FISH Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON FISHERIES AND OCEANS

COMITÉ PERMANENT DES PÊCHES ET DES OCÉANS

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, May 4, 1999

• 0914

[English]

The Chairman (Mr. Charles Hubbard (Miramichi, Lib.): Good morning, everyone.

Pursuant again to Standing Order 108(2), the committee will resume its hearings on the sealing issue. Before we do that, though, there are a couple of points.

• 0915

One is a letter I received from John Cummins, our vice-chairman. John was quite upset with the decision that was made at our meeting last week on Mr. Chapple and the Pacific Salmon Commission. I talked to John last week on this personally and I tried to explain to him what happened.

Maybe, John, I'll give the floor to you. I think all members have a copy of that letter from John. I have a copy of the minutes here too, John. Have you read the minutes of the meeting where we brought this up?

Mr. John Cummins (Delta—South Richmond, Ref.): And the love message from the secretary across the way there.

The Chairman: The junior minister.

Mr. John Cummins: I know.

The Chairman: John, the floor is yours.

Mr. John Cummins: I think in February this issue came forward, and I requested that Mr. Chapple appear before the committee. He had been appointed by the minister at that time. I felt there was reason to ask him to appear before the committee. He agreed, and the committee agreed he should come. He agreed, and then was unable to come, I guess for medical reasons.

The teleconference was my second choice. I wasn't in favour of a teleconference for Mr. Chapple, but I agreed to that. That was established, and then at the last moment he declined to come.

I think it's an important matter, and I think he should be required to appear before the committee. I would like to see him here before the end of May, certainly within the next couple of weeks.

The Chairman: Maybe just to open up discussion on this briefly, as I mentioned to John, I got a call the day before from Mr. Chapple, and he indicated to me that he was reluctant to participate. He was quite concerned about his own health in terms of not being able to come to Ottawa originally, and the videoconference was the second objective. When he found that he was the only one of the appointed members that was willing or that desired to participate, he was quite reluctant, and he asked me if he could get out of it for the time being.

A ministerial appointment is different from an order in council. With order in council appointments, we do have the right to demand that an appointee appear before the committee. But in this particular case it was a ministerial appointment. There were a number of people appointed, John. He was only one of the four or five.

I gather from him that he would, with reservations, be willing to participate in another videoconference. But we as a committee would probably also like to see that he doesn't have to appear alone. This man has been under stress, with problems with his heart and a recently implanted pacemaker. As chairman, I certainly wouldn't want to put him under further stress in terms of demanding that he appear before a committee.

So I guess those are the two points. If other members—

Mr. John Cummins: If I could comment, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the fact that Mr. Chapple has a pacemaker. I don't mean to sound harsh, but that's a fact of his life.

The other point is that the reasons I'd like Mr. Chapple to come before the committee are substantive, and that's why the request was made. I don't think other factors should prevent him from coming.

The Chairman: With the Pacific Salmon Commission as appointed, Mr. Cummins, is he the only one you want? If we take your advice, should we extend an invitation to the other members of that commission?

Mr. John Cummins: I'm not interested at this time in having discussions with other members of the commission. It was Mr. Chapple's appointment and I had some questions for him. I think they are questions of some importance. I'd like to ask him those questions, and that's the reason we made that request. At this time, I don't have reason to ask questions of other members of that committee.

• 0920

Mr. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.): But, Mr. Chair, is there any problem with two members, Mr. Chapple and another member, coming before the committee? You're at liberty to question who you want. If it makes it easier for him to come before the committee....

Mr. John Cummins: My questions are for Mr. Chapple, so it doesn't matter whether he's there himself or whether he has his wife and his daughter beside him, or whatever. Who surrounds him is irrelevant to me.

Mr. Wayne Easter: I think the decision last week wasn't to cancel it; it was to delay it. If it is an appointment, Mr. Chapple has an obligation to come. I really believe that, whether it's order in council, ministerial, or what. But I would suggest that we invite one other member with him.

Mr. John Cummins: I'm not sure why we should bother somebody to come before the committee at this point. I think it should be simple enough. If Mr. Chapple wishes to bring somebody with him, that's his problem, but I don't think the committee should impose upon somebody else's time just to please one witness. I just don't think that serves the process. The fact of the matter is I'd like to see Mr. Chapple before the committee and Mr. Chapple alone.

The Chairman: Mr. Provenzano.

Mr. Carmen Provenzano (Sault Ste. Marie, Lib.): Mr. Chair, it may be just something on my own part here, but I have forgotten if it was stated before what the relevance and the high priority are for Mr. Chapple's attendance. Is there an argument for that in terms of the relevance to what the committee is doing right now and the priority for...?

Mr. John Cummins: Mr. Chapple was appointed to the Pacific Salmon Commission, and the Pacific Salmon Commission plays an integral role in the management of the Pacific salmon stocks. That is of great importance to commercial fishermen, sport fishermen, aboriginal fishermen, and anybody else who enjoys the salmon resource in British Columbia. His appointment is of some concern to me and I'd like him to answer questions. I think he should answer questions before this committee.

Mr. Carmen Provenzano: What I don't understand, Mr. Cummins—are you suggesting that this be an immediate attendance, something that should happen in the very near future, or something that should be put on the committee's agenda to be dealt with in due course?

Mr. John Cummins: No. I made the request in February—I think it was February 17—that Mr. Chapple come before the committee. It was agreed. He cancelled once or asked that it be put off. We agreed to that. A date was set, and a matter of days before he was to appear he begged off. My point is that the salmon season is rapidly approaching, and I think this appointment—I'd like to ask questions of Mr. Chapple before he's into the thick of things in managing the fish resource in British Columbia next summer. It's for that reason that I'd like him to come, and I'd like it to be sooner rather than later.

The Chairman: Mr. Cummins, maybe you could explain to the committee.... If there is a commission and there are five appointments, why is one particular individual singled out? I can't see where he has any more authority or power, you might call it, than any other member. Are we questioning here the minister's choice in terms of a select...?

Mr. John Cummins: I have some questions for Mr. Chapple. I think it's quite clear that he's one member of a committee. He's been appointed by the government to sit on that committee. Previous appointments to that committee—I think it was only a matter of two or three years ago—were order in council appointments. That rule was changed recently. But the fact of the matter is that anybody who sits on that committee is in a very influential position. There are questions, I think, that Mr. Chapple has to answer so that the people of British Columbia can have confidence in his ability to sit on that committee and make decisions that will affect the fishery in B.C.

• 0925

The Chairman: But to be clear, though, of all the appointments the minister made, he's the only one that you and your party are concerned about.

Mr. John Cummins: He's the only one I'm concerned about at this time.

The Chairman: In terms of his suitability on that commission.

Mr. John Cummins: If you wish to put it that way. I think there are some questions that should be asked of Mr. Chapple, and that's what I'd like to do.

The Chairman: Mr. Steckle.

Mr. Paul Steckle (Huron—Bruce, Lib.): Mr. Chair, I have no problem putting before the committee the request for him to appear. But I'm wondering, was Mr. Chapple more recently appointed, was he singularly appointed, or was he appointed among others at the same time? Why are we singling out Mr. Chapple?

I too would like to hear him and ask him questions, but I wouldn't know why he would be the preferred person to question. Maybe you could be a little more specific. Maybe we're interested in asking him questions for the same reasons you are. Perhaps we should know that before we pursue this with any degree of persistence.

Mr. John Cummins: All I'm saying is that Mr. Chapple has been appointed to this committee. He's been active in the fishing industry in British Columbia for a number of years. He's the only member of that committee—a new member, I believe; the others were reappointments. I think it only appropriate that he come before this committee and answer some questions about his attitude and his ability to perform in that role.

Mr. Paul Steckle: Was his appointment well received by the Pacific salmon fishermen when that appointment was made, or was there some difficulty on the part of the fishermen in accepting his appointment? I don't know. I'm simply asking for my own information.

Mr. John Cummins: I think there may be some concern in some quarters, yes. I think given that concern, Mr. Chapple should come and answer some questions.

Mr. Paul Steckle: Has this commission been before this committee at some point in recent times?

Mr. John Cummins: Have appointments to this commission...?

Mr. Paul Steckle: No. Has the commission ever represented itself before the committee in recent times?

Mr. John Cummins: Not that I'm aware of. Members of the commission have been before this committee, though.

The Chairman: Mr. Easter.

Mr. Wayne Easter: Mr. Chairman, just so I'm clear on the process here, we had agreed previously to invite him. Do we need a motion? What's the procedure here to get this issue dealt with?

The Chairman: I would think, Mr. Easter, we could deal with consensus here, but looking at the opposition side, consensus might be hard to achieve.

Mr. Wayne Easter: I come back, Mr. Chairman, to my original position, and that is that we invite Mr. Chapple as one witness and we invite one other from the Pacific Salmon Commission. It's an area maybe that the committee should look at in terms of what their responsibilities and duties are and, as John says, what they're qualifications are. A member of Parliament certainly has the right to question appointments, and I certainly have no problem with that. But I do believe we should have two.

The Chairman: John, would you agree with that, that we would have a minimum of two people from that commission and he would be one of the two?

Mr. John Cummins: Sure. One thing you might do is invite the new members to the committee, and there may be questions for others. I think there is at least one other new member to the committee.

The Chairman: So it is agreed then that we will try to set up.... The first date we have open, according to the clerk, is May 25, and we'll make arrangements to have a videoconference with members of the Pacific Salmon Commission for May 25.

John, are you satisfied with that?

Mr. John Cummins: May 25 should be fine, yes.

The Chairman: Okay. Thank you.

• 0930

Mr. John Cummins: Can I ask another question on this business of appearances before the committee? That would be about DFO. We requested that they come in and make a presentation regarding the impact the Nisga'a Treaty was going to have on management of the fisheries. The issue is now before the House. The minister is talking about it. I'd like to know when we can expect a briefing from DFO on this issue.

The Chairman: Mr. Easter, can you inform our committee?

Mr. Wayne Easter: At the moment, John, I'm not sure, but we can check and get back to you on Thursday. I'm just not sure where they're at. I'll check it out and get back to you on Thursday.

The Chairman: Again, going back to last week's meeting, the other thing is the aquaculture file. We still haven't reached any conclusions. I spoke with the environment committee, or at the least the chairman, and it appears that they now would like to participate but want to put this thing off until later. I know it's probably a matter of some urgency to many members of our committee.

I did suggest last week that we should give some thought to how we might establish a committee. Some have said a committee might consist of nine members, with five Liberals and four from the opposition, which would almost be our complete committee. When you consider this morning, we have seven members of the government here and only one opposition. Whether or not opposition parties—

Mr. John Cummins: We're not outnumbered, I can assure you.

The Chairman: Whether or not opposition parties are willing to put in that much effort and time into another subcommittee, I'm not sure.

On Thursday this week we should come to some conclusions on how a committee might be established. For example, a committee of five would consist of three government members and two members from the opposition, if that were acceptable. I'm not sure. But on Thursday we'll try to come to some conclusions. We're getting pretty late into the year in terms of a June recess.

The other matter, of course, is if this committee were to travel, John, we'd like to know a little bit from your party as to whether or not it would support, at the liaison committee level, funding for travel. I would think we'd probably travel to your coast, to the west coast, in terms of the aquaculture business there, to Quebec, and probably also into Atlantic Canada.

So if you could determine some of those things by Thursday, we'd be able to make a decision on this.

To our witnesses, my apologies to the Canadian Fur Institute for having to endure all this administrative business, which we sometimes go through. We would like to welcome Alison Beal, the executive director of the Canadian Fur Institute, and Brian Roberts, the chairman. They have probably watched with some degree of concern our discussions on sealing. It's certainly good to not only think of the industry of furs with seals...I know I do get your little pamphlet every so often in my office.

The fur industry has been a very vital part of our Canadian history. In fact, for a lot of Canada it was the fur trade that made us a nation. Today, of course, the Fur Institute and the fur industry are under some degree of stress and concern as to what has happened.

So we'd like to welcome you to our committee. We'll have probably ten to fifteen or maybe even twenty minutes of a presentation, followed by questioning from members of this committee.

Welcome, Ms. Beal and Mr. Roberts. The floor is yours.

Ms. Alison Beal (Executive Director, Fur Institute of Canada): Thank you very much, Mr. Hubbard, and thank all of you for this opportunity.

Just for the record, we're not the Canadian Fur Institute but the Fur Institute of Canada.

It's a great pleasure for us to be here. It might seem a little strange that we've been talking about seals, and fur always seems to be treated separately. The reason we're here is very specifically to share with you some of our experiences in the fur trade with respect to proposed import bans on our product in the European Union and specifically how that was dealt with. My colleague, Mr. Roberts, is going to look at that in a little more depth.

• 0935

What I would like to do is provide you with an idea of what is this organization. We were born in 1983 with a mandate from the Wildlife Ministers' Council of Canada, which includes all of the provincial and territorial wildlife ministers, and of course the federal Minister of the Environment, who determined that we needed a national non-partisan organization to look to the interests of Canada's fur trade.

The mandate from them was to organize an institute that was multisectoral, where all of the members would be there to see to the best interests of the trade, and to ensure that included in our membership were governments of the provinces and territories, the federal government, trappers organizations, fur farmers, aboriginal people, conservation agencies, animal welfare agencies versus animal rights agencies—who obviously do not share our goals and objectives—and all of the downstream sector of the fur trade, including the manufacturers, the auction houses, the dressers and dyers, and obviously the retail sector.

Canada's fur trade is international in scope. In fact, because we have such a limited market in Canada, with only 29 million to 30 million consumers, we have to go abroad to sell our product. So we're very viable in most parts of the world that have winter, and in fact in many of the world that don't. Fur is still perceived, and I expect will continue to be perceived, by some as a way to keep warm and by others as a way to keep beautiful, and we like it that way.

We are a national not-for-profit organization. We currently have 102 voting members in our organization. Our membership is not individuals but organizations. So in essence we are an organization of organizations, including the sealers associations and including, of course, the Government of Newfoundland.

We receive our financial support from all of the provinces and territories, from the federal government for core administration, and obviously from the fur trade.

Our main spending program over the past ten years has been our trap research and development program, which is renowned internationally for demonstrating leadership in improving trapping methodologies.

Our committees include a trap research and development committee, an aboriginal communications committee, a national affairs committee, and an international affairs committee.

Over the past ten years—actually a little bit more—the institute has fought long and hard to prevent the European Union from imposing a ban on wild fur imports into Europe. This ban was born of an animal rights movement that in 1987-88 attempted to put a labelling bill through the British Parliament that would impose a label on fur coats that we thought was rather obnoxious and could be prejudicial to our business. In fact, Canada as a nation requested that this labelling issue not be heard in the British Parliament and it wasn't. They moved that into the European Union. Brian will discuss this in a lot more detail. Nonetheless, contrary to what we saw in the sealing industry, we managed to avert a ban on our fur products in Europe.

We received extremely strong support from the Government of Canada, from the Prime Minister, from the cabinet, from our Canadian embassies overseas, from Foreign Affairs Canada, from the Department of the Environment, and from Indian affairs, who worked long and hard to make sure this did not happen. It was a concerted effort and would not have come about if not for the fact that we have this institute that brings together all the players. We managed to get all of the players to leave all their differences at the door and focus very exclusively on preventing a ban of our product in the European Union, which would have had a very detrimental effect on our trade, as we've already seen with the sealing industry.

• 0940

What we've done, ultimately, to resume is we've seen to it that decisions related to fur in Canada will be decisions based on science, fact, and knowledge, and not on opinion and emotional rhetoric.

Brian Roberts—and I will be very pleased to introduce him now—is the chairman of our international affairs committee. He is one of two elected federal government representatives on our board of directors.

If I may go back for just a moment, our board is structured in such a way that no one organization or interest group can ever attain control of the whole organization. So we make sure we are always representative of all the interests of the trade and avoid becoming a narrowly focused organization.

Brian sits on our board as an elected representative from the federal government. He has been on our board since 1987 and has been on the executive committee since 1990. Brian and some other colleagues were instrumental in pushing forward the discussions in the European Union and shoring up support from the Government of Canada on our issue.

Brian.

Mr. Brian Roberts (Chairman, Fur Institute of Canada): Thank you, Alison. First of all, I would like to thank the committee for inviting us here today.

The purpose of our invitation...as Alison has alluded to, we have some experience in this. It's coincidental to some degree that the Fur Institute was founded in 1983, within months of the collapse of the European market for our whitecoats and bluebacks.

What I'm going to provide for you is a brief overview of what we call two case studies about what happened on seals and why we—in at least the opinion of myself and my co-authors of the paper we distributed to you—failed so miserably on that issue compared to why we succeeded, I think quite surprisingly, on the second issue, when essentially you had the same protagonists, the same antagonists, the European Union and Canada, the animal rights groups, and essentially the same issue: cute little animals being killed for the fur trade. So why did one issue fail so badly? Why did one issue succeed, at least from the Canadian perspective?

I'm going to take you through a very brief summary of the comparison of that. I hope my speaking notes have been distributed to you. I understand they were translated as well. I'm very surprised. You're very efficient.

Ms. Alison Beal: You're not surprised they're efficient, though.

Mr. Brian Roberts: I'm not surprised you're efficient. I'm surprised that I only got them to you at 3.30 p.m. yesterday and they're already translated. So my congratulations to your translation team.

In 1983 there were only about 2.5 million harp seals. As you've heard from previous testimony before the committee, that number is estimated to be at least twice that now. So what possessed the European Union to impose a ban on this non-endangered animal? European politicians have been led to believe that this was an endangered species they were saving. It's always easy to oppose cruelty, especially if you're opposing cruelty just for profit or for luxury products. There's always that appealing image of cute babies, defenceless innocence on the ice. Who wouldn't want to save them?

There's the added benefit that there are no EU jobs affected in the members' constituencies. There is the added incentive that the European Parliament, as described by an environment commissioner a couple of years ago, is not a real parliament. She lived to regret that statement. It's not a real parliament in the sense that it cannot initiate legislation, for example. It's not accountable. It's not responsible. All it can do is criticize.

So there is a political credibility question for the European Parliament, and this issue offered them a fantastic opportunity to appear in the press...to almost look like Mother Teresa every time they spoke on the issue. As I said, no jobs were affected and there was positive media coverage. Who wouldn't want to embrace that image?

I think what we've forgotten is what the EU ban, what the directive, actually said. We all remember the shocking pictures, the campaigns. I remember at Fisheries our record was 8,000 pieces of correspondence one day, and I had the pleasure of answering many of those. But that was not the issue according to the law that was passed. Clubbing was never mentioned. Humaneness was never mentioned. Babies were never mentioned. None of that was ever mentioned in the EU law and it is not mentioned now. All that was mentioned was concern about the “conservation status” of harp and hooded seals.

• 0945

Canada responded, as governments do quite well, with a totally logical approach: important local industry, abundant seal herds, humane killing—or as humane as possible. But what Canada misunderstood in all of that was that the Europeans were really saying to us “That doesn't meet our needs. We have another issue here. Our constituents are telling us they want us to ban this product. Canada, unless you can give us something to counter that—and locally important jobs, value, and so on doesn't wash in Europe—we're going to have to do something to respond to our constituents.” And that's eventually what happened, much to our surprise.

I'd like to remind you that in 1981 we had record seal prices. Seal prices had never been higher than they were in 1981. They were 10% off that in 1982, and in 1983 you couldn't give away seals, not just harp seals or hooded seals, but any seal product. Because of the European collapse—and 90% of our seals went to Europe at that time—there was a worldwide collapse. All seals were seen as whitecoats or endangered.

Eventually this two-year temporary ban became permanent. It's probably GATT-inconsistent, but nothing has ever been done in that area.

Following one of the Malouf recommendations, Canada imposed on itself a ban on whitecoat hunting, I believe in 1987 or 1988. In fact, the Malouf commission also said that even if Canada had understood what the Europeans were really saying to us, the issue had probably become so polarized that there could have been no satisfactory resolution of it. Hence, the banning of the whitecoat hunt, although for all the management reasons, for all the humane reasons, if you wish to go out and kill that animal humanely, that is by far the best time to do it. It's just not pretty and it can't be sold.

So the overwhelming success of the anti-sealing campaign in fact surprised many of the anti-sealing groups themselves. They just lost their number one income earner. A new campaign was needed. So they looked around for some image that could fill this void of the whitecoat, which had now been saved, and the answer was of course wild fur bearers and leghold traps.

So the very same groups that had made their millions marketing the clubbing of baby seals now turned their attention to the same group of parliamentarians in Europe who had been quite open to this campaign before, and they pushed for a similar ban on fur, using exactly the same arguments.

In 1986-87, the aboriginal affairs committee issued the fur report, which became the basis for two five-year plans within the government. Alison has alluded to it. There was a 1987 to 1992 plan and a 1992 to 1997 plan, in anticipation of a European something—nobody knew quite what. But it was based upon research and getting our house in order.

In 1991 European law was drafted and was passed, and it had two stated objectives, and this will sound familiar: to conserve the endangered species and to encourage more humane trapping, plus it would ban all leghold traps in the European Union. Of course, the real goal was to kill the fur trade. This was not stated in the objective of the regulation, as you can imagine.

The regulation was to apply, as of January 1, 1996, to all fur-exporting countries for those 13 species, unless—and this was the out—those countries could show they had banned all leghold traps or they could show they trapped in accordance with an international humane standard. Unfortunately, no such standard existed.

So Canada applied the lessons from the seal issue to the fur issue. It started questioning: What does the European Union really want to do here? Do they actually want to hurt Canada in some way? We concluded no, not really. The EU's objective with the regulation and the import ban was to address, or to mollify, or to satisfy the animal rights lobby, but without harming EU interests.

In setting out to deal with the impending EU import ban, Canada then had three main goals, and these goals were unwavering from the very beginning. At the Fur Institute's meetings with trappers and industry and government across the country, three clear objectives came out.

• 0950

First of all, maintain access to that market. As an exporting country of fur, we export 90% of our production in this country, and three-quarters of those exports end up in one market, the European Union. That market also happens to be the fashion centre of the world, and even though there are copycat industries in Korea, China, and Hong Kong, if the European fashion designing houses stopped using wild fur, guess what would happen in the copycat houses? So the domino effect here, we could see in 1991, would be very similar to what happened with seals—essentially the loss and use of wild fur. A seal is a seal is a seal. A wild fur is a wild fur is a wild fur. So number one, maintain access to that market.

Second, the trappers said quite clearly, don't be fooled; the leghold trap is not the issue. Like clubbing baby seals, if it was not the leghold trap, it would be the conabear or the snare, or some other device would be used. It's always going to be easy to find some horrific way of presenting any trapping device or any killing of an animal. So don't be fooled. Don't focus on just banning leghold traps. The device is not important. Look at the thinking behind it.

Third, the trappers told us, find a way to keep those guys in Europe honest. As long as they can keep dictating to us as they did on seals, it's not good enough—you have to be more humane, you have to be more considerate, you have to have better management, and so on. As long as that is allowed to happen, we will never satisfy them. Don't be fooled.

We had some advantages with the fur issue over the seal issue. Fortunately, Europe traps five times as many animals as we do, which is a surprise to them, I can tell you. For example, the Netherlands spends about $35 million Canadian every year to trap 350,000 muskrat. Canadian muskrat, by the way...somebody brought it over in 1907 and thought they would ranch it, and then they all escaped. That's another story. There are over one million muskrat trapped in just three countries in Europe. That exceeds the entire wild fur take in all of Canada for all 20-odd species that we trap commercially. So Europe does trap.

The stated goals of the regulation were very similar to the seal directive. Again, conservation status was a concern. The challenge to Canada became how to redefine this issue or reshape it so that the European Council could address their political needs. Again, they didn't want to hurt Canada; they were trying to address a political pressure. So the objective here became, how can we reshape this issue? Back to what the trappers said: Don't be fooled. It's not the leghold trap, it's not the image; it's something else. Go beyond that.

We had a three-step campaign. I mentioned the standing committee's report, which led to the two five-year plans. Central almost to those plans was the aboriginal component.

The first step was if you're dealing with an illogical, emotional set of arguments, why use science? It's oil and water. The first step was to set up an equally appealing set of human rights arguments. So dozens of aboriginal leaders went to Europe and lobbied in the different capitals, essentially saying, why are you trying to kill us? Why are you trying to deny our children a heritage? Why do you hate us so much? Why do you have no respect for our human rights? Suddenly you've got an equally ill-defined emotive set of arguments, which are equally appealing to the animal rights side. What do you do? It doesn't answer the question, but it sure as hell caused confusion.

Now you come up the middle with your logical sets of arguments based on trade, based on science, based on humaneness. Now you can measure things. But you've got these two fibrillating sets of arguments—be nice to the animals, be nice to the people—causing confusion.

The second step was to welcome the European Union's newfound interest in humane trapping. We actually initiated in 1994 the ISO.... Those of you who are familiar with international standards have heard of ISO, the International Organization for Standardization. It was trying to establish an international standard for humaneness. The effort was laudable but failed because animal rights groups became involved. Of course, the very activity of taking animals is regarded as inhumane, so that effort failed.

In the winter of 1994, Canada had no option but to ban all leghold traps. The European Union was not listening to us. They didn't want to discuss this in any way with us. So to get their attention, Canada initiated a GATT challenge. GATT discussions were held. The message was quite clear: if you wish to resolve it in this forum, we will do so, but we do not wish to do so; we think there are other ways of resolving it, but first of all, we wish to confirm what your objectives are.

• 0955

The key here was that the European Union confirmed that they didn't want to kill the trade. What they were concerned about was the welfare of the animals. So Canada's response was “We're so relieved you want to work with us. We've spent millions of dollars. We've done all the research. The Fur Institute is the leading example of research in the world. We thought we were the only ones who cared and now the European Union wants to compliment our efforts. This is great news to us. Here's our research. Can you give us your research?” Of course, they had no research. But the fact that they trapped five times as many animals as we did and the fact that animal welfare was what they said they were concerned about gave us the in to start discussing science.

So eventually, in the third step, we offered them a way out of their problem, which they had created for themselves, because the original objective, remember, was to address the animal rights or the animal welfare lobby. Now they had to also avoid an embarrassing GATT challenge.

Just a few months before they had succeeded in a GATT panel called the tuna-dolphin decision, which is an American law, which the European Union had taken to GATT and successfully challenged. We told the European Union that they had argued that so well and so concisely that we couldn't possibly improve upon it, and we would take their submission and excise wherever it said “tuna-dolphin” and put “fur” and resubmit their arguments. They thought that might be embarrassing.

Eventually, after all the aboriginal lobbying, after all the science, after all the discussions, we came to an agreement. I won't bore you with all the details of it, but it's essential, I think, to note that the objective of that agreement was to facilitate trade and to establish humane standards.

Another objective was that the standards apply to all trapping, not just Canadian trapping, not just for fur, but wherever trapping occurs for the species listed. Back to those three objectives: find some way to involve the Europeans in the problem.

Under article 13, my personal favourite, the European Union guaranteed to never again place a ban or restrictions on the fur imports from Canada. I can tell you the trappers love to see that when I do this presentation in the trapping communities.

Finally, the parties agreed to test their most commonly used traps over a period of time and to phase out those that were deemed to be inhumane, i.e. that failed the standard.

There was also a bilateral declaration, because remember, the Europeans needed some victory here. They needed to show, for political reasons, that they had forced Canada to do something. So an agreement was drafted, a side declaration, whereby Canada agreed, and these words are very essential, to ban the “conventional steel-jawed leghold restraining trap”. This was very important to the European Union because the headlines then read “Canada agrees to ban leghold traps”, which was true to a degree. What was more important to a degree was that we agreed to ban traps we hadn't used in 20 years, but we kept quiet about that. The Europeans had their political victory and they had their headlines, and they had forced Canada to do something immediately.

The irony of it is that over the next few years, as it's implemented, the Europeans must bring their trapping standards up to our level of humaneness. If that's not irony, I don't know what is. We said we let them off easy this time, but don't mess with us the next time.

So what did the European Union accomplish in all this by signing the agreement? Well, they did mollify some of the animal welfare groups, not the animal rights groups, as Alison has alluded to—you'll never satisfy them. The groups that are truly concerned about the welfare, the pain and suffering of animals, were mollified and were satisfied to some degree that measurable progress was going to be made in eliminating inferior traps, non-selective traps, cruel traps. A gradual improvement would be made.

Secondly, they avoided what was sure to be an embarrassing WTO challenge.

Thirdly, they got Canada, as I mentioned, to give up the conventional steel-jawed leghold restraining trap for 12 species.

What is the European Union committed to do? Much to their surprise, they have now committed to carry out humane trap research on the most commonly used traps for six species. As I said, they'll bring EU trapping practices up to our level of humaneness. They will exempt Canada from the ban, and they've agreed never again to ban Canadian or Russian wild fur.

• 1000

What did Canada accomplish? Those three goals I mentioned initially. We maintained access to the market. We successfully redefined the issue from “cruel leghold traps in the fur trade” to “this is fantastic news; this is a breakthrough for the welfare of trapped animals”. We're so pleased we could accomplish this with the Europeans. So we gained that moral high ground. We were no longer on the defensive.

Thirdly, and perhaps most importantly in the long term, the European Union is part of the problem. There will be commitments to research. There will be annual meetings where we compare our research. We have them, and we'll take them by the hand and lead them through trap research and make sure they commit to this agreement.

Now the short epilogue. The ban, the European law, has not gone away. It's there. It was put into force in 1997. Twenty-one countries have sworn that they're absolutely telling the truth and they have banned all leghold traps—that's what they say. Three countries are exempt because they trap in accordance with this international humane standard. Those countries are Canada, Russia, and the United States.

Ironically, again, while all this was happening in the last few months and it was coming up to a council vote, some of the animal rights groups, which you've heard mentioned here before, were taking out $75,000 to $100,000 ads per day in six or seven different national newspapers across the European Union, urging the ministers to vote against this. Do the math. You're looking at anywhere from $700,000 to $1 million per day for weeks on end against this deal. When the agreement was signed, those ads disappeared. There have been no anti-trapping ads since the agreement was signed.

The focus has shifted, because the image is now measurable. You can no longer show an animal in a trap and just say this is cruel, because you can now say that trap is illegal, or we don't use that trap. You could even say in fact that trap is endorsed by the European Union; it's not Canada's trap. So they're part of the problem. So the anti-fur focus has shifted to fur ranching.

That's a very quick overview. More is in the paper. As I said, it was co-authored with five others. It's a fascinating example of two wildlife issues—as I said at the beginning, it was the same protagonist and antagonist and essentially the same issue with different species and how it was reshaped. I don't know how much value that will be in terms of the seal issue for you, but I think there are certainly lessons there, if you remember Malouf's overriding recommendations.

It doesn't matter what wildlife activity you're in. There are three things the consumer is going to ask you. Is the species endangered? Is the killing humane? Is the end use non-frivolous or practical? Satisfying two out of three isn't good enough. You have to satisfy all three to the consumer's satisfaction or you're out of business. It doesn't matter whether you're sealing or hunting elk or trapping fur. Those three rules from Malouf apply. I think in our relationship with the European Union we set out to address all three of those; hence the agreement we have.

I thank the committee, and we will respond to questions.

The Chairman: Thanks, Mr. Roberts.

John has taken a lot of notes, so maybe he'd start the first round.

Mr. John Cummins: Thank you very much. I found your summary very impressive, Mr. Roberts. I think you captured the essence of the problem and the solution in a brief but very clear fashion. It's an outstanding presentation.

You say you made the EU part of the problem, and because you did, you managed to find a solution for it. In the fur industry now, is the future bright, or are there other obstacles in the way at this point?

Mr. Brian Roberts: There will always be obstacles in the way. What we accomplished was keeping the market open. As I mentioned at one point, we export some 90% of our total production. If that market had closed, the ripple effect would have been quite profound. So yes, there are problems with this product. Any natural product goes through cycles. This one happens to respond to fashion and other pressures.

On the plus side, the market is there and can be exploited. Without the agreement, we would have had no market, so we wouldn't even be sitting having this discussion. I would have been showing another disaster story.

It's now up to the industry to find ways.... You could now market, for example, Canadian-caught fur in Europe with a label on it, if we wanted to use that, saying “Humanely caught in a fashion fully endorsed by the European Union”. Wouldn't that be a pleasant irony?

• 1005

Mr. John Cummins: The animal rights groups are really a fringe element, but do they pose a problem for you at this point?

Mr. Brian Roberts: We've mentioned animal rights and animal welfare, and the distinction, of course, is that the animal rights people will never accept the taking of wildlife, period, or the use of animals, period. That goes to the extreme. To some, pets are seen as slaves. So there are extremes within that movement.

Within the middle ground, we have members within the Fur Institute of Canada who are animal welfare organizations who believe we can treat animals better. It's a continuum. We will never accomplish the end of being totally humane. We are always working toward that goal, and I think degrees of satisfaction will always be there. Some people are satisfied. The trappers, of course, feel that what's occurred is an enormous imposition on them in terms of changing their traps, in terms of moving. They tend to grumble that this is being pushed by do-gooders in the cities and so on. There is a range of opinion.

Many people who have never seen traps, who have never seen wild animals, wouldn't know whether three minutes to death is acceptable or thirty seconds. You're always going to have problems in that continuum.

Mr. John Cummins: You mentioned three rules, or three guidelines, points, that needed to be addressed by the fur people, and you suggest that they apply as well to the sealing industry. If you were going to give some words of advice to the sealing industry, what would they be?

Mr. Brian Roberts: Where would one start?

In ten words or less, says Alison.

You will never address those people who believe that the taking of whitecoats or the taking of young seals is acceptable. But there is a middle ground. There are people who believe that as the only predator on the face of this planet with a sense of history, we're the only ones who have the capacity and the knowledge to actually manage our resources. Sometimes we do it well and sometimes we do it abysmally, as this committee, I'm sure, has heard.

It is still a resource, if you want to refer to it that way. It is still well managed. We can go to the Europeans and say “Your directive has succeeded immeasurably. Thank you very much. The conservation status that you were so concerned about fifteen years ago...and because of your ban, the population has now doubled, and we want to thank you for it. We will of course now look to you to reward our good management and look to a lifting of this ban so that those communities can again benefit from this resource, which you've helped us rebuild.”

There are ways of building this and talking about it. Going out and telling people you have to buy our seals because we have a right to sell them to you is not the way to do it. But if you can put yourself in their shoes, if you can pick up on sustainable use issues.... Every government in this world now subscribes to the Brundtland report, the concepts of sustainable use, the concepts of biologically biodegradable products over synthetic, and so on. There are arguments that can be made, rather than just “You have to buy my seals because they're eating all my cod” or “I don't like them.”

The Chairman: Moving now to the other side, Wayne, do you have a question?

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

Congratulations on your success, first of all, in terms of your strategy in getting to where you are today for the fur industry of Canada.

Alison mentioned that decisions have to be made on science, facts, and knowledge. One of the problems we're having in dealing with the seal issue here is in part scientific opinion. What is a sustainable seal herd size? That's number one. Secondly, how many seals are out there? We get all kinds of different opinions, even before this committee. If you look at it historically, the current TAC is based on 4.8 million seals in terms of the herd.

We had one witness before us, I believe, saying that the current survey looks like it might be somewhere in the range of 5.2 million or higher. DFO has said that the TAC at 270,000 is basically sustainable, but I guess my question really is, sustainable in terms of what?

• 1010

On the one hand, we're looking at the sustainability of the seal herd. On the other, at what level of seal herd does it impact negatively on the fish food chain, on Atlantic cod, or whatever?

It's interesting in terms of some of the research we're doing. We went back as far as the 1969 fisheries committee, I think it was, that Brian Davies was at. He was asked that question at that time. What would the sustainable seal herd level be? I believe he said it was 1.7 million. I tried to find it in the minutes, but I couldn't.

I don't know how much involvement you have with seals, Mr. Roberts or Alison, but what is your view on that? We had Brian Davies in 1969 saying it should be 1.7 million. We're saying today it's 4.8 million. Whatever the herd level should be is certainly going to impact on the TAC we set, beyond all these other factors we have to get in—once we do that, we have to sell the issue. This annual report of the International Fund for Animal Welfare, the pretty, innocent-looking seal that in my opinion is illegal to kill...but that's the propaganda the IFAW uses. It's images, as you said.

Mr. Brian Roberts: I think part of the problem is confusion over terminology. I'm not a biologist, but a take of 1,000 seals a year is certainly sustainable; 2,000 seals a year is sustainable. The problem becomes not one of identifying what is an optimum level for the herd itself. Is Fisheries happy with a seal herd of six million, or five million, or three million, or two million?

You start setting yourself up when you say, well, 275,000 is our TAC based on sustainability. Sure it's sustainable. You take 285,000, and people say, ah, bad management; you've overshot the quota. So you end up with problems that way.

I don't know what the ideal size is. Is it three and a half million? Is it four million? You say in terms of this species relationship with the other species, as a predator we feel the ideal number of predators of this type would be x number. Having said that, and as Tina Fagan said a couple of weeks ago, you don't want to flood the market with all sorts of product. On the other side, Fisheries could say the market right now we think will sustain—this is the market sustaining—or absorb x number of animals, 275,000.

If you take 285,000 or 290,000, or whatever, you don't have a problem now. You have a market problem perhaps, but you don't have a problem because you've said the ideal size of the herd was supposed to be four million, and we're quite happy if it's actually reduced a bit because it's still way above what we think the optimum level of the herd size is.

So we end up getting caught in this trap of looking at what is sustainable in terms of the take rather than what's sustainable in terms of the optimum size of the herd itself. Everything else should be secondary to that.

Mr. Wayne Easter: I'm glad you pointed that out, because I think that's where the problem really is. What's the optimum size of the herd in terms of (1) the herd itself and (2) the fisheries that seals certainly have an impact on, whether it's caplin, cod, or whatever? Do you have any advice in terms of how we get to that point?

Mr. Brian Roberts: How you get to that point?

Mr. Wayne Easter: Yes, in establishing that number, based on your experience in the fur industry.

Mr. Brian Roberts: Based on my old experience in Fisheries, the TAC was based on an optimum catch based on having no negative impact on the herd or the stock, whatever the stock might be. If there could be some way of separating, saying well, look, the recent survey is showing 5.2 million or 5.3 million seals, and given this relationship with the other species, this is too high, how do we—

Mr. Wayne Easter: Just to interrupt you for a second, I think it's easy for us to deal with what the harvest should be to hold the seal herd at a sustainable number. The bigger problem is, what is the number that herd should be at in terms of the ecosystem as a whole, I guess, in terms of cod, shrimp, etc.?

• 1015

I think it's easy to go out—it's not easy, but the survey will show us what the numbers are this year, because there's been a good survey done this year, so we will have the numbers on the size of the herd. So it's fairly easy, given birth rates, kills, and so on—relatively easy—to come up with what the TAC should be to sustain that herd. But in terms of the fishery as a whole, how do you establish that number? That's the problem I think we will have. And how do you justify it?

Mr. Brian Roberts: I agree with you, and I have no answer. It's certainly beyond my competency.

Mr. Alison Beal: I just have one small wonder about that. I wonder how.... For example, in the United States, the National Marine Fisheries Service is examining exactly that same question with their seal and sea lion population off the west coast of the U.S. The National Marine Fisheries Service has said they're going to cull certain species off the U.S. because of competition with other resource users in the area. The same situation is happening in Scotland and Ireland with seal populations off those coasts. Those models might inspire. And they appear to be moving towards a decision on a cull in England, of all places.

So I suspect if we could find out how they're basing some of their models, it might be very profitable in the decision-making process that has to be made in Canada.

Mr. Wayne Easter: I think I'm out of time, Mr. Chairman, but can we get those contacts that we might go for later, Alison?

Ms. Alison Beal: Yes.

Mr. Wayne Easter: Thanks.

The Chairman: Do other members have...?

John.

Mr. John Cummins: That last point that Alison raised is an interesting one, because she's quite right. In California, where there's been a problem with seals and sea lions that have moved in and are taking over different fisheries...they're just cleaning areas out of other harvestable stocks.

That may be the point where there could be grounds to approach the EU and make them part of the problem. I think you've raised a very interesting point there, because I think that was probably the key that was missing: how do you make them part of the problem?

If it's getting to the point where they have to begin culling for other reasons, it certainly then becomes more legitimate for Canada to establish some guidelines. I think again the point Mr. Roberts made about what's the optimum size for the herd itself rather than what's the best TAC, or setting a TAC, is another key point.

I think there have been two valuable contributions made here this morning to this problem we're addressing.

The Chairman: Mr. Knutson.

Gar is actually on the other side, the Liberal side, but because we have too many members here this morning.... He's not an NDPer or a Bloc Québécois.

Gar, the floor is yours.

Mr. Gar Knutson (Elgin—Middlesex—London, Lib.): I just wonder if you're aware of any intervention the Prime Minister may have made. He indicated once anecdotally that he toured the north, at least for a day, with Helmut Kohl. I wonder whether that had an impact on the EU's decision.

Mr. Brian Roberts: Definitely.

Mr. Gar Knutson: Can you expand on that?

Mr. Brian Roberts: Definitely. Fur was one of the “f” words in Canada-EU relations for a number of years—fish, fur, and forestry. It was the number one irritant for much of that time, except for a little turbot issue for a while there.

Every time the Prime Minister met at the G-7, or every time one of our ministers travelled abroad, this issue came up repeatedly, and the message was delivered: Canada learned from the sealing issue the last time; we're not going away on this one. If you want us to resolve this in a very public place, in Geneva, we will do so. We want to resolve it other ways. Every minister, right to the Prime Minister, raised it at every opportunity.

Mr. Gar Knutson: And that was a big factor.

Mr. Brian Roberts: Absolutely. The political part of this equation from the European point of view.... Why would Canada put all this effort into a very marginal industry? Why would Canada go to bat for what in terms of direct exports is only $20 million to $25 million in bilateral trade to Europe? Why do we go through it? Why would we not want to ban leghold traps? The Europeans were totally confused by this.

• 1020

Every time we had the Prime Minister or ministers of trade raise this, they were shocked that Canada kept saying fur is right at the top of the “f” list—fish, fur, and forestry. It's right there every single time.

Ms. Alison Beal: What was very interesting and important about that was that I don't believe it would have been number one on the Prime Minister's list, or on anybody else's list with respect to irritants, if it hadn't been for the trade itself—I'll blow our horn—if it hadn't been for the Fur Institute pushing and insisting at all times that this was a major issue for Canada. We recognize in our offices that in fact the fur trade is not a major economic player in the Canadian economy. But there's a point of principle at issue here. We were not going to give up our resource management, our fur trade, for the sake of a whim and based on pressure from groups—and this is my opinion—who have in fact invented two seal industries in Canada, one of which is far more profitable than the other. We're working very hard to create two fur industries in Canada, once again one that would be far more profitable than the other.

When you look at sealing today in this country, the sealers make—I think it has a worth of something like $25 million, and the anti-sealing, which is yet another industry, makes considerably more than that on an annual basis. You can tell they do because they can afford incredible advertising on an ongoing basis, which is something the resource users themselves cannot do. If the government believes in these industries, then the government has to stand up and do what needs to be done to support them.

The Chairman: Gar, do you have another question?

Mr. Gar Knutson: No.

The Chairman: Mr. Knutson, of course, is parliamentary secretary to the Prime Minister, so that's who you're speaking with.

We have at least two more. The thought that goes through my mind with this.... Under Revenue Canada, charitable organizations.... Can you give any impressions about whether some organization that's out there to destroy a Canadian industry should be regarded as a charitable organization? I won't look for an answer to that. I just question that in my own mind.

Nancy probably wouldn't see it as very charitable from the people where she comes from.

Mrs. Nancy Karetak-Lindell (Nunavut, Lib.): Thank you.

Part of my question has to do with page 9 in the little booklet, not so much with the seal industry but the overall picture. You have an aboriginal communications committee. How do they consult with the trappers in the northern parts, whether it be in Labrador, Inuvik, or in my riding? Is there membership on the Fur Institute from my riding?

I have to admit, I've heard of the Fur Institute, but I don't have a lot of information on it other than this.

I notice you had until March 31 to do consultation with the communities, and I would like to know how that went.

Ms. Alison Beal: We can do this in two parts. I'll address the more general area.

We have an aboriginal communications committee in our organization. Currently there are about 16 different aboriginal groups that are members, including Inuit Tapirisat of Canada and the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples. A lot of the other organizations have regional trappers associations or provincial aboriginal groups.

We do ensure a constant flow of communications to the four national groups. Certainly over the past several years we've accumulated in our database, if you like, a lot of names of individual trappers or organizations throughout Canada who we feel would be interested in receiving information. At the same time, with the funding support of the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs, we've been able to conduct briefing sessions. I would not describe them as consultations, but briefing sessions with various groups across the country, addressing specifically the trapping communities, to provide them with greater understanding and information on what is this agreement on international humane trapping standards that is going to affect trapping methodologies over the next ten years.

• 1025

It is a long and difficult process because aboriginal trappers organizations in this country are more difficult—the organization is not necessarily there.

Mr. Brian Roberts: I can't add much more to that. There is a commitment over the next couple of years from Indian Affairs to provide funding to the Fur Institute to carry out these consultations or these briefing sessions that Alison alluded to. I think there have been 12 to date so far over the last year and a half regionally across the country.

While the approach from Indian Affairs on this has not been specific to one group, it's gone through the Fur Institute because the Fur Institute has committed to address all aboriginal people, on reserve, off reserve, non-status, status, Inuit—it doesn't matter—because all of them are affected equally by the changes that are coming into this industry. It made no sense, from Indian Affairs' point of view, to break that down and only fund CAP, for example, or AFN, or ITC, and so on. So that's why the Fur Institute's aboriginal communications committee has been the great pusher and the great organizer on this, and I have to say not to the satisfaction of some of the established aboriginal political organizations.

Mrs. Nancy Karetak-Lindell: Just to add to that, because I notice you said between January and March 31 you had seven aboriginal workshops, Hay River is the only one in the NWT and there's nothing over to the eastern arctic. I just wondered how you did the briefings in the eastern arctic.

Mr. Brian Roberts: There was one that's not mentioned, which was the Gwich'in-Sahtu, which was conducted at the end of September in Inuvik. So there have been two in the north.

The committee did it regionally across the country. The committee right now in fact is sitting down to evaluate the responses from the different communities, and then we'll be putting out a proposal to Indian Affairs based on need over the next year, about which communities and which parts of the country have not been addressed. Over a period of time...obviously some groups are more interested now, and those are the ones that have received the initial consultations. As word of this agreement gets out, there will be more and more interest. So the committee will be pushed by that interest across the country, but the intent is to do it on a regionally fair basis.

Mrs. Nancy Karetak-Lindell: Just one more. You mentioned Gwich'in, and that's over in Inuvik. I don't see any Inuit consultation there, in northern Labrador, northern Quebec, or Nunavut.

Ms. Alison Beal: We went to Labrador last March on the same type of meeting. That was done a year ago March. We were in Iqaluit for meetings of the same sorts of briefings. So it didn't happen this year.

Mrs. Nancy Karetak-Lindell: Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you, Nancy.

Paul, you have something.

Mr. Paul Steckle: I would like to add my words of welcome to the two of you this morning and thank you for bringing us a very positive message. To hear a success story on an agency or an institute that most people probably have never heard of.... You've defended the cause very well. Perhaps it's because of the mandate you have and because you have cross-sections of representation in the institute.

Given the fact that you mentioned a moment ago, Alison, that the IFAW and other such fraternities have more money at their disposal to fight the fur industry and the animal welfare people, the animal rights people, but more particularly the animal rights people, the IFAW, are you sufficiently funded to do the job as well as you would like? You're not charitable. Should you be?

Ms. Alison Beal: No.

Mr. Paul Steckle: I expected you would say that.

How might that change, given the restraints we have in government, or are you looking to other outside sources as agencies of funding? I guess that would be my first question.

• 1030

Ms. Alison Beal: To be very precise, as far as our funding goes, we receive funding from the provinces and territories. A small percentage of our administrative requirement comes from the federal government, the provinces, and territories. We receive project-specific funding generally from the federal government. Our government is very generous in their support of our trap research and development program, for example. We currently enjoy, and for another two years, funding to the tune of about $400,000 a year for our trap research program, which is matched by the fur trade.

That being said, no, there is certainly not sufficient moneys available to do an effective and protracted job at countering the propaganda put forth by animal rights groups, and I think it's an urgent requirement.

This is a personal opinion. I personally think Canada has done such an extremely good job in dealing with the fur issue, with results that are actually quite beyond our wildest dreams.

Just as an anecdote, a few weeks ago there was a meeting in Brussels where the representatives of the European states came together to talk about where they were with respect to their obligations on this international agreement. It was total chaos, because they don't have a clue over there about what kinds of animals they trap, how many, where, why, what they do with them. They have no idea. So they have a tremendous amount of work to do before they get to that, and they will be fully subsidized to meet their requirements.

But no, we don't want charitable status. We're a not-for-profit agency. But I believe with sufficient funding we could do a very serious job in bringing some balance into some very unbalanced emotional discussions on animal use in Canada. It is an ongoing issue. We saw it and lost with seals. We saw it and won with fur. But it's a very tenuous balance at the best of times. If we can't fund effective communications, we're not going to be able to keep the tide back, I don't believe.

Mr. Paul Steckle: How can we as government, given the fact that IFAW were doing a phone-in campaign about a year and a half ago, where they were phoning people at random and then deferring those calls to the member of Parliament...? We were receiving the phone calls; they were turned over to us. Those people, who had no knowledge of the sealing industry, were making comments about something they knew nothing about. They were using tactics that in my opinion were less than honest.

How can we take these people on? It's a communications issue. If the public understood the real issue of sustainability and the science that has gone into many of these programs.... I realize that maybe we don't have as clear a science on some of these other species as we would like to have, but we do have a species and we know that it remains there year after year, and that tells us something. Traditional knowledge tells us something.

I'm just wondering how we can counter those people. Can we charge them for not giving forthright and correct information, using old films, perhaps doctored, to make it appear as something it is not?

Ms. Alison Beal: Once again this will be a very personal opinion. I think there comes a time when, as people in the know, we have to do what's right and not do what appears to be expedient.

There's a perfect example of what you're referring to, Mr. Steckle, in Ontario today with the Harris government's decision to ban the spring bear hunt. The decision was made at the eleventh hour based on the distribution of 15,000 videos in the Niagara Peninsula area, a video that was not falsified but was in fact a sting operation that occurred in 1984 in West Virginia, where conservation officers knew there was a bear hunter there who was conducting his activities strictly contrary to all indication. Somebody got their hands on that video and it was distributed in southern Ontario as if that's what the spring bear hunt was all about.

• 1035

The Harris government was under extreme pressure. I don't know how many thousands of phone calls were logged per day. There were offers of money. It was just hideous what occurred. Unfortunately, the resource users did not get themselves organized appropriately. At the eleventh hour the government folded and said, okay, we've got all these people bugging us. There was also a threat, as I understand it, of elections coming up, and did Michael Harris really want to see a campaign about a baby bear killer kind of guy happening? So they folded. I'm not a politician. I don't understand why one would make a decision like that because somebody says I'm going to call you a bad guy.

I think maybe what's needed is a little more gumption and understanding that you have to do what's right and not what's expedient. In all of these cases, one of the things that we find very frustrating is that people who do know don't speak up. We have to speak up on these issues, every one of us.

The Chairman: Thanks, Paul. Anything further?

Mr. Paul Steckle: I think she said it all. We'll just take that advice.

The Chairman: We have a few others.

Claude.

[Translation]

Mr. Claude Drouin (Beauce, Lib.): You said you allocated a budget of $400,000 to research on trapping. At the beginning of his presentation, Mr. Roberts described some of the research that was undertaken. In order to promote trapping, it would be useful to demonstrate that important work has been done in this regard. I'd like you to explain a bit what has been done and to indicate where you are at in your research on trapping.

Ms. Alison Beal: At the very beginning, unfortunately, no directives and no standards had been set for our research program. In a way, you could say that what we were doing was pure research.

Once certain standards had been established, we had at last a tool to measure our progress. We looked at different traps, at their technical characteristics and at their catching capacity to demonstrate that we could catch or kill, whatever the case was, an animal without imposing undue suffering for a longer time than we thought acceptable.

Right now, we endorse the use of 10 traps to capture eight species, although in Canada, we trap 12 species of furbearing animals for commercial purposes. You can't say that there is a trap which is best suited to capture a particular animal; it would be like saying that when people want to go to a particular place, they all have to use the same car. In his work, a trapper uses several devices.

Right now, what we are trying to do is to assess all devices which are commonly used by trappers, and to determine whether they are up to the standards. As well, we examine the possibility of improving those devices. We are always looking for a way to make progress. We work in cooperation with a research team of the Alberta Research Council located in Vegreville, in Alberta, and we expect to spend some $950,00 this year to carry out our research program. Right now, our team has enough work to do.

We'd like to do more in this regard, but don't forget that the work we do here, in Canada, is unique, since nothing comparable is done anywhere else. Sweden has set up a very limited research program and in the States, some research is being done on spring traps which is another name for leg-hold traps.

• 1040

Mr. Claude Drouin: Thank you. Have you given any thought to making a video to describe your work?

Ms. Alison Beal: Yes.

Mr. Claude Drouin: You could show what was done before and what is done now, describe your research and underline the fact that, in this regard, you are pioneers. You could adopt the same approach that's used often in advertising by comparing the situation before and after. That way, you could prove that your association is serious and that trappers are definitely willing to ensure that animals suffer as little as possible. You would not necessarily have to spend a lot of money to give your association a good promotional tool.

Ms. Alison Beal: I would be very happy to send you a copy of this video this afternoon, since it already exists.

Mr. Claude Drouin: I would appreciate it very much.

Ms. Alison Beal: By the way, this video was part of the information kit we used when we argued our position in Europe. I should tell you that some progress has been made since that time. We can now show a computerized simulation of an animal's movements, as well as the interaction between the animal and the trap.

Mr. Claude Drouin: Fantastic. Congratulations. Thank you.

Ms. Alison Beal: Thank you

[English]

The Chairman: Thank you, Claude. Merci.

Wayne, you had another question.

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

You mentioned in your submission that the EU traps five times as many animals as Canada, yet we were attacked. We do know there are seal culls in other areas of the world, yet Canada is being attacked by the IFAW. What's the reason? Do you have any assumptions on why Canada is being targeted in terms of these issues versus others? Is it because we're such a dependent nation on trade? What is it?

I do have another question I want to ask, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Brian Roberts: I can take a stab at answering part of that. Canada does have a pretty nice image internationally, as a nice country, nice guys. It's much more marketable to hear about these very nice people doing all these horrific things. That's the first point.

Secondly, as a strategy, one of the things that a certain individual who is the head of a major organization that keeps being mentioned, but I won't mention it by name—I don't like giving them free publicity. When Fisheries first went over to Europe to discuss this proposed seals directive, they found that individual sitting on the right hand of the committee chairman as their seal expert. What he had discovered was that if you want to stop an activity, you don't go to the legislators of the country where it's occurring; you go to some other country. It's always easier to criticize somebody else's practices and put yourself on a certain moral high plain and criticize somebody else's activity and bring them up or drag them up to your level of enlightenment. It's much more difficult to do it domestically in Canada and criticize Canadians.

You find that it doesn't matter whether it's elephants or whales, or whatever the species; it is always being marketed to be saved somewhere else. That's just a marketing technique.

If I could add to that, in terms of truth in advertising, when I was at Fisheries in the early 1980s we kept hearing about seals being skinned alive, and that sounds pretty definitive. You would think you would know when something is alive or not. In fact, you don't. You cannot skin a seal alive, first of all. When I was dealing with the media, people would say, well, what do you mean there are different definitions of alive? I would say, well, suppose you're in desperate need of a heart transplant and an accident victim comes in from the highway. How dead would you like him to be before you transplant the heart? All the way dead or just brain dead? What will satisfy you?

So you get back to this truth in advertising. The seal, technically, using a hospital definition, would be brain dead, but is it physiologically dead, or is the heart still beating? So you have these degrees of what is death. If you're smart enough, and these groups—and again I won't mention their names—are extremely expert at this.... Marketing is their business. Communication is their card.

• 1045

At one point, I saw that organization's IRS statements, and they spent 77% of their revenues on raising money and 23% on administration. Do the math—100% essentially to raise money to keep on doing it. It was all deemed to be public education. Certainly they were educating the public, if the idea of transmitting your ideas and having somebody else pick them up is education. I don't like that type of education myself, but I certainly appreciate your frustration. Quite often you go through those infuriating lies and you cannot pin them down in the legal sense and say that is a lie. That's the problem.

Mr. Wayne Easter: Just a quick one. You raised three points at the end of your presentation, which I think were very valid. Is the species endangered? Is killing humane? The other one was related to basic utilization of the whole product and marketing.

One of our problems in terms of marketing is, as you know, the U.S. market and the Marine Mammal Protection Act. At the same time, I think you mentioned that they're having a sea lion cull and some other cull in the U.S.

Mr. Brian Roberts: It's proposed.

Mr. Wayne Easter: There are two points. One, in terms of the culls in the U.S., are they killing females? Is that how they control the herd? Two, how do we start to deal? Do you have any suggestions about how we deal with this marketing problem because of the Marine Mammal Protection Act in the U.S.?

Mr. Brian Roberts: I wondered if you'd get to the Marine Mammal Protection Act.

I'll give a sense of history here. The Marine Mammal Protection Act was passed in 1972.

I was trained as an historian; you'll have to forgive me.

It was passed in 1972, and the thinking in the late 1960s and early 1970s was if you want to stop a species under pressure—it's always going to be under pressure from trade, so if you wish to save a species to protect it, stop the trade and save the species. Easy equation.

The Americans were under some pressure from certain individuals and groups concerning a certain whitecoat harvest taking place in Canada—to pass a ban. That ban eventually came about in the form of the MMPA, the Marine Mammal Protection Act. The thinking was, why stop at just saving harp seals? Let's just save all marine mammals whether they need it or not—because if you stopped the trade, you automatically saved all the species.

That was 1972, and that was a nice kind of “we're over here and the environment is over there” type of thinking and the two shall never meet. Well, in 1973, something very interesting happened, something that that called for in the MMPA, which is an international accord or an international agreement on trade and endangered species, which became known as the Washington convention, or CITES in its short form—the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora. CITES inverted the pyramid. Where the MMPA and the thinking behind it is that all marine mammals, by definition, are endangered and all trade always endangers them, therefore stop the trade and save them, CITES said hang on a second; we will assume that all species are not endangered until proven otherwise, and if there is some indication that they're under threat or pressure from trade, we will set up stages to, first of all, monitor appendix three, restrict appendix two, or suspend appendix one.

About the same time, in 1975, the Americans signed on to the CITES convention. They've also passed the Endangered Species Act. One could argue that they have never gone back and harmonized or brought the MMPA up to date. You have this curious situation of the American government taking part in international fora, such as the Arctic Council and the International Union for the Conservation of Nature, and a multitude of other fora where they subscribe to sustainable use, biological resources, and so on. Yet they've never seen an inconsistency in policy in having the MMPA, because—and we're back to comments that have been made by others—marine mammals are something special. The MMPA in fact recognizes the importance and value of these resources, and they're so important and so valuable that they have to be protected. But no one has ever gone back—and probably for reasons of public perception, that marine mammals are something special and should not be harvested—and harmonized or brought up to date or strengthened, if you want to use that word, the MMPA to bring it into line with other American commitments. Whether that will happen in the near future...it's probably unlikely. I don't see any groundswell in the U.S. to change that act.

The Chairman: Mr. Roberts, in terms overall of the fur industry in Canada, and we talk about sealing as part of it, what's the value in the latest year's terms and the latest year you have statistics for? What's the value to the Canadian economy? Sealing, $25 million. Other furs...?

• 1050

Ms. Alison Beal: It depends on how you look at it, but we look at it in terms of GNP, so you're talking probably around—I believe the last figure I have is for 1997, and that was around $626 million to the economy.

The Chairman: How many million?

Ms. Alison Beal: It's $626 million.

The Chairman: With the hit you've had, we'll say since 1980 or 1981, what should it be if it had grown the way it was back in the early 1980s? What would it be worth today if it had grown like most other industries?

Ms. Alison Beal: Oh, boy, that's a toughie, because we've had this little thing called a recession that we've had to deal with, which has not been strictly fur related. But I can tell you that in 1987 we calculated approximately $1.1 billion, which was a peak year for the trade.

The Chairman: So 1987 was a peak year?

Ms. Alison Beal: That was a peak year for the trade. We work as a commodities market, essentially. Our raw fur pelts are sold at auction, so that causes serious fluctuations. If you'll recall, in the mid-eighties the Japanese became very bullish on world markets, and they entered into the fur trade with a lot of gusto, to the point where it was almost a comedy, because you could be in a fur auction room in 1986 and see people bidding literally against themselves and taking a mink pelt that normally would be worth $40 in a reasonable market and causing it to be worth $300. So that two-year period certainly made things very bizarre as far as our market was concerned.

I expect this year you'll see that fur results are not particularly good. This relates directly to the Russian market conditions, which completely collapsed. We export an awful lot of fur into Russia, which sounds a bit like coals to Newcastle, but I won't go into the whole dynamics of it. So you'll probably see that our fur prices suffered a little bit this year. I suspect probably within the next three years we'll see some good regrowth and we'll probably go up to $800 million or $900 million.

The Chairman: One other observation we did have here was that the health of the seal herd is in danger. In fact, we looked at the reproductive numbers that were quoted: a herd of say five million seals is producing about 600,000 or 700,000 offspring a year.

These fur auctions you speak of are all done in terms of quality. A good merchant can go and thumb through the fur and say it's worth so much money and so forth. Has there been any evidence, in terms of the seal skins you're selling or trying to merchandise, that there is a problem in terms of the health...because a healthy herd doesn't produce a good fur. Has that been a concern of later years?

Ms. Alison Beal: No.

The Chairman: The quality has continued to be good, is what I'm asking.

Ms. Alison Beal: As I understand it—and there are not a lot of seal pelts that go through the auction houses. In fact, the majority of the seals that do go through auction houses come from the northeastern arctic. But no, the quality of the pelt does not appear to be suffering thus far. There are other production problems that may cause the pelts to suffer in quality as they move to the auction house, but I am not aware—and I'm by no means an expert on that—that there are any health-related problems.

The Chairman: Just to sum up, then—Mr. Roberts, do you have a...?

Mr. Brian Roberts: I just wanted to add to that in terms of the international marketing. It's important to note that in the whole fur issue, the two species that Europe did not want to ban were fox and mink. I guess the largest concentration of fox and mink ranches in the world is in Europe, of course. Little Denmark produces ten times Canada's national production—just Denmark—in terms of fur. So it's a very international commodity. It moves around an awful lot. Even though there are wild species of fox and mink, they weren't going to touch that wild one in case there was confusion.

• 1055

The Chairman: We'd like to thank you for coming before our committee this morning. Certainly it was a very worthwhile presentation. As you can gather here, many people are sympathetic to your cause. By the same token, I don't want you to leave here feeling that all Canadians are behind your efforts.

I remember a little incident that happened in Vancouver with the recent hearings last fall, the difficulties they had there with the visit. One of the press people appeared at that wearing a fur. It was actually a mock fur, one of these substitutes they have, but she had a tremendous time with the crowd there, who didn't appreciate her appearing with a type of fur cape.

In any case, it is a big problem. It's one that is very important to rural Canada. It's a big part of the livelihood of people in our north and along our coasts. I think sometimes people in those areas are treated very unfairly by urban people who don't realize the importance of the industry or the very important part it is to the livelihood of these communities.

So thank you for coming. Keep up the good work, and hopefully you'll hear an answer from our committee on sealing quite soon.

With that, we'll adjourn the meeting until Thursday. At that time the minister will be here to look at estimates, John. It's basically an opposition morning, and all of you will be ready to question Mr. Anderson.

The meeting is adjourned.