thank you.

Mr. John Efford: Mr. Oldford is a fisherman and a sealer. He earns a living from both industries.

Mr. Oldford.

Mr. Lloyd Oldford (Individual Presentation): Good morning.

On behalf of the fishermen and sealers of Newfoundland and Labrador and around the coast, I want to tell you that we are not out there as barbarians, killing because we like killing. We don't kill unless we take it for food or we have a market for it. That's what we do.

Now, sir, nature has a way of looking out for things. It's supposed to balance. But when somebody or something steps in to counteract it, to take one thing away, we, who are supposed to be the smartest animals or creatures—or whatever we are—on the face of the earth, then have to step in and do our best to bring the balance back again.

Right now, there's an awful difference between the amount of seals and the amount of codfish that's out there. There is no codfish outside of where it traditionally is; what's left is all in the bays. There are no small fish. They're all big fish.

I've been looking at codfish in bays since January month. A few minutes ago, I was talking on the phone to my wife, and she said that in Bonavista Bay now the seals are numerous. The fish are up on the rocks, and the seals are coming in and taking them. It's just a feeding frenzy, that's what it is. This is the last stock we have left, and I'm almost willing to say that I predicted it. It's too late now. This should have been done yesterday. I'm willing to say that. If we have to wait for another year or two, you're going to be in a very dire situation, sir, in terms of ever trying to bring back the codfish industry or the quota, the amount of the cod, to where we can utilize it again.

I don't agree, sir, with going out and killing seals and throwing them away. We—you people—have to get something in place. That's why I'm here with these gentlemen: to talk to you people and these gentlemen here, to tell you, on behalf of us, even if we have to beg you, that you have to do something. You have to make it known. I've been a fisher for 30 years. When I started going out in the boat years ago, if you got a seal, you came in and, oh, you were a proud man. “By glory”, they'd say, “that's a good job to have a seal, you and me'll steal around the harbour....” Now when you go out you can load your boat with seals—if you're allowed to take them. Every year there are more.

The video showed you. Did you see those seals on the ice looking up as we were flying over in the plane? That went on for miles. Every pan of ice was full of seals. Isn't that enough to show people, to let it sink into some people, that there are too many?

We have to do something. We have to control it, sir. I get emotional talking about it, I do, because you're destroying a way of life in Newfoundland that has been there for 500 years.

They don't give a damn about us. That's my opinion. No one gives a blooming damn about us in Newfoundland. “Make work” programs? What is it, a trade-off? I don't know what it is.

Thank you, sir.

• 1105

Mr. John Efford: Thank you, Mr. Oldford.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think the expressions of each individual on the video speak to how serious the situation is.

The Chairman: Would Mr. Shelley or Mr. Reid or Mr. Parsons like to speak for maybe one minute each? I come from an Irish community and I know that it's difficult sometimes to limit your words to a minute or two, but....

Mr. Shelley.

Mr. Paul Shelley (Member, House of Assembly of Newfoundland and Labrador): Yes, I'd certainly like to say a few words. I've been sitting and listening over the last few days with this committee and I've been talking to fishermen.

As Mr. Efford mentioned earlier, I'm in the middle of an area that sees the ice flows come down, and the seal hunt is predominant. There are many sealers in my area—family of mine, friends of mine, fishermen that I talk to day after day.

I'd just like to point out something on the video that I also mentioned last night at one of our meetings. I'm 39 years old, living in that area, and I've never seen a phenomenon like the one you saw on that video today: codfish on the shore. That was never seen before, as this fisherman will tell you and as any fisherman in Newfoundland and Labrador will tell you. What you witnessed in this video—and it's the first time I've seen it—was codfish on the shore. They're not capelin. It's never been seen before. You people don't understand: you go off in a boat and you get to deep water to jig a fish.

Now, I've always believed that if you mix logic and common sense with science, you will get the real answer. Well, I asked scientists, who refused to come out and look at this phenomenon when it was reported. Instead, Mr. Oldford, of course, did us the courtesy of videotaping. Not one scientist showed up to see this, to talk about this, to talk about how you have to mix logic and common sense with scientific facts and then maybe we'll get the truth.

Mr. Oldford also said something that I said last night, and that is, I believe—and I don't have the scientific backup for this—that it may be too late now for the fishing stocks to recover. It's just a guess of mine, but when you see fish on the rocks, when you see seals up a salmon river, when you see, like last year, I think it was, in Mr. Efford's district, where a constituent of his heard a bark when he was out for a walk in the night and thought it was a dog, but it was a seal on the street in the community—

Voices: Oh, oh.

Mr. Paul Shelley: —Mr. Chairman, you wonder how many seals are surrounding us.

To add some more juice to what we mentioned earlier, with respect to the people who I know personally in the seal industry, who will have charges coming soon in the courts, I spoke to them as late as yesterday, Mr. Chair. In regard to the whitecoat that Mr. Baker referred to, I'll ask you to watch the video very closely. You'll notice that there's a red ribbon around that white seal pup that you see in the video. I just spoke to those people yesterday; they live in my area. They were asked by these people who came with their cameras—who finally ended up in Utah to do their editing—if they would mind bringing their stuffed white seal pup out to the docks so the pictures could be taken.

Mr. Chair, you wonder, then, about this situation and the propaganda war that you see in front of us. We're going to go back tomorrow, and I'll be talking again to fishermen in my district—and so will the rest of the people here—to bring back reality again. We are very concerned when we see that half a million people live in Newfoundland and Labrador and that there are six million seals.

A friend of mine, a scientist from France who was in my area last year, said that our problem could be our solution, that we're surrounded by our solution and we're surrounded by our problem. It's time that we moved very quickly, and when you hear the different reports of scientists around here, it's time that they come together. I think a suggestion was made earlier this morning that all groups come together, but I don't believe we can wait two or three or four or five years.

So it's the human part of this, but it's also the science coming together with logic and common sense to act on this and act quickly, or we're going to be back in another year or two from now saying that the herds have increased to 10 million and the seals are destroying themselves. Who's going to be responsible then?

The Chairman: Thank you, Paul.

Gerry.

Mr. Gerry Reid (Member, House of Assembly of Newfoundland and Labrador): I'll pass, Mr. Chairman. I would rather answer questions. I may say something in conclusion.

The Chairman: Mr. Parsons.

Mr. Kelvin Parsons (Member, House of Assembly of Newfoundland and Labrador): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'm not a scientist and I've heard a lot of scientific evidence presented in the last couple of days, but I guess you don't have to spend an afternoon in the oven to find out how to roast a turkey either. I think it's pretty clear here that there's some relationship between the seal population and the declining cod stocks.

• 1110

The district I come from is on the southwestern tip of Newfoundland. It's not a sealing district, but it is a fishing district. As Ms. Karetak-Lindell mentioned yesterday, it's the human element that strikes you. Out of the 14 communities in my district, you have great difficulty now in finding any young persons in those communities, the reason being, of course, that the only thing that could keep them in those communities would be some form of employment. They don't have that, they haven't had it since 1992, and there's very little likelihood that they're about to have it in the future.

We have many things we'd like to export to mainland Canada, but people—our intelligence and our brains—is not one of them. We would prefer to keep them at home. I would again urge the committee to do whatever is necessary to get the proper and necessary scientific information and devise a proper plan for management of the seal herd and the cod industry.

Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Parsons.

John, maybe you will co-ordinate who should answer members' questions. We have another 50 minutes or so.

Mr. John Efford: Mr. Chairman, if I may, I'll co-ordinate, because the questions may be to each individual's particular area or whatever. Each individual will have an opportunity to answer questions. I don't want to answer them all.

The Chairman: Okay. Our system is that Mr. Lunn will begin with ten minutes of questioning, followed by the Bloc and Mr. Bernier, for five minutes. Then we go to the Liberal side for ten minutes and then back to the...you're passing on the first time, Mr. Lunn?

Mr. Gary Lunn: To provide more time for the other members, I'm taking the first ten minutes but I'll pass on the second five minutes.

The Chairman: Thanks, Mr. Lunn. You're on for ten minutes.

Mr. Gary Lunn: First, I just want to make one comment. I'm really pleased to see Tina Fagan from the Canadian Sealers Association, which is coming on at noon here. Unfortunately, I cannot be here. This is a motion I brought forward yesterday. I want to welcome her and, again, I want to assure her that I will be reading her brief and reading the minutes. There are many capable members who will question her, and that will provide the input when we write the report.

This is our third day of hearing from various groups. I want to thank your delegation, the all-party committee, for being here. Your video starts out with the words, “this is about truth”. I want to try to reconcile that because, as my good friend and colleague, the parliamentary secretary, has stated, we are hearing diverging views, diametrically opposite views, that the scientific evidence isn't coming up.... I heard Mr. Oldford state this morning that you don't want to take the seals unless there are markets for them. I appreciate those comments.

In the past, I've heard the minister—and he knows this—talk about burning and destroying them, and about culls. I know that it's emotional and that those emotions are coming out in probably heated discussions, where he gets frustrated. We've all been there.

But Minister Anderson is quoted in the paper as saying that the minister is pleased and delighted with the TAC. He stated this morning that he's probably not looking for an increase in the TAC, whereas the video suggested that this is what you really want, that the seal population is out of control. That's the image we're getting from everybody.

So in one breath we're stating that we want this management plan, and this has been out there for 10 or 15 years. I'm really trying to recognize this. They're trying to do the politically correct thing and have the right image out there. They don't want to offend anybody, but at the same time.... I just question if we're really being honest. What hasn't even been mentioned here all morning, by any of the panellists, which is what I see as the ultimate solution.... Even Dr. George Winters, who presented this morning—you heard him—suggested to me when I was trying to pin him down on numbers that with respect to the TAC, if you include Greenland's 360,000 and if we should be going to 400,000, we're talking about a 10% increase. That's a modest increase, to say the least, of maybe only 40,000 or 60,000. That's not a whole lot of seals, whereas the image over the last three days is of these seal populations that have absolutely exploded out of control.

I think we're not being truthful with ourselves on what we really want. Now, I'm going to suggest—and I want your comments—that we're going down the wrong tracks. We need to throw a switch and change tracks. We could focus all of this energy, with both the federal committee and your committee going down to the U.S., going after the U.S. on the Marine Mammal Protection Act, and going after new markets and new products so that there's a real market out there. That then would give us a reason to really go after this, to increase the TAC, so that there are markets out there. That's how we have to be focusing our energies.

• 1115

Yes, those words come up from time to time, but I don't know if we're really being honest with ourselves. What are we asking for? I'll ask the minister directly: are you in favour of a cull? I know that's been noticeably absent from your comments over the last two or three days; it's not there at all. If you don't support a cull—because there's no question about it, it would appear that the markets are not there right now. A cull is killing in excess of the market, I would suggest.

If you're not in favour of a cull, then we had better switch tracks and get on to promoting the sealing industry and creating markets so that for the fishermen like Mr. Oldford and those in the communities, there will be that many more jobs created within the industry, like, for example, bringing tannery plants into Newfoundland so that more jobs are created down that track.

That's my perception of what I'm seeing here. We're not really being truthful here—at least, that's how I see it. I'd like your comments, Mr. Efford, please.

Mr. John Efford: Thank you, Mr. Lunn.

First, let me begin by talking about my statement in the House of Assembly. In the heat of debate, anybody who has been in the political arena has made statements and comments that they wished to God that they had never made. I've apologized for that—

Mr. Gary Lunn: No. I accept that—

Mr. John Efford: —damn thing so often, I'm sick of apologizing for it.

Mr. Gary Lunn: —and I think I pointed that out. I understand that.

Mr. John Efford: But the problem with this file, Mr. Lunn, is that we have a group of people that has $60 million to $80 million at its disposal, compared to poor little old Newfoundland fishermen living in their communities with no means of earning a living—

Mr. Gary Lunn: Yes.

Mr. John Efford: —a population of 550,000 people, with an economy that has been devastated by the collapse in the groundfish industry. Certain words that the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture of the province has been saying can be used and taken out of context, and people jump all over the bandwagon.

We're trying to present a problem to you, the greatest problem facing Atlantic Canada—Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, P.E.I., the Magdalen Islands, and Newfoundland and Labrador—and we're trying to find a solution. We don't want to fuel the animal rights organizations, which have their own agendas. So be it. We're not going to stop them.

Mr. Gary Lunn: No.

Mr. John Efford: They have their own agendas, and every time I say a word, they jump all over it.

Mr. Gary Lunn: Yes.

Mr. John Efford: By the way, it is the responsibility of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans for Canada to manage the fishing industry. They don't come down to me and say, “Minister, how much capelin are we going to catch next year?” They don't come down to me and ask how many herring, how many mackerel, or how many crab we're going to catch. That information is given to the minister. He makes a decision in consultation with the industry. It is based on scientific information. You don't count every single crab, you don't count every single shrimp, and you should not have to count every single seal in the ocean to put in a management plan. If I use the word “cull”, every news media will be fueled this evening, saying that John Efford is exploding and John Efford is exaggerating and John Efford is emotional. I'll be doing damage.

Mr. Gary Lunn: You'll be on the front page.

Mr. John Efford: By the way, we are not asking for an increase in TAC this year. The Sealers Association, the Seal Industry Development Council of Newfoundland and Labrador, the sealing industry of Newfoundland and Labrador—and the sealers themselves—realize that the markets can only sustain 275,000 animals this year. I congratulated Mr. Anderson on maintaining that number because I was fearful that he was going to reduce the TAC from 275,000 to probably as low as 200,000, and that would hurt the sealers. So where do we go?

Mr. Gary Lunn: Let me ask you one question. Let me interrupt you there. I appreciate your frankness here, because the image that we're getting over these three days is that the real problem is the six million seals that are out there.

Mr. John Efford: Yes. It is a problem.

• 1120

Mr. Gary Lunn: I think to increase...I agree with that. I do agree with Dr. Winters that the population may be around four million—I'm not a scientist—and that we do need a four- or five-year management plan to do that. I support that, as you know, and I've been advocating that we increase the TAC over four or five years until we get it down to a number whereby both industries can co-exist.

Would you support this committee, the federal committee, and your committee sending a joint delegation to Washington and aggressively going after the Marine Mammal Protection Act so that we can start doing something proactively and aggressively to create...? There are huge markets in the U.S., and I think we need to do something there. What are your thoughts on that idea?

Mr. John Efford: That would be music to my ears for the sealing industry. Changing that Marine Mammal Protection Act to open up the United States markets would be music to every person in Newfoundland and Labrador involved in the industry. That should be done and that must be done, but if that had been done when it should have been done, four or five years ago.... Remember how we heard the fishermen in Newfoundland and Labrador crying out about the overfishing? Only when the complete collapse came was something done. Well, we have been crying out for a lot of years—since 1992—and now Mr. Oldford and Mr. Shelley have said to you very clearly that they're wondering if it's too late.

My question to the minister, or to these scientists, or to anybody who has the expertise is this: do we have four or five years? Yes, we must maintain the lucrative sealing industry. Twenty-five million dollars or whatever it's going to bring in during an average year means a lot to those people. We must not jeopardize it. We must open up new markets. But the other side of the coin is the state of the sealers, like you've said, the low biomass of cod stocks, the fear of people in Newfoundland and Labrador. There has to be an immediate.... There's an urgency here.

Mr. Gary Lunn: That's my question to you. That's why I'm saying I have to bring this back to truths and be honest, because listening to Mr. Oldford and these people.... You're saying in one breath that you congratulated the minister and you're at 275,000, and I'm hearing in the very next sentence that you don't have time, and we're seeing the graphics that seals are eating the cod and we have to act now. So I'm asking you: are you being honest with yourselves when you're saying that you're pleased with the TAC? Do you not agree that we need to be doing something more aggressive if in fact it is the seals that are eating the cod?

Mr. John Efford: Gary, I—

Mr. Gary Lunn: I don't think you're being completely honest with us. I think that maybe we do need to do something right now—by saying the TAC is too low.

Mr. John Efford: Gary, probably it's my Newfoundland accent. I'm not getting through to you. Probably it's the way that I talk, with that Port de Grave cove dialect.

But let me tell you this: there are two issues here. I am the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture for the whole of the province of Newfoundland and Labrador, not just for the fishing industry, not just for the small boats, and not just for the sealing industry. I am the minister responsible for all, for everything that encompasses the fishing industry of the province, and I must prosecute that the best way I possibly can.

There are two issues at stake here. Number one is the maintaining of a lucrative sealing industry. In regard to the TAC this year, the markets this year cannot sustain 300,000 animals, and it would be stupid to take 300,000 and discard 25,000. That's fine. But there is the urgency of an immediate problem to be addressed because there is an overpopulated seal herd.

Now, I'll state clearly that there's no point in me saying that, because I am not a scientist, and my God, they don't ask me about the scientific information on all of the other stocks. So why is it, seeing what you've seen and hearing what you've heard, that the resources are not in the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, or they haven't given that? This is the year 1999, April month, and we've been at this problem since 1992, when we ignored all the fishermen. So why is it?

Mr. Gary Lunn: We can go on, but I'll just end—

The Chairman: Fine. Your 10 minutes are up, but—

Mr. Gary Lunn: —with a real quick one. I'll give up my next five minutes.

I agree with you. I'm not in favour of a cull, but I think the answer is, one, solving our internal domestic trade barriers to the Asian markets, which we've talked about before; Canada should do something about that. Two, we need to aggressively go after the United States. I agree that a cull kills more seals than the markets will bear, and the markets will only bear 275,000. The other idea is that we have to get the seal population down and the only way we're going to do that is to create a market for them; that's where we had better switch tracks and get on board, all of us together.

Mr. John Efford: I'll answer that, and then I'm going to let some of my colleagues answer it.

The Chairman: I'm sorry, Mr. Efford, but his time is up.

Mr. John Efford: Just quickly?

The Chairman: One minute.

Mr. John Efford: Less than one minute.

• 1125

Mr. John Efford: In the Russian community, tens of thousands of people are starving. In many countries around the world, hundreds of thousands of people are starving.

Seal meat has the highest protein value of any animal in the world, 67% protein. Why not do what many people have talked about doing and bring over 25,000 or 30,000, if we had permission to go do it—not interfere with the sealing industry, not take out the young, healthy pups that go on the market, but take the adult seals out, if science would advise us to do that, if it's appropriate? We don't know; science is not telling us. But it is a very valuable food.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Monsieur Bernier.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Bernier: I see that Mr. Efford, the Minister of Fisheries, is worthy of his reputation today. He is very, very passionate. If he thought that Gary had problems understanding him because of his accent, I can tell him that I feel lucky that a good interpreter in the booth was able to translate what he said, because he was speaking fast.

Mr. Efford, my riding includes the Magdalen Islands. I know that the number of animals hunted there is far less than what is harvested in Newfoundland. This is why we appreciate all the work you do in your province and the efforts of what I would call the fisherman's party, which you represent this morning.

[English]

It's a fishing party; it's not the Grits and the Tories.

[Translation]

I would like to begin by expressing my point of view and end by asking you a few questions. I hope the Chairman will give me enough time.

[English]

The Chairman: I recognize that there is sealing in your constituency, so I will give you more than the five minutes.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Bernier: Mr. Shelley said that the scientists did not go on site and had not been able to see for themselves what he had seen in Mr. Oldford's video. I have a lot of respect for scientists, but I must say that to me, the true scientists and biologists are those who are in contact with the sea everyday. When my fishermen tell me they see things like this, I think their involvement with nature is the best contact. When you're a biologist, paid by Ottawa, and your main office is in Ottawa, you only survey on site once or twice a year. This may not be our fault, because the Department does not have the necessary budgets to do better, but we may not be at the right place.

This brings me to empathize with your wish, Mr. Efford, and with that of all the Newfoundland delegation members. You wish to be involved in management. You want a committee to be created together with Ottawa to find the best solutions, both for resuming cod fishing and for managing an optimal stock of seals. It is greatly to your credit.

You say that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans has no management plan regarding a recovery in cod fishing and that it applies a wait-and-see approach. You say that it also does not have a management plan for seals, that it established a number, and that it will not change it because the market cannot absorb a larger number of harvested animals. I would like to know what marketing efforts were made. Does Newfoundland or its businesses prospect in other countries than the United States? Were funds requested from Ottawa for research on this, which would benefit not only Newfoundlanders but all those who live in the provinces where seal hunting is practised? It would be interesting to know if such requests have been made, and eventually what the response was.

The other issue I am concerned about relates to protection groups. Being close to the sea, I am prepared to share your common sense. At one point, we have a choice between massacring cod and massacring—it's a big word, I admit—seals. Have we ourselves tipped the scales by stopping whitecoat hunting? Are seals now having a ball while our population must stay ashore instead of going fishing?

• 1130

Are we not the victims of blackmail, or even of promotional terrorism on the part of these people who want to protect their religion? There have been major promotional wars in Europe, and as you mentioned, we cannot afford such campaigns. What would happen if we decided today to recommend to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to choose between the massacre of seals and the massacre of cod? Protection groups would continue with their promotional campaigns in other countries, which might mean that certain other Canadian products would not be sold. How do we get out of this dilemma?

There will have to be international education, but I don't know how this could be done. I put the question to you. Forgive me for having tremor in my voice when I speak of massacres. Magdalen Islands seal hunters and fishermen asked me to suggest to the Canadian government that the ice pack would be a good practice area for the Canadian Air Force. It would be so nice, they said, to see a few F-18's practise on the ice pack; there would be plenty of targets, and this would kill two birds with one stone. What a picture!

We have quite a dilemma, and a choice must be made: either the massacre is allowed to go on, or part of the herd is eliminated. But how do we go about international education? I can understand the minister, who will have to decide on the issue. He will have to choose which sector to protect. I will let you answer these first questions.

[English]

Mr. John Efford: I'll respond just to one part of the question and allow other colleagues to do similarly.

Sir, I appreciate your question, and I agree with a lot of your comments.

Three weeks ago I was out speaking in Calgary on the sealing industry promotion. I got an invitation to speak to a large conference, because we need to bring awareness across Canada, and I did that. On the day that I was driving into Calgary, I picked up the Globe and Mail. On the front page of the Globe and Mail, it said the federal Minister of the Environment announced a 50% reduction immediately in Arctic geese, snow geese. That was immediately. There was no flare-up from any organization. It was done, decided.

In every other country in the world where there is a seal population.... As recently as several days ago, the United Kingdom, which has most of the activists against the Canadian seal hunt, announced a reduction of the seal population, because a cry came out from the fishermen in the U.K. just three weeks ago. That was on the front page of the National Post and the Globe and Mail.

Sir, in the only place in the world where there's even.... I'll just explain once more. We are not allowed to export any products into the United States. In fact I left my seal coat at home when I was going to the Boston Seafood Show, because I wasn't allowed to take it in. They have an annual reduction—call it what you like—in the seal herd of the Pribilof Islands in Alaska because of the impact on fish stocks. In California three weeks ago, they were calling on their government to reduce the sea lions because of the impact on the fish stocks.

The only place you don't mention the word is here in Canada. It's the only place we're preyed upon by the righteous activists against us. We have a serious problem, but we want it managed in an appropriate way. The only way to do it is by more public relations campaigning and more work being done by the central government. Yes, try to change the Marine Mammal Protection Act to deregulate what's happening in the United States and many other places in the world.

This is the heaviest file I've had in my 15 years, and it's all because of the negative public relations.

Now I'm going to let Gerry speak.

Mr. Gerry Reid: You asked a question about the management plan and the fact that we say there is no management plan.

In the last two or three days, a number of people have asked a number of different groups and individuals at this table—for example, DFO scientists the day before yesterday, Mr. Lavigne yesterday, members of the IFAW yesterday, and again Mr. Winters here this morning—what would you see as the optimum herd size? Where should it be before we do something with it?

• 1135

I don't think we've gotten an answer here yet. I think DFO begged off the question. Mr. Lavigne certainly didn't answer it. We know the answer from the IFAW: you just don't kill one seal in the commercial herd. So the seal population is out there continuing to grow, yet DFO has not come forward and said, “Here's where the herd size should be.”

A voice: That's right.

Mr. Gerry Reid: You also asked about the possibility of trade sanctions against Canada if we were to mention the word “cull” or do anything else. I'm not aware that DFO or the Canadian government has ever done anything to try to dispel some of the fallacies that are circulating around the world about the seal hunt off the east coast of Canada.

For example, I think Mr. Baker mentioned yesterday that in the literature the IFAW passed out here yesterday, they still depict us as killing white-coat seals. In actual fact, it's illegal in Canada to do it. But we don't hear anything from our federal government to counteract that.

It appears to me the onus is on Newfoundlanders to go out and do that ourselves. With a population of 500,000, we do not have the wherewithal to take on groups such as the IFAW, which has a $100 million Canadian budget this year to go out and promote an anti-sealing campaign. We cannot do it alone. That's one of the reasons we're here today. We're looking for help from the federal government.

Everyone here continues to ask us for advice on what we should do with the seal herd. Well, before getting into politics, I worked as the executive assistant to two provincial fisheries ministers. From around 1980 until 1992, the fishermen and the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador gave the federal government lots of advice on what to do with the fish quotas for northern cod in Newfoundland and Labrador. We were not listened to. Nobody listened to us.

So you're asking us today to give you our advice. The responsibility for the ecosystem off the coast of Newfoundland and Labrador lies solely with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, not with us. You can ask for all the advice you want from us. I think the reason the federal government wants our advice on this issue is they don't want to touch the issue. They would rather have the Newfoundland government and the Newfoundland people talk about quota increases and culls, because they don't want to be associated with it.

What I'm saying is basically the federal government wants us to do the dirty work for them so that they can keep an arm's-length approach to it, because it's an issue they don't want to deal with.

As John said earlier, when setting the crab quotas and every other quota that we fish in Newfoundland today, we don't get a seat at the table to recommend what we think. In fact they don't listen to us.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Reid.

That's about 14 minutes now that you've had, so I'll have to go to Mr. Easter.

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

I'm in one way reluctant to bring this up, but the issue of no management plan has been mentioned a number of times, and I feel obligated to bring it up.

Mr. Efford, you know full well there is a management plan in place for this year. To say there's not is, in my view, not being responsible. There is. We are looking at that. This year the scientific surveys are being done so that we can make decisions in the future.

I can assure you it's been impressed upon this committee, and in fact some of us impressed it upon the minister last night, that to get the numbers sometime in the year 2000 is no good. We have to make decisions far before then. You can be assured we're going to move in that direction.

To the subject at hand, I have questions for Mr. Oldford and Mr. Shelley. Mr. Oldford talked about the codfish never being seen on the shore to the extent that they are right now, and Mr. Shelley mentioned that the scientists wouldn't come out.

• 1140

I want the specifics on that, because if you're telling me you approached DFO scientists on this issue and they were within a reasonable timeframe of going out to view that situation, I want to know about it. If that's the case, you can be assured that this committee or I or somebody certainly will be getting that message to those scientists and wondering why they haven't done it.

So what is the case there? What are the specifics?

Mr. Lloyd Oldford: During the last filming I was doing in Summerville, a lot of people from the media—different radio stations, one thing and the other—phoned up and asked me what was going on.

One DFO official did phone me, yes. I said to him, “You should come out and see the massive destruction of codfish.” Apparently when someone, a bystander, was driving along the road beside the bay, he saw something, so he reported it to a Fisheries officer. Two Fisheries officers came in a truck and stayed there for two or three hours, but they were just field officers; they were not anybody from the scientific part of DFO.

This gentleman phoned up and told me, “Lloyd, we knew the seals were eating codfish.” I said, “You did?” “Oh, yes,” he said, “we knew.” I said, “Well, why didn't you tell us before? Why do you have to let us go out and try to get it back in to you people that it's happening? If you knew, why didn't you say?” He said, “Well, we don't know how much.” I said, “Come out and have a look around, and you can see right in front of your face what's happening.” That was the last I ever heard from him.

Mr. Wayne Easter: I don't want to belabour this point, because there are other points I want to get in.

Mr. Shelley.

Mr. Paul Shelley: That point goes back to a question asked earlier about the scientists. I just really wonder about the commitment of the scientists and the DFO. I mean, they work together.

If I were a scientist.... Of course for years they've studied seals. I always thought, from a common sense point of view, that if you could only strap a camera onto a seal and follow him for months and months, you'd find out his whole life cycle, what he eats, what he does, and so on.

I've heard so many questions here. They didn't know a lot about seals. But when it was reported that it was right there in the bay—that they didn't have to go all over the coast and follow them up to the Arctic, because it was happening right in the bay—don't you think a scientist would say, “What a golden opportunity to get a lot of information”? We had seals there in the bay, in close proximity, and they could have gotten a lot of information, but nobody even showed up.

Mr. Wayne Easter: Okay, we'll certainly be addressing that issue.

Since George made the comment yesterday, there's been some considerable discussion about the stuffed white seal pup. I'd like to know when and where that happened, if you can provide it to me at some point.

But I want to be as objective here as possible. Some of us have been trying to talk to the IFAW, in fairness to them. There was an incident off P.E.I. in which some camera people were not treated very nicely. They were attacked when observers were out on the ice. There are charges pending, and we'll see where that goes in the court.

But in fairness, I was invited, and I asked Mr. Stoffer to come with me, to a meeting with the IFAW and the European parliamentarians who were with these people. We had a reasonable discussion. I really believe we prevented these MPs from Europe from going home and saying we were a bunch of barbarians over here. I'll congratulate the IFAW on that point, for giving us that opportunity to say there is a management plan in place.

• 1145

That moves me to my point. You're asking the federal government to provide funding to get into an aggressive campaign against the campaign of the IFAW. I maintain we'll not win this in an emotional fight in the media, whether it's about white seal pups or anything else. The only way you're going to win this fight is by good, sound reasoning—trying to reason with the IFAW and others that we do have a sustainable hunt.

You mentioned in your video—and I appreciate the video; it was a very good video—that decisions had to be made determined by good science, and that we need sound ecosystem management. I agree with those points. The problem is, how are we going to get there? I'm looking to you for some recommendations on how to get there, in terms of that good science and ecosystem management, so that we can deal with this issue from a point of reason rather than emotion, which I maintain, given this fight, we can't win with.

Mr. Jack Harris: Can I respond to that briefly?

I'm delighted that you and Mr. Stoffer, as two members of Parliament, were able to persuade a whole group of people coming from Europe to our shores, with probably a preconceived notion. When was the last time any member of Parliament or any delegation from the Canadian government went to Europe to try to convince the European Union that we do have an ethical, viable commercial harvest of seals? That's point number one.

Point number two is this. Despite the apparent reasonableness of the IFAW in engaging in what they call constructive dialogue—and I don't object to that terminology—the bottom line with the IFAW, as was indicated yesterday, is that no matter what level of objectives is met, they are still opposed per se to a commercial hunt and will always be campaigning against a commercial hunt.

This is not, in my view, saints versus sinners here. We're not saying every Newfoundlander and Labradorian or sealer in the world or in our country is a saint, and neither are we saying that the IFAW, each and every time they do anything, is a sinner.

What we're talking about here is reason. We're asking the Government of Canada to play an important role in what has tremendous international implications. We as a government and as a people, and particularly the sealers involved, don't have the ability, constitutionally, financially, or otherwise, to influence events, and we are being victimized by a campaign. We are being victimized by a lack of scientific study.

What has changed in the last few months—and this has changed the debate—are the visual pictures of seals herding codfish ashore. These are groundfish that are offshore. They're not surface fish that can be herded to the shore like capelin. That is, to my mind, a dramatic problem that has to be addressed in the short term.

That's why we're saying we're not looking at your current management plan that says, “Here's our quota for 1999.” We're asking, where are we going? What are the objectives of our management plan, and how does it deal with this kind of information?

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Harris.

For your information, on the first little part, where you gave a question back, I was in London in Westminster in January. I met with about 25 members of the two Houses of Parliament in Britain and did bring up this issue and tried to present your best interests.

I'll turn now to Peter Stoffer from the NDP.

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

Again, I thank the delegation from Newfoundland and Labrador for coming down.

As I said yesterday, the IFAW and you, in a perverse way, are bringing this very serious issue to the attention of the Government of Canada.

To Mr. Efford and the rest of you, you're absolutely right. Just 50 years ago, Canada joined Newfoundland in Confederation, and along with that came a management scheme of DFO. For 450 years you fine people have been looking after yourselves, and in 50 short years, through various programs and concerns, the fishery has gone all to hell.

We could blame it on a variety of issues, but you mentioned the draggers, Mr. Efford. This is one of the questions. I'm going to ask four questions, and you can answer them later. You mentioned draggers and the large fish companies and everything else. Of course, as you know, I'm very opposed to the ITQ system and the EA systems that are in place.

• 1150

I'm going to ask you a hypothetical question. If all the seals were gone tomorrow and the groundfish stocks were back at historic levels that have never been seen before, in your best view, with the current system of ITQs and EAs in place now by the federal government, how many fishermen—in Mr. Oldford's community especially—how many of those people in those small communities in rural Newfoundland and Labrador would be able to come back to work? That's question number one.

The Chairman: Peter, remember he has five minutes.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Yes, I know.

I want to thank you personally for bringing with you someone who I think is one of the finest Newfoundlanders in the country, Mr. Jack Harris. He's a great colleague, and he lends credence to your concerns.

There is one very important person missing here, though. You're talking about a crisis in the industry, and Mr. Reid talked about the fact that DFO does not want to touch this issue, obviously for political reasons. But there's one very important person who's not here, who has about as much influence in Canadian fisheries politics as anyone else in this country, and that's your premier.

I put to you, Mr. Reid, that Mr. Tobin doesn't want to touch this issue either. I mean, he's the premier of your province. If anyone should be standing up for Newfoundland fishermen, it shouldn't just necessarily be a very passionate person like Mr. Efford. It should be your damn premier. Where the hell is he on this subject? I challenge him right now to come down here.

The Chairman: Mr. Stoffer, I'd ask you again to watch your language.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Sorry, sir. I mentioned that yesterday. I apologize.

Where is he on this issue? I would very much like to hear his concerns on this issue.

The very last question I have is for Mr. Oldford. In his news conference yesterday, I mentioned discarding and high-grading of fish by fishermen. I gave him this report afterwards; he just discarded it. I know that inshore fishermen, who I support wholeheartedly, don't do this, but high-grading and discarding of fish is happening on the larger boats and it is happening on the corporate trawlers.

The FAO said a couple of years ago that up to 27 million tonnes of fish have been discarded into the sea. That's what the FAO is saying internationally. Mr. Harris, in his book Lament for an Ocean, says close to 30 million tonnes of fish are being high-graded and discarded in our seas as well.

You talked about the predation problem with seals. Well, we also have a very serious problem, as you mentioned, with the dragger technology and those issues as well. I'd like your short comments on that, please.

I apologize for my use of the words I said.

I really like hearing the facts from fishermen in coastal communities, because that's where my heart is. You'll notice I have a Labrador pin on today, because Mr. Matthews isn't here, so I have to push his views forward.

Thank you for coming.

Mr. John Efford: I'll answer very quickly, because I want other people to make comments and ask other questions.

We are deathly opposed to ITQs in Newfoundland and Labrador. While I'm minister, we think there will be no ITQs.

What would happen if all the seals were gone? We don't want all the seals gone. We want the sealing industry to continue. That's point number two.

If the fish stocks were back in a lucrative manner, first access to all of those fish stocks would be to all of the small-boat fishermen and the plant workers living in rural Newfoundland and Labrador. That is our policy as a government.

On the point of Premier Tobin, first of all I'll say this is not a political agenda. This is an all-party committee from the province of Newfoundland and Labrador, partisan politics aside. As I told you, if you want a politician to argue with you over partisan politics, you're right here, but this is not the time.

I am the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture of the province, and when Premier Brian Tobin appointed me in 1996, he said “John, you are the minister. You carry the files of the department.” And on a daily basis, on this issue, I'm in constant contact with him.

This is a party set up by the House of Assembly from Newfoundland and Labrador, and we have too serious a problem to bring politics into it.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Efford.

Mr. Stoffer again had a very long speech, and it took most of the five minutes.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: It's not often I get a chance to speak to the man himself, you know.

The Chairman: Nancy, you had some questions.

Mrs. Nancy Karetak-Lindell (Nunavut, Lib.): You talked about market being the answer to a lot of our problems—if there is a market for it, then we should have no problem doing the seal hunt. What do you see as the impediments right now to a rise in market?

• 1155

I see a cycle. Partly the negative campaigns affect the market. I'm trying to see how much of an effect that has and what you would want to see done to improve the market.

The reason I'm interested in the market is, again, I think a lot of people don't even know sealskin products when they see them. I walked around on the Hill for almost two years with a sealskin leather purse, and not one person ever came up to me and said, “That is a sealskin purse.” No one recognized it. I had to tell people what it was. That is part of what we're battling in the market area.

Mr. John Efford: Thank you.

What are the impediments? Some of them are sitting right behind me. Our greatest impediment and your greatest impediment to the markets is the protesting organizations and the amount of money they are putting into the campaigns, as we saw last evening in the magazine Mr. Baker presented.

Then there's the lack of public awareness and promotion by the federal Government of Canada. It is a major industry. They are excellent products.

It has the highest protein value of any meat in the world, and there's very little talk about it. Tens of thousands of people are starving every day. One of the comments I keep making is that 32,000 children die of starvation every single day. You saw in that video that we've condensed it into a powder form, which has a very high protein value. There is no need to waste one ounce of that seal meat.

What about other markets? The Seal Industry Development Council and the Canadian Sealers Association have put a lot of energy, time, and money into opening up markets, in particular in China. It takes time, and they're growing.

Two companies have come to me since Christmas. One company came to me and placed an order for 5,000 tonnes of seal oil to put in capsules. They bought, I think, 200 tonnes of dried meat, and I believe it was 300 tonnes of fresh meat. They also ordered 150,000 flippers, just one company. Another company came to me just a few days before I left to go out of the province, and they wanted to buy 50,000 seals whole.

We have a policy in the province that whatever fish or animals are harvested in the province and from the ocean must be processed in the province. So we're now having discussions with that company—I think it's out in Mr. Shelley's district—as to how we can get an agreement to work with that company in China so that we can commit to our policy and at the same time supply.

You have to remember, there are 1.4 billion people in China. There are an awful lot of opportunities for markets. With the Seal Industry Development Council and the Canadian Sealers Association, along with the provincial government and some help from ACOA, we're hoping to open up those markets. And that's for the long term, because we are very interested in sustaining our sealing industry.

The other issue is the major problem that faces our industry today.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Efford.

Nancy, do you have further questions?

Mrs. Nancy Karetak-Lindell: No.

The Chairman: Charlie, do you have some questions?

Mr. Charlie Power: Yes, I'd like to ask a couple of questions and make a couple of comments, Mr. Chairman.

One, on this whole business of seals and the fishery in Newfoundland, history repeats itself. That sometimes happens because we have short-term memories. Current events really should not repeat themselves.

What's happening in the sealing industry and its relationship to the cod industry in Newfoundland now is exactly what happened in the eighties, and I don't mean the 1880s; I mean the 1980s. Every fisherman in Newfoundland could tell you that cod stocks were starting to diminish in a very serious way. Every fisherman could tell you that catches were smaller, fish were smaller, and it was harder and harder to make a reasonable living.

Brian Peckford was the premier at the time. I was in his cabinet for 10 years. The Minister of Fisheries then, Jim Morgan, and later Tom Rideout, fought and brought the message. Nobody would listen, because all you could say is that you couldn't prove scientifically that cod stocks were going down.

Now we're finding exactly the same thing. Every fisherman in Newfoundland, every community on every bay, is saying where in the hell are all the seals coming from? In the southern part of Newfoundland where I live, we never saw a seal as children, and now they are literally everywhere.

• 1200

Science can't prove the seals are there. Well, everybody else knows the seals are there. Out in Bonavista Bay, where I went to see Lloyd last Sunday, just after this instance with cod and seals, everybody, all these people, could tell you they saw seals eating cod, driving cod up on the rocks. Why can't our science branch be out at sea and take part in this?

We're talking about getting all the scientists together, Mr. Minister, and it might work, but sometimes I think scientists, in this modern world, are becoming like lawyers. They tell you what you want, depending on who's paying the bill.

Unfortunately what we really need is political direction. Yesterday, when I asked the minister in the House about this relationship between seals and cod, he found every excuse in the world, as the federal Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, to blame all of this lack of cod....

Why aren't there cod, after seven years of no fishery? Well, from his own scientists' numbers, the seals have eaten an extra 800,000 tonnes of fish per year, because the seals have increased from 1992 to 1998. In Atlantic Canada, 800,000 tonnes of fish means 25,000 to 30,000 full-time jobs. Hibernia has about 1,000 full-time jobs. That's what it means to Atlantic Canada.

Really this goes back to the same thing. Why is Newfoundland a have-not province? Because we have a federal government that decides it's just as well to keep the have-nots in one place, as long as you can accommodate Canadian policies in other places.

The federal minister basically says he wants to manage all these fisheries based on science. He has enough science to do something more significant with the seal numbers. He really says that because of international trade ramifications, he's going to manage the seal fishery for political reasons, not scientific reasons.

I want the minister to comment on that.

Mr. John Efford: Charlie, you're quite right about what happened in the 1980s. I live in a fishing village; I guess it's one of the larger fishing villages in Newfoundland and Labrador. They were a part of the fishermen from all over Newfoundland and Labrador who cried out and went to the federal government. Of course the collapse came, after people were crying out for decades.

I was in Quebec at a national ministers' meeting on Monday of this week. My only intention in showing that video at the national ministers' meeting was that I thought it was a good opportunity. All of the ministers from across Canada, representing their own provinces' inland water and coastal communities, were there. I've been carrying on this campaign for over three years now, trying to help the federal minister to defray the negativity that has gone out there from the organizations promoting negativity towards our campaign.

The federal minister and I have talked about that on a number of occasions. In fact he said public opinion was changing our way. So I showed the video to show all of the ministers, with no discussion, because it wasn't on the agenda. The co-chair, the minister from Quebec, allowed me to take the time to show the video. That's all that was needed, because it was on the agenda for discussion in the Atlantic ministers' meeting the next day.

I took about three minutes and led into the discussion, because they only allowed me 15 minutes, and the video was 12 minutes. When the video ended, I did not ask for an increase in TAC; I did not ask for a cull. I made a quick comment about the impact on Newfoundland and Labrador, and then the co-chair asked the federal minister, “Minister Anderson, do you have any comments?”

I can't give them verbatim, but this was the gist of his comments. He looked around the table and said to all the ministers across Canada, “Do you realize, if we give in to what's being asked for Newfoundland and Labrador, the impact on trade relations with Canada for each and every one of your provinces?”

I got up about two or three minutes after and stormed out of the meeting. Why did I storm out of the meeting? Because I didn't see the point of having a verbal attack on the minister. I wanted to show how upset I was, because Newfoundland and Labrador, again, is like a poker chip held in your hands.

The people of my province—our province; I shouldn't say my province—are too important to be balanced off on a barter.

Mr. Roger Fitzgerald: Mr. Power, if I can respond as well to that, you're so right in your statement—

The Chairman: Please be very brief, Mr. Fitzgerald.

Mr. Roger Fitzgerald: I will.

I agree with you that the real scientists are the fishermen. The problem the fishermen have is that they're frustrated in getting access to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. Part of our problem is that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, which makes decisions, is located 2,000 miles away from where the problem is.

What other recourse do the fishermen sitting to my left have, other than to call me or the minister, and through us, voice their opinion to committees such as this and to decision-makers? That's the problem.

• 1205

I saw it firsthand myself, because this is happening in my district. You saw that video; that's part of the district I represent. I got a call one day. A person wanted me to go out and look at some devastation of codfish. The gentleman donated his helicopter to fly me out. I got a diver to go out with me with an underwater camera, free of charge. Not only fishermen but other people are concerned about it as well. What we saw looked like a battleground. It looked like a codfish cemetery. Tonnes and tonnes of codfish were lying on the ocean floor.

That's what fishermen are saying. The only access they have to the decision-makers is the access we're providing here this morning.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Bernier, you had a small question.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Bernier: Yes, a short comment and two questions that may allow us to move on with our search for solutions.

Political propaganda set aside, I would like to say that when I listen to what parliamentarians say in Newfoundland, which is celebrating the 50th anniversary of its entry into Confederation, I feel that if Newfoundland were sovereign, they themselves would have decided to clean it up. End of comment.

I would like to conclude by asking two questions to the members of the delegation. The first is addressed to Mr. Efford and those who accompany him. To create an atmosphere or a forum that would enable us to solve the fisheries management problems in Canada, would those of you who are familiar with NAFO recommend considering a program that would work the same way? Would it be appropriate for Canada to do the same thing with its provincial partners? This seems to be a type of management that is different from what Canada currently applies. NAFO participating countries know what shares they have and how this will be administered, and they act collegially.

Messrs. parliamentarians, you may be faced with another major disaster this spring. I would like to be informed, and I would like parliamentarians present here to be informed of the fate of the 40,000 fishing industry workers who will be left without a penny, because the TAGS program will terminate at the end of May. What is going to happen to this population? I am greatly concerned about this. Not only do these people have nothing to fish and can hardly go hunting anymore, but they will no longer receive any income from Ottawa. Did your province take steps to help them? What is going to happen? I was presented with a table on immigration. People leave their environment, but it can't go on like this for very long. These were the last comments I wanted to make, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Bernier, I don't want to get into that, as chairman.

A voice: You're overruled.

The Chairman: I'm overruled? I suppose I can be overruled, but we're looking at sealing, and if we get into TAGS and so forth, it could take a very long time. We're not really prepared for it. I know you've made the statement and I know it's of concern to everybody around the table, but—

Mr. Charlie Power: Mr. Chairman, just on that point, the whole purpose of TAGS, and NCARP prior to that, was to give Newfoundlanders some income while the fishery was rebuilding. Because of the seal problem, the fishery has not rebuilt. Therefore Mr. Bernier's comments are certainly in order.

Mr. John Efford: I'll be quick.

The Chairman: John, what I plan to do is say a few words now and then allow you three or four minutes to finalize our meeting this morning.

Mr. John Efford: Okay.

The Chairman: We have various groups in our audience this morning. After this, I'm going over to CBC to do a little debate about Kosovo. I can't help but feel, when I see the anxiety in the room between your group and other groups here, that when we war with one another, whether it be with words or with actions, it makes life very difficult.

I would hope that somehow we could mediate some solution to this between the international groups and the sealing industry. The two groups should meet at the table sometime. Yesterday we saw some degree of understanding. I was very impressed with some of the information they gave us.

• 1210

I know that when we look at our tables this morning, we probably see trees sitting on them. I'm a great believer in trees, and I hate to see a great tree be fallen. There are people out there, environmentalists, who wouldn't want us to cut any trees, but around the table this morning, we see at least one or two trees sitting here with this paper we're using.

With sealing too, we have to try to come to some environmental solution. I would think the animal welfare groups must be concerned about seals that don't have enough to eat. They have to look at the fertility of the seal herd. It's amazing to think of 6 million seals and so few actually being born each year.

So I would suggest that sometime, hopefully, and not only in terms of public relations and communications across various media, the two groups might sit down and come to some resolution on an issue that's very important to the economy of Newfoundland and Atlantic Canada and that has tremendous repercussions for us and the international community.

John, I'll let you finish.

Mr. John Efford: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'll talk about the last part of your comments and then I'll get to the issue I want to clearly state.

I have no problem sitting down with anybody, for the best interests of the province of Newfoundland and Labrador, but we have a problem combating an $80 million annual campaign for fundraising, against what we can afford in Newfoundland and Labrador. But at any time, if it can do good for Newfoundland and Labrador, I will sit down at the table with anyone.

Mr. Chairman, this has gone on too long. As the fishermen, Mr. Shelley and others around the table, pointed out this morning, we don't have much time left. The total destruction of an ecosystem is our concern.

We want our sealing industry to grow and we want our fishing industry to grow, but keep in mind what we're saying here this morning. We're not just talking about seals. We're not just talking about fish. We're talking about people. We have suffered long enough in Atlantic Canada. We have suffered long enough in Newfoundland and Labrador.

This it not just a Newfoundland problem or an Atlantic Canada problem. It is a Canadian problem. It is a world problem. The resource we had in our ocean is a major part of the world food chain. It is not just our responsibility; it's that of all of Canada and the whole world.

We should not have to be here today. As Charlie Power explained, after what he went through when he was in government and now seven years after the moratorium, we should not have to be here today, pleading and begging for help. It should not have to happen.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Thank you.

We'll recess now for about five minutes before we hear from the Newfoundland sealers.

Mr. Jack Harris: Could I just say one thing, Mr. Chairman? With great respect to your comments, we're not really here looking for a mediator between the sealers and the international groups. We're here to ask the Government of Canada to be an advocate on behalf of its own citizens and its own fisheries resource, which needs to be looked after.

• 1213

• 1222

The Chairman: I'd like to welcome our next witness, the executive director of the Canadian Sealers Association, Tina Fagan.

I'd like to thank you for coming, Tina. I hope you know how these committees work. I'll just mention it again. You can make a presentation of 10 to 12 minutes, followed by questions and comments—as Peter says, mostly comments—from various members of the committee.

I would like to remind members that we will try to stay within the time constraints, and we will work to that.

So welcome, and the meeting is yours.

Ms. Tina Fagan (Executive Director, Canadian Sealers Association): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I certainly appreciated the invitation—albeit its 6 p.m. arrival time yesterday, my time—to come up and join you this morning. It gave me great pause in terms of what I would say and how I would prepare something. Finally, at 3 a.m., when my printer ran out of ink, I had to say that's all I was going to do. On my 5 a.m. flight the stewardess said she's never seen anybody sleep so quietly on a flight before.

So it's been a long day. Nevertheless, I'm very appreciative of the opportunity to be here. Your deliberations are, of course, about our industry, and I think it's only fitting that there be a voice from the Canadian Sealers Association and from the Seal Industry Development Council.

The sealing industry is a rather unique industry in a lot of ways, I guess. For close to 30 years now we've been under constant and repetitive attack. I don't think any other industry has been in a comparable situation, for that long a time, and survived.

I think we are also somewhat unique because of the determination and dedication of our people, who have worked extremely hard to make sure we do survive.

As well, I think the animal rights activists should be saying thank you to us every day, because it's probably the only industry in the world by which you can raise millions of dollars criticizing it.

We have had a very hard battle with this. The industry is just finding itself now. It needs to be nurtured. It's been on the go for a lot of years. It's been funded to some degree for perhaps the last 15 years.

One of the major problems I have now in the industry is that in the early years, when we didn't have the products, when we didn't have the training programs, when we didn't have the educational programs, there were barrels and barrels of money. Now that we have all these things, I'm finding myself very constrained in terms of having to scramble for everything we need to do.

• 1225

I'm sorely tempted to just toss aside what I've prepared today. There were so many questions and so many points raised here since I came in at 10 a.m. that I really just want to answer them all, and be all over the place, but I don't think I should do that. In my presentation I will probably answer them anyway.

There are basically four cornerstones to the sealing industry. One is our past. It's been a very difficult past, but we draw from our past. We draw from our strengths. We draw from what we learn.

With regard to the next two, one is our perspective, I guess, in the present from the sealer's point of view. The other is from the private sector point of view, the industries that are promoting the products and trying to develop the markets.

The fourth, of course, is our future.

We've had a very troubled past in this industry. As I said, we've been under attack. It's been very difficult, and many people in our province have found themselves vilified. Many excellent people—good community people, churchgoers, school teachers, leaders—because they were sealers in the early days were called barbarians, savages, murderers. We had glitzy film stars from France, who were sex kittens in their day, coming out on the ice and trying to destroy the livelihood of people without giving a second thought to what they were doing.

Brian Davies, when he saw his first seal hunt, I'm sure saw millions and millions of dollars. Well, last month we found out that he got those millions and millions, because he's now become a multi-millionaire thanks to his organization, which has given him $2.5 million.

Maybe we're all in the wrong business. Maybe we could all retire with something like that.

In the early years the seal harvest was largely whitecoats. That's gone. It was largely large vessels. That's gone. And that's probably a good thing.

The Canadian Sealers Association was established in 1982 by sealers who were determined that they were going to save their industry and tell the world the truth about their industry. That was a very big, ambitious mandate for people from coastal Newfoundland who really hadn't been out in the world before.

As I said, in those days there was lots of money for them to be able to do some travelling, but unfortunately we didn't have the products we have today. We didn't have the opportunity to do education. The wonder of VCRs and so on were not available to them, and doing videos was not there for them to be able to do.

They did a tremendous job. There are many names that come to mind—the Smalls, Ches Coish, Jack Troake—along with others who had big hearts and big jobs. I think if they hadn't been there we probably would not be here today discussing, dissecting, and disseminating on the sealing industry. There would be no sealing industry. These are the people who kept it alive.

They have told horror stories about having to take the fat off pelts in somebody's basement by hand; being slapped in the face by some of these movie stars in front of their children; being told they were barbarians. These are the types of things rural Newfoundlanders and others in eastern Canada had to put up with.

There have been a lot of compromises in our industry. The Malouf report on seals and sealing, which was commissioned some years ago, made a lot of recommendations, and sealers have accepted those recommendations.

We sit in meetings where our detractors are given equal representation, equal time, and we sit there unhappily but proud of our industry, trying to do our best to offset what they're doing.

Having come through 15 years as the CSA and many years as a sealing province, a sealing area, we are now brought into the present, with both its problems and tremendous potential. The sealing industry has huge potential.

You heard the minister talk about the protein from the meat. There are many other things we are working on. I'm sure you've all heard the benefits of the seal oil capsules. They are a wonder. There are many things happening. If we handle this industry right, we can bring into Newfoundland alone $100 million a year from the sealing industry. But do we have to handle it right.

At the present time we have the Canadian Sealers Association and we have the Seal Industry Development Council. I'm going to take just a couple of minutes to deal with each of them and give you an idea of what they are.

• 1230

The CSA started off 15 years ago, and tried to develop for itself a mandate. They made a lot of compromises, got into a lot of research, dealt with the regulatory problems that were there, and in fact have brought the industry to where it is.

When I first started in this industry some six years ago, three companies, I think, were beginning to do some seal work. The only actual product I could find to take anywhere with me when I went out on the road was a seal coat.

Now, some six years later, we have 15 companies licensed to do seal products. We have a very wide range of products that we can promote. We have a lot of people who are dedicated, who have seen the potential of this industry through the private sector.

The Seal Industry Development Council is in effect the private sector. I have the honour of chairing that group. It is an honour to work with people who are willing to take the risk to help develop their province and to develop their industry.

Very simply, if we're looking at what the sealer wants as part of his future, the sealer wants to harvest seals as he harvests fish from the sea. He wants to go about his business without constant harassment. He wants the right to make a decent living doing what his forefathers have done, but in a better way. He wants to harvest seals with no cruelty. He wants decent prices and the opportunity to attain full utilization of the seal. He wants good, realistic, effective regulations that govern the harvest properly.

Basically, he wants his industry to be treated as any other industry that uses animals for the benefit of mankind. There should be no difference.

In Canada we eat 500 million chickens every year. I don't see any pictures of fluffy little yellow chicks on posters saying, “Save the chickens”. We harvest 275,000 seals out of a total of somewhere between 4.8 million to 6 million. I guess we'll know more when the count is in this year. There should be no difference. We are an industry, and we are trying to survive.

Sealers to some degree are concerned when they hear talk of increased quotas, and of culls. We have had a lot of meetings on these things, and there are a lot of concerns. Sealers will be the first ones to tell you that they want an increased quota—absolutely no problem, bring them on, yes, sir—but that increased quota has to be tied to a good, consistent market, with prices that can help sealers run a decent living and help the processors make their profit, because they need a profit as well. It also has to be done on very sound science. There's no doubt about that.

So with the right approaches, I believe we can do all of this. I'm firmly convinced we can.

On the question of the cull, true professional sealers don't want to hear the word. They don't want to see it happen. They have a lot of concerns. Sealers also are fishermen. They have to be fishermen to get a sealer's licence. They know the interaction. They are actual front-line experts on what's happening out there in seals and fish. If you sit down and talk to them, they will tell you what you need to know.

It's really unfortunate that given two factors, the lateness of the invitation and also the cost of coming up here—I shuddered when I saw the cost of my airline ticket—it was really very difficult for me to bring somebody along who is a sealer.

By the way, I was delighted to hear the minister say Mr. Oldford was a sealer. Next week he'll be getting an invoice in the mail for his membership fee.

We have some concerns that we have to deal with this industry very carefully. As I said earlier, it's a unique industry in that it has been under attack for the last 30 years. It has also raised untold millions of dollars for our detractors. Given that, we don't want to be raising more money for them, and we want to try to cut back these attacks that are there. We want to go out and do some things in the world that make us a more acceptable and more realistic industry.

Sealers want to feel secure in the knowledge that any action taken by those who control the seal harvest will be in the best interests of the sealer and the seal industry, and by extension in the best interests of their fishing industry. There is no doubt in anybody's mind—and anybody who would tell you differently is a fool—that there are far too many seals off the coast of eastern Canada.

We've talked a lot about harp seals here, but when you add in the other species, you're quite likely upping the numbers by another 2 million to 3 million seals. So there are far too many seals.

• 1235

There's also no doubt that there is a major problem with the groundfish. This is something that has to be dealt with. The concern of both the sealing industry and some of the people in the fishing industry is that we make sure that whatever action we take, it's the right action for everybody involved. That way we don't find ourselves in a situation with maybe bringing back other species of fish at the expense of maybe the seals, and in the long run finding you can't sell them because of a boycott or something along those lines.

So people have to be very concerned about that. In the meantime, we all do recognize that there is a problem.

The Seal Industry Development Council members, who are also part of the fishing industry, have some concerns. We have been trying to get into new markets and we have been trying to get the prices up.

When I left home yesterday there was a type of mini-crisis, which I hope is resolving itself today, in terms of the purchase of seals this year. But from the companies' perspective, they don't want to see us flooding the market with more seals than it can bear. That makes no sense. If you go in at low prices, or you put too many seals in there, buyers will then tell you those are twice as many seals as are needed, and they'll give you half as much money for each of them.

So that creates a problem. We have to find a way to make it fair and equitable for everyone.

There are a lot of questions that arise in terms of doing a seal cull. I don't know that anybody has actually said they want a seal cull, but the word has been tossed around in the media quite considerably over the last two or three days. I've been getting a lot of calls from sealers, from processors, and in fact from some fishing companies, who've made some points with me.

Just in case anybody is thinking a cull might be a good idea, there are a number of ramifications that I think you have to look at.

First of all, what do you do with the seals you cull? Is it logical or reasonable to think that we can kill 1 million or 2 million seals and just drop them on the floor of the ocean? I don't think so. There would be a lot of serious ramifications.

There's some sense that if we were to do that, there'd be no effect on the prices or the seal harvest next year. That's on the prices, but what would happen with the public relations aspect of things? At what price, from the financial perspective, would we carry out a cull? It would be a very pricey piece of business. I find it hard now to find enough money to do some of the things we need to do. We would be talking literally millions and millions of dollars to do this the right way. There's no doubt about that.

At what price, from a public relations perspective, are we prepared to carry out a cull? This is a very serious question that a lot of people are asking.

How would such an activity be controlled, with what enforcement measures? How much money would it cost? How could we be sure there's no cruelty? How could we be sure we are culling in such a way as to leave sufficient breeding stock to keep a healthy herd?

There are so many issues that need to be dealt with if you're going to be even thinking along those lines.

There are other problems and concerns in relation to quotas that we need to look at. I don't think there's any doubt that they're there, but I also think we have a very good future in this industry. It has the potential, as I said, to bring $100 million to Newfoundland, and Lord knows we need it; we definitely need it. We can employ a lot of sealers and a lot of processors—a lot of people in the communities—through this industry, and certainly the small communities need it so that we can get away from the out-migration mentioned earlier.

What do we have to bring into the future? We have an industry that we feel is responsible, an industry that's respectful of the environment and of the animals it harvests, and we have an industry that is renewable. We've made great strides showing our intention to be a responsible industry.

From the sealers' perspective, we've redeveloped the sealers' training program to make it more in tune with the realities of today's industry. We've asked Minister Anderson to make it mandatory, with no grandfathering.

We've worked very hard on the development of a good public education program. I've left some of the printed material with the clerk of the committee today.

• 1240

We've worked very hard, through research, investment and cooperation, to develop products. I talked about the seal oil capsules. As well, a protein capsule is probably 18 months to two years away from the marketplace. It would be for the athletic market, the geriatric market, or a nutraceutical for people who have a protein deficiency or protein absorption problems.

Very importantly, it's also something we could use to feed and to provide protein to the starving people of the world. I don't believe we can pack up and send seal meat, per se, but I think we can send this product. This capsule would be 98% pure protein. What better could we do for starving children than to provide them with some protein?

We already, through one of the private sector companies, have had a meeting with CIDA on this. We will be providing more information to them, and hopefully it's something that will be happening. If we can do that, every pound of seal meat that can be landed in one harvest can be utilized, and utilized very well. So it's something we need to look at.

We've encouraged, and in fact demanded, that our sealers treat the seals humanely. Nobody believes in cruelty in our industry. We've encouraged and demanded the proper handling and storing of our products so that they are suitable for human consumption.

The industry I represent here today commends the Honourable John Efford for his efforts in raising consciousness on the problem that's out there. Our sealers are fishermen. They know the problem is there. Their only concern is that when we come around to fixing that problem, we do it the right way, and we make sure we protect both sealing and fishing.

There were some questions today about getting our information out into the world. There were questions about funding. There were questions about what needs to be done.

Well, let me tell you briefly that in terms of funding, the current fiscal year is the last year that the Canadian Sealers Association will receive any core funding from the Government of Canada. We will receive $25,000 this year. I wouldn't be able to buy too many plane tickets up here on that. It's a very small amount of money. In fact, it won't even meet a decent salary for somebody.

Now, sealers themselves do contribute. We will get perhaps another $50,000 through pelt levies, memberships, and so on from our sealers. But even with that amount of money, it's not enough to do the job that needs to be done.

From the Seal Industry Development Council, we have $100,000 a year for two years as core funding to look after office expenses, telephone, salary, and the things we need to do.

We have also been very successful in obtaining, through ACOA, some funding to develop the type of education program that was talked about here today.

Someone said we need to get all this good stuff out to the world. In fact, in June we will be taking a four-country European tour where we will be meeting with government people, private sector people, and the media in these countries. We will be presenting them with a new video on the realities of the modernization of today's seal products. We will be presenting to them the fact that this is just another industry. We will be answering their questions forthrightly and honestly.

This is the first step. Somewhat later in the year we will also be doing a somewhat similar thing in Asia, where there is a tremendous market, as the minister has said himself.

In terms of funding, it's been a very long haul for this industry. There has been funding coming in but it's never been enough to do the job that needed to be done. It's gotten to the point now where for the most part, I have to stop and think if I need to phone somebody. Do I really, really need to phone them, or can I try to do this with an e-mail? Lots of times you're not as effective because of the way you have to scrimp and scrape.

There were some comments made here earlier, certainly from my own government people, in terms of what needs to be done. As well, before Mr. Lunn left, he asked whether we are on the wrong track or the right track.

From the perspective of both the sealers and the private sector companies, the right track is to take all of this energy, all of this initiative, and whatever dollars we can put together, and to put it into market development, product development, and education, letting the world see what this industry really is.

• 1245

I know there's a problem in Newfoundland, and it has to be dealt with, but I believe there are a couple of things we can do if we can all work together.

Somebody from the media called me yesterday and said she heard I was going up to Ottawa. She knew before I did; I hadn't gotten my call yet. She asked me if I was going up to take on John Efford, to go head to head with him.

Hey, we don't need that kind of garbage. What we need is all of us working together.

Minister Efford is one of the most committed people I know in terms of the sealing industry. We've had a lot of long talks, and he's been supportive of us in many cases.

We come at it from two different perspectives. I am paid to promote and develop the sealing industry. The minister has a much bigger spectrum of the entire fishing industry in Newfoundland, as David Anderson has the broader spectrum of the fishing industry in Canada. So we have three different perspectives here, but none of us, I think, are that far apart on what we see as the end result on this such that we can't pull it together and do what needs to be done.

What I see needing to be done I think has to be done within a year. If we do this, or we if we try to do something similar, we cannot let it fall into the bureaucratic never-never land that happens on occasion. There needs to be a very carefully crafted committee, one that includes the Department of Fisheries and Oceans; the Department of Fishing and Aquaculture; the sealing industry from the aspect of both the sealer and the private sector; and the fishing industry, because what we do has an impact on them. We could also include people from the Canadian Centre for Fisheries Innovation, people who have a long history of knowledge and work.

This committee should be given the task of bringing together all of the data we have pertaining to the seals, the predator-prey relationship that's there, and the fishing industry. There has to be science involved, and the people who are specialists. There would be no point in my trying to sit in on something like that, because I'm not a scientist. I don't understand a lot of that stuff. I think it has to be a specialty committee.

And, yes, the perspectives of both industry and sealers have to be there too, because they are the front-line experts on this.

I think this committee needs to pull together their work quickly, but not so quickly as to be trying to answer a need while overlooking things that need to be done.

There needs to be a parallel committee. I believe this committee should in fact be headed by the Seal Industry Development Council, and it needs to have people from all these agencies involved. This committee needs to set up a five-year plan and strategy for the sealing industry and for, as an extension, what happens in the fishing industry, and how it impacts. I don't think this committee would necessarily develop a plan for the other aspects of the fishing industry, but it would look at the impacts and at the problems and concerns.

One of the problems we've had to date is that three or four or five of us are all working on this same issue, but we're all working here, here, and here. While we're not deliberately working at cross purposes, it's working out that way. We need to bring that together, because there's a tremendous amount of talent and information and skills that we could pull together to develop a five-year plan.

The two groups have to come together. The information has to be brought together in a very substantial manner to put that plan in place. I believe it has to be done within a year. I don't think we can let it go on. The problems are too serious and too severe to let it go on.

I think all of us—the federal government, the provincial government, ourselves, and others—have to take a level of responsibility for the things that need to be done in this industry. People in the Quebec north shore area need to be working with us on this, because they have a very big interest there as well.

I think at the end of this exercise and before the counts for 2000 are announced, we need to be able to have this together. It has to be the best piece of stuff that was ever done on the sealing industry. I think if we do that, we can succeed.

Mr. Chairman, we have a bright future, one that can bring good economic benefits to the Atlantic Canada region; to hopefully our aboriginal peoples, who were devastated by the animal rights activities and who want to get back into the sealing thing; to our colleagues in the Laurentian region, the Quebec north shore, the Magdalen Islands; and to our colleagues in Nova Scotia and even P.E.I. now, where they're beginning to do a little bit of sealing..

• 1250

I think we all need to work together on this, because together we can make this industry an extremely important one, one we can all hold up our heads about and be proud of.

Thank you again for the opportunity to come. I have decided to stay away from numbers, as I think you have probably been inundated by them. What I felt was needed here was probably a very simple perspective coming from the people who have concerns for their industry.

Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you, Tina. That was very well covered. I'm sure there will be some questions.

Yvan, we'll start with your concerns.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Bernier: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to thank the witness for his presentation. After the last two or three days of meeting, I find it refreshing to end on what I would call a wise note. The different people who appear before us, and even us, members, sometimes get carried away. We may be a little too passionate, and the presentation you have just delivered this morning invites us to examine the issue under all its aspects and weigh every comment. Doing so this morning is greatly to your credit.

This will allow all members present, and those who will have an opportunity to watch us on television, to understand that this is a complex issue. There are two groups who see the problem differently, and as parliamentarians, we will be presenting a recommendation that should not make things worse, but rather provide a solution that looks to the future. I will read your document another time, but when we hold our debates, we will be looking at the committee you propose. I for one applaud this idea.

I have no further questions, aside from asking myself if your association will be able to do all these things and participate in the development of the industry if it is no longer subsidized. Some of your opponents say you are not viable; it must be demonstrated that you are, but this is a vicious circle. If there is no element of help from the start, it will be difficult to build this industry.

I don't know how you see this. Did you ask for additional financial assistance from the government to help you implement the action plan you are hoping for? This is something that needs to be done. Are there philanthropic organizations, people who are willing to provide money to help you develop and enable you to continue educating the public and the hunters, who, as you mentioned, have adopted a code of ethics for the practice? I think there would be things to say about this.

I will have other questions to ask the protection groups, who would like to stop commercial hunting. We need to look further into their actual objections and the assistance they are prepared to provide us with for what they call an acceptable harvest. I am not familiar with the relations between them and your group, but the demonstration made here this morning is a step in the right direction. In any event, we have heard both sides of the story. Now, God help us put recommendations down on paper.

[English]

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Bernier.

Mr. Easter, do you have some questions?

Mr. Wayne Easter: Yes, Mr. Chairman.

Welcome, and thank you for a very thorough and excellent presentation given the difficult hour involved in putting it together.

The area I mainly want to question is your first recommendation, found on page 11 of your paper.

• 1255

During the whole course of the hearings, I think we've been moving toward the need—and it's absolutely critical—for good science. It's absolutely critical, dealing with the others out there, movie stars or IFAW or whoever else has been involved in this campaign, that at the end of the day we have the documentation to be able to appeal to reason rather than emotion, and that we take an overall ecosystem type of approach.

I see that recommendation as critical, but how do you see pulling it together? Can you expand on it a little bit more?

Ms. Tina Fagan: This was at 2 a.m., remember, and it was very difficult to think of all the points. I really did want to add more to it, but there came a point in time at which I had to say enough was enough.

Basically, I think you're quite right. I see that particular committee as being the experts, the science experts, the people who need to pull together as much data and as much information as possible. We need to be able to look at all the studies that have been done and try to judge them. I know there have been some peer reviews and so on. We need to be able to look at that.

You know, I'm not a big fan of people jaunting around holding meetings. Excuse me, but you know what I mean. I don't see a committee travelling from coast to coast to coast on this type of thing. I see putting together six or eight people who have expertise in the different areas that we are asking for, and keeping that as a core group.

I mean, from time to time they can bring in others who have a different level of expertise, but if you keep it a small core group, there's a tendency to get the work done faster. I think it's critical that this has to be done fairly quickly.

I would see it including some DFO scientists, some of the scientists from our own province, perhaps Dr. Winter, and maybe a couple of independent scientists who have no involvement with either group and who can look at this from a rational point of view.

As I said, I would also make sure that you take advice from the sealing industry on this committee. Sealers are out there, and they can tell you first-hand what they're seeing and what they're experiencing. They are in fact our experts on the front line out there. As well, there are other aspects of science that could be dealt with through the industry.

So my sense would be your committee, or the minister from your committee, or whatever, in cooperation with Minister Efford pulling together the group we need to become this expert committee, and given good timeframes in terms of when the work needs to be finished. I would be looking at, say, nine months.

Mr. Wayne Easter: Okay, but having done that, what is the strategy—and I don't like the expression—after we do the science? Knowing the tactics of the IFAW and others, how then do you go out there, after you have the plan in place, and get the point across to the rest of the world, basically, that this makes sense?

Ms. Tina Fagan: There are a couple of things I would say, Mr. Easter, on that one. Basically, if this is pulled together and we're working on it, we can make it known that we're working on it.

From my perspective through the development council, any time I'm travelling I refer to the fact that we're doing these things and so on. I think we have to keep emotionalism out of it and largely keep the media out of it. We don't need to give them interviews every week as to what we're doing. When we're talking to groups, though, we would make it known that we're working on something like this.

I know what you're saying. You're looking at possibly a huge cost to get this report out there and dealt with. I think we have many more avenues today than we had in years past. I would under no circumstance recommend an advertising campaign. I believe it was you who made the point this morning that we can't win it. We don't have enough money to be able to do it.

But we do have the Internet. We do have other areas of getting things out. We developed through the Canadian Sealers Association last year an educational video. We got very smart. We came up here to Ottawa, and in fact came to your media centre in the House of Commons and did a big launch on it.

• 1300

We now have something in the vicinity of 200 to 300 of these out in about 30 countries in the world. People learned about it through the media, and we were deluged with e-mails and faxes asking for copies.

So I think through the age of technology and the IT scenarios there are ways of getting this kind of information out there.

Still, I think we have to do networking. Part of what we will be doing in these tours we're planning is that we're not doing public events in these places. We are trying to find like-minded organizations and people in various countries who will be our contacts for different things, who will work with us, and who wouldn't see this as a problem.

The Chairman: Thank you, Tina.

I'll move over to Mr. Stoffer.

Members, we're running a bit short on time.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: First of all, I want to thank you very much. Yes, airline fares out of Newfoundland are very expensive. I worked in the airlines for 18 years.

There are two things I wanted to point out to you. First of all, you talked about the inclusion of various groups to form committees and that. I didn't see it in here, although maybe it's because you were tired.

Just as a suggestion, I would include the new Nunavut government, and the Labrador Inuit Association. On top of that, I would not exclude but include—I would insist they be at that table, even if only for observer status—IFAW, the World Wildlife Fund, the Sierra Club, and Greenpeace, etc.

As you know, environmental groups around the world work in tandem on common causes. I would think it would add credence to your council, to promote the industry or to assist in any way, shape, or form, if these organizations were invited and not excluded. Then the rhetoric will tone down and we'll get back to more serious things.

I'm glad you and Mr. Efford are more or less...because the way the media reports it, you were quite upset, and Mr. Efford was quite upset. I'm glad to see, as I said yesterday, that the rhetoric has toned down and we'll get to some semblance of a normal conversation.

Mr. Matthews said here the other day—and I don't know if he said it out of emotion—that if something is not done in regard to the seals, the fishermen will take it in their own hands.

Have you heard that comment? If DFO just ignores the concern that's been raised here these last three days, do you believe the fishermen themselves—I'm not talking sealers—would more or less take the law into their own hands?

The Chairman: Peter, I'm not sure that's a very fair question, because—

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Well, it was asked.

Ms. Tina Fagan: I don't mind answering it.

The Chairman: You don't mind answering that?

Ms. Tina Fagan: No.

First of all, in your earlier comments about inclusion, I think you're probably quite right. These are some of the groups we do need to be looking at, even if it's on a partial basis in terms of this. We should give the animal rights activists and environmentalist groups the opportunity. If they participate, then we're probably looking at some good things.

As for the controversy, I work in the media. They love controversy. If it's not there, they'll create it. So don't worry too much about that.

On the question of fishermen, I think there is a certain level of concern out there that because fishermen are not all necessarily sealers, all sealers must be fishermen, but it doesn't go the other way around. There is some concern that maybe my livelihood is being destroyed by these seals, and it needs to be dealt with.

You may get one or two who will get a little hotheaded or whatever, but overall, I don't think fishermen would go out there and take it in their own hands and start killing seals just for the sake of getting rid of them or something of that nature. But in the meantime, I think I would include them in some of the committee structures I'm talking about there, because I do think it's an issue that has to be dealt with and cannot be ignored.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Thank you very much.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Charlie.

Mr. Charlie Power: I want to ask one question along the same lines.

One of the reasons the sealer is desperately in need of money and in need of the sealing industry is that the seal industry last year brought in $25 million to the Newfoundland economy. The cod fishery, which it partly is trying to replace, used to bring in $700 million to the Newfoundland economy. So obviously all sealers, who must be fishermen, are desperately in need of some source of revenue to replace what they have lost.

The scientific data, if you read it in any way objectively, will tell you that the seal population has certainly doubled, if not tripled, in the past eight or ten years.

• 1305

The reasons for setting a total allowable catch should be based on a couple of things. One obviously is the industry and the market you've been able to develop, but shouldn't also a total allowable catch take into account the simple fact that one species has been allowed to be predominant to the detriment of several other species, particularly cod, salmon, and other fish in Atlantic Canada? Wouldn't almost every single member of your association agree that the total allowable catch should be higher for seals?

Ms. Tina Fagan: First of all, let me address your issue of the income.

The figures for the landed value of fish in Newfoundland now are higher than they've ever been. In fact, a lot of fishermen and a lot of my sealers are doing extremely well with shrimp and crab. In fact, I keep wishing I had a licence for a least one of those species. We still do need, though, to bring back codfish. There's no doubt about that.

As to whether every one of my sealers would want an increased quota, as I said earlier, yes, but it has to be tied to a good, strong, consistent marketplace with reasonable prices.

If you bring in more than the market can bear, the problem then becomes, what do you do with them? Let's look for a moment at the private sector people who buy seal products. What are they going to do if all of a sudden an extra 100,000 pelts show up on their doorstep? Do they say, “No, I can't buy that because it's not in my budgetary plan”, or do they try to buy it and store it? What happens two years down the road when they have such a big storehouse they don't want to buy any more? What happens to the prices?

Mr. Charlie Power: Why doesn't the federal government, in that case, aggressively get involved in a marketing campaign to find new markets? Why, when the seal problems are so obvious, and the cod problems are so obvious...? The federal government is going to manage this resource mostly, I do believe, based on politics, not on science.

The Chairman: Thank you, Charlie.

Mr. Charlie Power: Why can't they do it? Why haven't they done it?

The Chairman: I think you've made your point.

We're already five minutes over, and I do want Nancy to conclude.

Mrs. Nancy Karetak-Lindell: Thank you for coming.

This will repeat, in a way, what some members have already said.

You have shown us a very professional and well-managed industry with the products you're showing. I guess I'm a little puzzled as to why that would not convince a lot of Canadians and people outside of the country that this can be a managed industry, a very productive one that can help the Canadian economy.

What do you think is needed to show this side of the story? It's a very professional business, and I would think even more strict than maybe some of the other industries. Maybe we don't do enough of a parallel, as you say, with chicken and other meat markets.

Ms. Tina Fagan: I think there are a number of things we need to do. Within the education package you'll see a little booklet called “Learning about Seals”. That's one we've developed for the grades 5 to 6 level. It's going over very well in the schools we're getting it into.

In the short run, you're quite right; we have to get more people in the world accepting that this is what it's all about. We have to get the focus away from red blood on white ice. There's no way you can compare that with abattoirs, because nobody has ever seen an abattoir, or least most people I know have never seen one.

To get that message out I think there are two or three things that need to happen. We need to be able to come together—the federal and provincial governments, the sealing industry, and others—and we need to be able to find the funding.

I'm not talking about subsidies. I'm not talking about salaries. We need to be able to find the funding to get this message out there. If that means getting out in some of the other countries....

One of the things we're planning to do in Europe is involve the media, the private sector, and government people. We hope we can keep that up and find the money to do it. It's very difficult to compete with the amounts of money our detractors have raised on the backs of the sealing industry.

The Chairman: Tina, I want to thank you very much for coming today. It certainly was very refreshing to conclude our meeting this morning by hearing from someone who is out there in the industry, who knows the industry, and who is trying to promote the industry to see that it continues and develops further.

• 1310

With that, I'd like to conclude our meeting. I would like to thank all members for being very faithful and for spending some four hours and ten minutes here this morning.

Thank you very much.