Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Fisheries and Oceans
Issue 7 - Evidence - May 28, 2009
OTTAWA, Thursday, May 28, 2009
The Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans met this day at 10:33 a.m. to study on issues relating to the federal government's current and evolving policy framework for managing Canada's fisheries and oceans.
Senator Bill Rompkey (Chair) in the chair.
The Chair: Honourable senators, let me call the meeting to order. Before we begin the main part of our meeting, I would like to recognize Senator Cochrane, if she wishes to take the floor at this moment.
Senator Cochrane: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have a point of order.
At our last committee meeting, I wanted to get some information, so I asked for the blues only to find out that everything Senator Cook said at the meeting was in my name; it was recorded as Senator Cochrane.
Senator Cook: It is getting to be a habit.
Senator Cochrane: Someone must do something. It was a good thing that it was not a controversial statement. This has to stop.
Senator Cook: When we had the vote last week, I was called Senator Cochrane.
The Chair: We will have the clerk send a message to Hansard to correct the record, and ensure in the future that the record is kept accurately.
Senator Cook: Was it by accident that you picked it up?
Senator Cochrane: It is the first time I have ever done so for the Fisheries Committee.
The Chair: This is a serious issue and should not have happened. We will ensure that it is taken up with Hansard and, not only correct the record, but ensure that accurate notes are kept in the future.
Senator Cook: She should get an apology for our file.
The Chair: All right, we will ask for an apology.
Senator Cochrane: I think so. I am disturbed about it, to tell the truth. This particular meeting was okay, but that is not the point.
The Chair: It could have been a quite different situation. It is also a public document.
We have a guest this morning and I would like to get on to the introduction.
I would like to particularly welcome Ambassador Sullivan, who is a fellow countryman, although we come from two different bays. He has had a distinguished career in the provincial legislature of Newfoundland and Labrador, most recently as Finance Minister. If you are Finance Minister in Newfoundland, you run the gauntlet and you come out with some scars but with some character building, as well.
He has been in his position now as ambassador for some years and we thought it was worthwhile for us to have a chat with him. We welcome you ambassador. We would like to hear from you and then we will have some questions.
Loyola Sullivan, Ambassador for Fisheries Conservation, Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I will give a brief overview and then, any questions then that you may wish to ask, I will try to answer.
Of particular interest is the seal file and I will refer generally on my mandate and some of the things I have done that may arouse some interest. There may be questions on that file.
I want to thank you for inviting me here today to outline some aspects of my mandate since my appointment on January 25, 2007. As Ambassador for Fisheries Conservation, I represent the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans on international fisheries matters.
Building strong partnerships worldwide with governments, international and non-governmental organizations and stakeholders on fisheries and oceans enables Canada to work with like-minded countries and organizations to combat overfishing and to improve the global management of fish stocks and ocean ecosystems. My role is to provide high- level support to help advance Canada's international fisheries governance strategy, and position Canada as an influential global leader in high-seas fisheries issues.
Over the last two years, I have undertaken a proactive and strategic agenda to strengthen Canada's bilateral fisheries relationships; to build commonality of views; to generate awareness of issues, and political will for action to solve specific problems, such as the issues surrounding Canada's seal hunt and the Canada-U.S. Pacific Albacore Tuna Treaty.
Canada is moving forward with a broader and more integrated approach to fisheries management and is continuing to respond to pressures for further action regarding the North Atlantic fisheries; the seal hunt; illegal unreported and unregulated fisheries, or IUU fisheries as they are called; and also on bilateral fisheries issues.
My office provided high-level and dedicated support for many of these initiatives. In that regard, I undertook numerous meetings with foreign fisheries ministers and industry representatives as well as with domestic stakeholders, including industry and the provinces and territories, in order to advance Canada's international fisheries agenda.
The following are some examples of the types of activities that I have undertaken to bring high-level or political visibility, attention and pressure to issues of priority to Canada, including the seal issue. I have worked to establish and maintain high-level political links and relationships to complement existing bureaucratic relationships to show Canada's commitment to the reform of regional fishery management organizations and to promote sustainability and humaneness of the seal hunt. For example, I met with officials and politicians from Japan, Korea, China, Australia, New Zealand, Vanuatu, South Africa, the United States and Mexico to promote Canada's plan of action for improving tuna regional fishery management organizations. These meetings led to increased collaboration with Canada and continued support for Canadian objectives in such global forums as the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission.
To advance Canada's interest regarding the Canada-U.S-Pacific Albacore Tuna Treaty, I undertook advocacy on Capitol Hill in Washington as well as in Washington State and Oregon to ensure that the key stakeholders were informed of the mutual benefits of the treaty to Canada and the United States and to dispel myths that U.S. proponents to terminate the treaty were putting forward. These activities led to a three-year renewal of the treaty which allows for reciprocal fishing for albacore tuna in both Canadian and U.S. exclusive economic zones.
On the seal hunt, during 2008-2009 I continued the advocacy campaign at high-level meetings with all 27 EU member states. I met with over 46 European parliamentarians as well as the European Commission to ensure that Canada's position was advanced and that the important messages regarding the effects of the Canadian seal hunt were provided to key interlocutors. It is surprising to see the lack of information and knowledge that I encountered among European parliamentarians generally and among many of the EU member states regarding the seal hunt. In total, I had over 350 meetings with Europeans on this issue. I also continued to meet domestically with sealers and the industry to ensure that they understood the message and the images provided to the international community and to stress the need for them to adhere to Canadian regulations both in last year's and this year's seal hunt.
The decision by the European Parliament on May 5 was disappointing but not unexpected. The European Parliament, in a written declaration on September 26, 2006, signed by 425 members, asked the European Commission to draft legislation to ban seal products into Europe. The EC responded with their proposal almost two years later on July 23, 2008. Of course, Parliament voted on that proposal with several amendments that they made to it on May 5 of this year. However, fish regulation cannot become law until the council — the representatives of the 27 members of the European Union — approve the regulation. This decision is expected by June but very likely will not happen until later this fall.
Over the coming months, I will continue to pursue an agenda that promotes our overall strategy to strengthen international fisheries and oceans governance. In doing so, I will also try to secure commitments from other countries and adopt internationally agreed measures to eliminate illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing and to ratify and implement the United Nations Fish Stocks Agreement and to implement other internationally agreed upon instruments and particular measures for flag, port and market states.
I thank you for the opportunity to make opening comments. I am open for any questions you may wish to ask.
Senator MacDonald: Mr. Sullivan, my first question is about the 27 member states of the council. The European Union has voted on this issue. What is your intelligence on the 27 member states of the council and how will they vote?
Mr. Sullivan: Under the European system, it is a co-decision process, which means that Parliament and the council must agree on the exact wording of any proposal. The European Commission rolled out a proposal on July 23, 2008, that allowed for derogation for humanely harvested seals and gave Inuit exemptions such that they did not have to qualify on any standards. Parliament altered that proposal significantly, which would have been a reasonable proposal to Canada, depending on the criteria for humane killing. The council and Parliament were meeting parallel to it. The council is represented by the 27 countries by their permanent offices or are led by an ambassador in Brussels. Each was aware of what the other was doing, but there are two separate independent streams.
The outcome is more certain because, leading up to the May 5 vote in Parliament, there were attempts by council, the commission and Parliament to come together in trialogue to reach agreement on the wording of the amendments. Up to about one month before they voted, Parliament made amendments, deleted derogations and met at a very limited Inuit hunt with only certain conditions at the time. Council did not agree. They made us a working group for a number of weeks but the working parties of council could not agree. They passed it up the line to the next highest level beneath ministers representing the 27 countries called the Coreper. They met and did not agree and the EC did not agree with the wording as amended by Parliament. They sat down to trialogue discussion in April and came to an agreement on the wording that would go to Parliament. Technically, they have agreed on the wording. The council needs to 255 votes out of 345 to carry. Germany, France and Italy have 29 votes each and Malta has only 3 votes. They need 14 out of 27 countries to support it, which they fairly well had initially, but they also needed 255 of 345 votes, which is over 70 per cent. As well, the supporting country must represent 62 per cent of the population of the European Union. That is called a ``qualified majority.'' They did not have that back in February or March. When they kicked it up to the highest level of ministers, there were still differences at the table. At one point, there were 10 to 12 countries holding out and did not give then a qualified majority.
These meetings are closed the same as cabinet meetings are closed. We pick up information from general sources, perhaps people who are fairly connected. We were led to believe that 128 votes did not support it, where they could afford to lose only 90 votes. They had a blocking minority. The working party could not reach a decision and went to the Coreper. It took them some time in these meetings of Parliament and the EC that drafted it to try to agree on the wording. They finally agreed on the wording prior to May 5, and that wording went to the vote in Parliament. The wording had the general agreement of the council, but it is never official until the council votes.
The council is represented on the issue by the environment ministers. The council could be comprised of the 27 prime ministers or presidents of the countries or the 27 finance ministers, depending on the issue at hand. They meet next on June 25. It is highly likely they will approve it because they have already agreed with the wording to go to Parliament, unless they change their minds, which would be unlikely. They may not vote on this until the fall, which is quite possible because they may not have the necessary work done over the next while. If you are a betting person, based on the agreement in trialogue, it is likely to pass. However, it would be the same as if the Senate and the House of Commons had agreed on a matter that came into the Senate and was going into the house, which it can on certain bills, and after it goes there, they say, no, we are not going to agree on it now, we are going to change our minds on this issue; it would be similar to that situation. It is unlikely but possible. That is the nature of the European Union, to give you some understanding of how it works.
One other point is that the European Commission, together with the parliament and the council, must all agree. The commission that drafted it; in other words, the bureaucracy that runs the European Union Commission under President Barroso has the ability to pull it back off the table and kill it. Their proposal that was put forward on July 23 was fundamentally altered. There is no derogation for humane killing; it is limited on the Inuit parts, which contributes to their subsistence. There are changes in numerous wordings. They have the authority to pull it back, but they are unlikely to do so.
There are 27 commissioners, which includes the president, 5 vice-presidents and 21 commissioners. They had to be ratified by parliament after going through agreement on the wording. Then you pull it back at the last minute and you come before the same parliament to ratify these commissioners in the new term. There are elections coming in early June and a whole new mandate once the commissioners' five-year terms are up. What is the chance of that happening? I would say not an impossibility, but highly unlikely.
Senator Robichaud: Who are the principal proponents of this action against our way of harvesting our seals? There must be one, two or three countries that are the movers.
Mr. Sullivan: The European action is basically action initiated in the European Union. There are 785 parliamentarians elected from all these countries, maybe with a different political stripe than the country they represent because they are elected at large. There are usually lower voter turnouts and they are not necessarily representative of the country.
Within the Parliament, it is driven by certain members that are driven by animal rights groups. However, there has been a movement over the past 30 years entrenching public opinion in Europe on this issue. One of the countries that have proceeded drafted legislation on this issue was Germany, for example.
I visited there; they held back on the legislation. I could go into the details around some of these after, if you desire. I mentioned Germany initiated legislation; Austria had looked at bringing in legislation. We were successful in getting them to put it on hold; because the European Union was dealing with it, they put it on hold. Italy had one before the Italian senate. It was moving a bill forward; they can move the bills through their senate or in their lower house.
The U.K. has been strong on this issue. I know there are pressures in France, but France has never moved on legislation. The Bridget Bardot Foundation had some influence, and there are influences in the general public. These were some of the countries that were initiating action.
It came up in the U.K., and the U.K. said it is a matter for the European Union to deal with, not for the House of Commons to deal with in the U.K. They had a resolution of the house and that went to the European Union. They were strong pushers of this within the European Union.
Other countries are experiencing pressure from local politicians and people to bring in legislation to ban this hunt. The push is coming from some key countries on this particular issue.
Senator Robichaud: There must have been some opposition. Can you name those countries that opposed the ban?
Mr. Sullivan: There was significant opposition by countries on this issue. We are not inside the room when the council meets; that is closed. However, I know from sources and from speaking with numerous individuals, having spent a lot of time on this file, there were numerous countries that did not think there should be a ban or derogations. Finland, Denmark, Sweden, Lithuania, Estonia, Latvia, Bulgaria and Romania seemed to want to have an avenue open for derogation. Some of these in council were blocking it, but under pressure to get this issue dealt with before parliamentary elections and before a new session. As the time approached, they gradually fell off the fence on this issue. It did not mean anything to many of these countries and there were tremendous pressures from some of their allies within the European Union, which pushed it over the limit.
That is why I saw clearly that parliamentarians in Europe would not save this issue. I think we were reasonably successful in getting some changes; the transshipment thing is now off the table and you can now transship. Overall, there was a will by many, but most of the countries in Europe do not hunt seals. Denmark, and in particular Greenland, can still have access to market their product if it contributes to their subsistence. It would be difficult to prove otherwise, because I think anything to do with it contributes to their subsistence in areas where opportunities are not great for employment.
That is basically what happened. They pushed it as long as they could and eventually they caved in at the 11th hour, just a couple of short weeks before that parliamentary vote.
Senator Robichaud: Are there any countries in Europe that would have problems with seals? There are seals over there, I am sure. Did they get rid of their stocks and now they no longer have problems with them?
Mr. Sullivan: There are countries in the European Union that have problems. Within the U.K, in Scotland, there are reports on the damage of the fishing gear. They think it is a major problem and they do kill seals.
There are some seals killed in Sweden and Finland also. They have very small numbers killed compared to most of the major hunts in the world. There are some problems in the Baltic region, with an increase in the number of grey seals in those areas. It is becoming a problem and numbers are increasing; but at this point, they have not gone into a particular harvest or hunt in many of these countries. They used to hunt seals in Estonia, too, but they are not at the moment. There are reports that the seals are gradually increasing and getting more abundant.
Norway, which is outside the EU but is a member of the European economic area, does carry on a commercial seal hunt and has done so in the past. We have worked closely with many of these countries over the past two years on these issues.
Senator Cochrane: Mr. Ambassador, what can Canada do now? What about these other countries that have a seal hunt and that are supporting us in a way? Can we get some sort of organization together to talk to these people and convince them to show the films on the seals and what it is doing to us?
We had a fishermen's union here on Tuesday and they talked about the devastation that the seals are doing to the fishery. It is not just now; it has been happening all over and as a result, a lot of our stocks have been depleted. You know about the cod, but a lot of other stocks are being depleted as well. They are worried that is the reason we are not getting our catch in lobsters — because of the seals. What can we do?
Mr. Sullivan: There was a study done, which is due to be released soon, on the impact of seals on the recovery of northern cod. That will give some scientific insight into the impact.
I hear they are shooting them in Scotland. It is very uncontrolled. They do not have the level of management and control. In Finland and Sweden, they hunt up to 700 seals. In Finland, there are about 1,100 licences, but they have generally been catching only a fraction of that number. In Sweden, they kill in the range of 100 seals.
We do not know the exact numbers in Scotland, but we do know that they are shipped to Italy where the fur is utilized. I saw some of the statistics on that issue.
If you look at seal hunting in the world, Canada would have the largest commercial hunt. This year, between 60,000 and 70,000 seals were taken, which is a bit of an anomaly. Last year, 216,000 were taken, and the year before, 226,000 were taken. Greenland can take between 100,000 and 170,000. We have traditionally taken in the high 200,000s. Namibia takes 60,000 to 70,000. These other countries are very small. Their economy does not depend on seals, but controlling the population is important to allow their fishermen to hold on to the livelihood they have had for years. That is impacting various areas.
If you can use them for ecological purposes, there could be justification, but not to market them. For us, the seal hunt is an occupation and a livelihood. It is an important part of the income of the hunters. It is different in the European countries where they harvest minimal numbers. The economic impact of 150 to 1,000 seals cannot be as great as that of 300,000 seals. Although it is not a significant industry, it has an impact on other industries.
Maintaining control of the ecosystem could be justification for killing seals, but there is no justification for a commercial seal hunt.
Senator Cochrane: Are the countries you mentioned shooting seals?
Mr. Sullivan: Generally speaking, yes. The hakapik, a Norwegian-designed instrument was used in Norway. A rifle is generally used, as in Canada. If the ice is strong in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, where about 30 per cent of the seals pup, up to 10 per cent might be killed by hakapik. If the ice is poor in the gulf, as it was three years ago, less than 5 per cent of the hunters would use the hakapik. Over 90 per cent of the hunters use guns in Canada, which is not significantly different from anywhere else. However, that is not the image that is being portrayed. The only image I have seen in Europe is seals being killed with hakapiks.
Until the past year, the only image I ever saw was of whitecoats being killed. At a news conference we had in Vienna I asked why we see images of whitecoats being killed when that has been illegal since 1987. That is manipulating public opinion.
The next day in the newspaper there was a picture of me and the scientist who was with me. I asked him how old the seal in picture was. He estimated it was about five years old. It resonates when you put them to the test, but there are 23 languages in 27 states in the European Union. How do you change the perception in a short period of time when they have been entrenched on this issue for 30 years? It is tough.
Senator Cochrane: Of the 27 European Union member states, which country is the largest importer of raw fur seal skins for processing?
Mr. Sullivan: Furs are in some countries temporarily and are transshipped. Three years ago, 19 per cent of the furs went to Finland. A smaller percentage goes to Germany. Norway was the biggest importer last year. They took over 50 per cent of the furs from Canada. They are generally going to Norway and could move into Russia. About 90 per cent of the furs end up in the Russian Federation.
It is not only the fur that is used. People perpetuate the myth that we kill seals for fashion. The dynamic is changing around the world. The year before last, 2 million omega-3 seal oil capsules went to China. It is estimated that in the next five years the value of omega-3 oil will surpass the value of fur.
Ten years of research by Dr. Agathos, a director of cardiac surgery in Greece, with whom I have met, and who has been in Canada on at least two occasions, has found that seal heart valves are better than those of cows and pigs for use in human heart transplants.
There are other significant human health benefits from seals. It is evolving, as history does. Furs are becoming less important. It will still be an important commodity, but I foresee other markets developing in the future.
Germany does transshipment. The product is shipped through 12 or 14 ports, but just under one third have traditionally gone into European member countries, with two thirds going elsewhere. Norway took over 60 per cent last year, but they have been as low as 30 per cent directly. The EU is primarily an access for transshipment. Fortunately, their Parliament had to relent on that issue, because it would be a blatant contravention of their agreements under the WTO through numerous technical barriers to trade and the GAAT provisions. It would be very unfriendly not to allow our product to move through their territory. Under free trade agreements and the WTO you can move products through waters a given distance from shore.
It is not only the value of what goes through the EU that is important. The fashion centres of the world that showcase fur products, be they mink or seal — and Paris and Milan are two important ones — influence people as to what they want to buy based on the fashion of the year. Losing access to those types of things will also have a detrimental effect.
The Chair: Senator Robichaud asked who the friends are and who are the enemies and you answered that question. You mentioned a moment ago the difficulty of overcoming 30 years of bombardment of negative publicity on this issue. In addition to identifying friends and enemies, can you identify who is paying for the advertising?
I assume from what you have said that the Government of Canada has used diplomatic channels and face-to-face conversations rather than engaging in a war on the airwaves.
I suspect your answer will be that it would be very expensive and very difficult to overcome 30 years. Who is paying for the airwaves war in Europe?
We are facing public pressure that is being fuelled. Who is fuelling the public thinking on this subject? We have heard of the International Fund for Animal Welfare, and we know of other groups that have been raising money.
Mr. Sullivan: The two main groups are the Humane Society of the United States and the International Fund for Animal Welfare. They have been running campaigns in Europe and this is large part of their fundraising efforts.
Some of you may remember when, over 30 years ago, a prominent broadcaster, the late Barbara Frum, interviewed Paul Watson before he formed Greenpeace.
In an interview, which was carried just a few months ago and for which the transcripts are available, Barbara Frum asked him why the animal rights groups target seals. His response was very frank. He said that they target seals because they are so cute and cuddly. He said that they look like they are crying all of time. He told Barbara Frum that they could raise money on seals. He said that people come from California, from advantaged surroundings to a place that is economically disadvantaged, to tell those people not to kill the seals. These people know that the seals are not on the endangered list, but realize that they cannot make money on the sea turtle, which is on the endangered list. The seals have a strong image in that they are beautiful.
That probably significantly drives the coffers of those organizations and they have significant campaigns. Many members of the European Parliament are members of animal rights groups. I went to a meeting with a key person with the PSE — which is the socialist party in the legislature — one of the prominent individuals went in their grouping. There are 215 in that grouping the European Parliament. Sitting next to him was a representative from the animal rights groups. That gives you an example. They are driving this issue.
There are thousands of emails to members of Parliament in Europe; they will watch and help get them defeated next election if they do not support it. They went to the Internal Markets Committee, for example, and put stickers on the doors of committee members before they voted. There is significant pressure.
Even one member, who had a different view on things, relented on voting day because of the tremendous pressures on that individual. We hear of this. I think a small minority has driven it, but they shape the general minds of the public to a degree with significant advertising.
There are active and reputable groups within those countries. Perhaps they are not so reputable that they have representation in North America, but they have significant credibility in some of their areas.
Under the parliamentary system in Europe, unlike in Canada, where we can have a majority or a minority government — but it is still generally one party that forms a cabinet and governs — they have so many parties. They form coalitions and you could get as high as seven or eight parties. However, generally, it is four or five, sometimes less.
Many of the green party members want to get the environment portfolio, for example. They do trade-offs on what portfolios will be given in those groups. I know several countries have green members — ministers of environment — and this grants them significant influence in those countries and is difficult to change. While other parties in that coalition have a different view — the departments of justice and economy, for instance — the one that drives it sometimes — the lead spokesperson — is that particular person or group.
Unlike in coalitions, where you carve out your portfolios to carry, the system is more fragmented in terms of not being central leadership driven. Some European parliamentary systems and governments run that way. However, generally speaking, there are coalition governments each with certain powers. More autonomy probably went into the departments as opposed to a central government. That has also caused some support among countries on this particular issue.
Senator Manning: Welcome to Ottawa, ambassador. I know of your intense personal effort on this file, and I know the Canadian government's support of that file. In my three years in Ottawa, I have also witnessed unanimous support across all party lines for the efforts of the seal industry.
A lot of time and effort has gone into getting our message across and trying to convince our counterparts across the ocean how important this industry is to Canada as a whole and, certainly, to the coastal communities that depend on the industry.
The vote on May 5 certainly set us back. It drew a line in the sand for some people. It certainly raised some concern for others. Regarding the proposed vote in June — or the fall — I guess for those who will be watching and certainly listening to your comments this morning, I have a feeling we may know the results of that vote before it takes place.
I am wondering what you suggest, or on what could you enlighten us? What could we be doing as Canadians, as a government, as members of Senate and House of Commons, between now and June or the fall, to put in another effort — that one final push to the finish line — to see what we could do?
Mr. Sullivan: I want to preface that. Any council could deal with the vote passing on June 25; it could be environment or finance. Whichever one is meeting could deal with it because they are representing one country. There is technically one council but it is represented in different forms. There was trialogue between the commission, the Parliament and the council — which is the 27 member states. Before agreement on this issue goes to Parliament, it generally moves up the line for approval as a non-discussion item or an Item A under agenda, which normally does not get to be under discussion — it probably gets rubber-stamped.
That is why I said it is highly unlikely it will change. It could; it is a possibility. However, they have already agreed on the wording by their country' representatives. It is unlikely that will change.
Whether it does or not, things could still be done. There could be a continuation, for instance, of some of the efforts that have already taken place. For example, letters have gone out from Minister Shea to counterparts. Letters have gone from Minister Day and Minister Cannon have contacted counterparts. I had written to all ambassadors back in January. That was to 27 countries. Other ministers have written to their counterparts. It can go to WTO. Minister Day indicated that strongly in a letter to Baroness Ashton, who is Trade Commissioner for the European Union.
We can keep push these buttons again and hopefully someone will relent. However, they have already basically agreed, in principle, though they have not in actuality.
Where there is a vote, as such, they may go around the table and see there is a consensus. If they do decide to bring it back for discussion, it is not like everyone would necessarily register their vote. If you go around the table, you fairly well know you have a qualified majority and, therefore, you will not have an official vote, as such. By ``voting'' I mean they give their final stamp to it.
Other than some of the repetitive things we have done, I am not sure what new things could be done when it goes down to the decision stage. It is almost like a bill has gone through the house, gone through the first and second reading and committee stage, and now it is ready for third reading to be stamped, which is barely addressed. In many cases, it is even more advanced than giving reading to it because they have already dealt with the substance.
However, there have been interventions. In 2007, the Prime Minister spoke with Prime Minister Balkenende from the Netherlands. He followed up with French President Sarkozy before he took office and he met with Chancellor Merkel of Germany and raised this issue very strongly. He has raised it with the president of the Czech Presidency. It has been raised with President Barroso of the European Commission. There was a speech in the Council on Foreign Relations in New York. The Prime Minister said we will not be bullied by animal rights groups that are spreading false information. They have an obligation and responsibility to Canadians.
This is being pushed heavily in Europe. One thing they do have a discomfort with is that, I believe, approving this violates their WTO responsibilities. Doing that does not sit well with some countries and some ministries within countries. Some had a lot of difficulty advancing this within their own countries because of those things.
There is an opportunity there. I believe that Fisheries and Oceans are looking at some steps and so on. They are outlining things to be done. I cannot speak to that. I am not the policy-maker. My role is to carry out the Government of Canada's policy on international matters. I am not a creator of that policy. I guess that is dealt with by the political levels and departmental ministers. I would not be able to go into detail. Some of the things that I see are a repetition of many things we have done, and stepping it up for some of the key countries that could tip the balance. It went through in the trialogue discussions before Parliament voted. It is difficult and highly unlikely, although you never say never until something is done. It is important to be realistic and to try not to give someone the impression that it is a done deal, but be prepared, because in all probability, it will be a done deal.
Senator Manning: The government has begun negotiations with the EU on developing a free trade agreement. Certainly, there is a lot of anticipation in the country in that respect. I believe that about $12 billion to $15 billion is at stake.
We have heard some call for the cancellation or postponement of these talks until we settle the seal issue. I would like to have your comments, given that you were immersed in the seal discussions. I am sure you have quite an amount of knowledge of what such a free trade agreement would do for this country. Could you give us your views?
Mr. Sullivan: That area is not within my mandate, so I would not want to comment on that aspect. However, I can comment on one related thing that I was asked by media yesterday when I spoke to the Rotary Club of St. John's on this issue. They asked me why I would not send a strong message by pulling back all the ambassadors out of Europe over this issue. My response was that we have been working hard on other issues, such as the ATRQ shrimp that went from 3,000 tonnes at 6 per cent to 7,000 tonnes and now to 20,000 tonnes to get that 6 per cent instead of 20 per cent. Fishers in Canada are benefiting. We have people in the trail offices throughout Europe who have been indispensable to the industry. They have been so helpful out of Brussels on the trade issues and other things that pulling back all these people would sacrifice our canned salmon into the U.K. or elsewhere, for example. We export $675 million of seafood products into the European Union. Less than $3 million went in on seals.
Do you sacrifice the livelihood of people because they voted on an issue? We could not control the vote, although we did everything in our power. I can speak for the two years that I was there on this issue since March 2007.
I do not know what else could have been done but inflicting further hardship on fishers trying to earn a living would not serve us well. In fact, it would damage us far more than the issue itself. We have to keep fighting the issue.
I will not comment on the free trade negotiation, although I am fairly familiar with it. It is not appropriate for me to speak to that area because it is outside my mandate.
Senator Manning: I appreciate that. You touched on what I wanted you to touch on.
Another controversial topic has arisen over the last 72 to 96 hours, which is the Governor General and her support of Inuit culture and way of life. Certainly, we have had some great news coverage from it over the past couple of days and many people have expressed their opinions on it. As the Ambassador for Fisheries Conservation, how do you feel about it?
Mr. Sullivan: I said to the media yesterday that it is important for prominent Canadians and all Canadians to stand up in support of the people who are trying to earn a livelihood. I said that our indigenous people have occupied this land for thousands of years. Our very own European settlers, the very people who put a ban on the seal hunt, have been harvesting seals for 300 years. People on the Îles de la Madeleine, off the coast of Newfoundland and Labrador, which is the main area, and off Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island have been harvesting for centuries. I believe there is one licensed sealer in New Brunswick. These people have earned a living doing this and it is an essential part of their income. We need more people to stand up and be counted on this issue. That has been my response.
I had an opportunity the day before yesterday to make comments on a live call-in show hosted by CityTV in Toronto. I am very supportive of anyone standing up on the side of truth and fairness, and this piece of legislation coming from the EU is grossly unfair and will come back to haunt them in the form of the killing of other wild animals, given that their basis for establishing this falls under the WTO. It takes away the basic principle by which any industry operates.
Senator Manning: I listened to you earlier when you talked about the number of seals that have been harvested this year versus last year and the year prior to that. Another question on this comes to many people's minds, in particular those who are dependent on sealing for a part of their income. In your discussions I am sure you have thought about this. You mentioned 66,000 pelts earlier showing that the numbers are down, but we are experiencing a global economic recession. What do you envision for the seal industry over the next couple of years?
Mr. Sullivan: We have to take it back a couple of years to a time when seal pelts averaged about $100 apiece. The price dropped to about $60, then to about $30 and then to $14.50 this year. We have seen it peak and then it priced itself out of business. The price must find comfortable level and like any commodity in the market, there are highs and lows.
The economy has had a significant impact on the industry this year. As well, there is a significant inventory from last year's hunt of about $20 million in seal pelts held by the Canadian processing companies. When the price was high, everyone made sure that the quota was filled. Last year, the quota was reached but the demand and the price were down.
The year before last the quota was 275,000 and they cut back to 216,000. With between 60,000 and 70,000 left on the market, it allowed a little catch-up on inventories, which have been close to half over last year. There are probably $10 million to $14 million in inventory, not counting this year. That is a guess off the top of my head. They have a filter into the market and the economy. Buying fur in depressed economic times is a luxury. People make choices based on their abilities. It has hit hard in Europe too.
Over the long term, the transshipment through Europe allows that to occur. It is definitely a disadvantage to not have European access. However, companies have told me that it is not over and that they will continue. I spoke with one company a couple of weeks ago that was in the process of shipping. They wanted to know what the transshipment said but nothing has changed until it goes through a process. They are still eager to move products, but there will be a little catching up to do. This will allow a reduction in inventories that could lead to an upswing in prices.
I have been told by processors that they will take whatever oil they can get. They said that it might be worthwhile to kill the animal just for its blubber because there is such a demand for the oil. That will probably increase in the future too. Dr. Agathos' work with seal hearts might change the industry as well. He is a cardiac surgeon in Athens, Greece. I have met with him on a couple of occasions. He believes that the heart valve of the seal is far superior to those of pigs and cows, which are currently used for human transplants. There are about 300,000 of these transplants done annually around the world. While this is at early stages, I have heard that it costs almost $5,000 for each of these valves and multiplying that by 300,000, you come to $1.5 billion. That is the long-term potential. Dr. Agathos has successfully transplanted tracheas from seals into pigs. There is the potential for human health benefits associated with this file.
This issue is far from dead. If the companies can access the markets, we are prepared to do what we can. I chair a committee of people from industry, the Fur Institute of Canada, all the provinces involved with sealing and Nunavut. We will do anything that we can in China or elsewhere to facilitate things. I have worked on advancing the marketing of meat in China. There is potential for meat, oil and valves in addition to fur. I do not know what barriers other countries may put up in the future, but it is far from a shut door on this issue. The industry sees the potential to proceeding too.
Senator Adams: Thank you for coming. Congratulations on your petition. I hope that you will come to Nunavut more often in the future. I recognize that your background in Newfoundland is similar to ours in Nunavut.
You said that a bill is being passed to stop the export of seal pelts. It is not law yet, but is expected to be sometime in the fall. If it is passed, what will happen to the seal hunt next year?
Mr. Sullivan: From the time it is approved, it will take nine months and 20 days to become law. If it is approved in June, it will be business as usual until February. If it is not approved until October, it will be business as usual until next July.
Under the wording of the bill, the Inuit — and the Inuit from Nunavut are specifically referenced — can continue to market products that contribute to their subsistence and I believe that everything they sell from seals contributes to their subsistence. There are not huge economic opportunities in remote parts of Atlantic Canada, Quebec and the North, so it will contribute to their subsistence. I cannot foresee a time in the near future when it will not contribute to their subsistence, so that avenue is open.
Many of the furs from Nunavut go to auctions. Approximately 10,000 pelts are sold per year, because they use the majority themselves. Shipments of furs from other parts of Canada are sold through a different process.
Someone more connected to the market may be able to say whether limiting the hunt for others will give the Inuit an added opportunity to move their product into Europe. Keep in mind that Greenland had 140,000 furs in storage that were purchased by the government from Greenland sealers, and they had significant inventory problems. It is not realistic to think that every fur from Nunavut will find its way into Europe because the market is not sufficient.
There are two things that affect this now. One is the difficulties is with the current economy, and the other is how nervous people will be about buying products with certain limitations. Talk about a ban will dampen the market.
I still see open doors. Your question can be better answered by industry than by me, because I am not in the marketing side of it. I do learn things from talking with experts in the industry.
Senator Adams: Does the European government recognize that Inuit of Greenland just as they do the Inuit of Canada, or is there a different agreement for hunting and exporting seals?
Mr. Sullivan: The bill before the European Parliament waiting to be ratified by council recognizes the Inuit of Canada, the Inuit of Greenland and the indigenous Inuit of Russia. I think it is inclusive of all Inuit in that regard.
If council accepts this, it has to go through a commitology process. In commitology the commission has to lead. Just as when we pass a bill and develop regulations and other things from it, they will have to work on how the wording is couched. We need to follow that to ensure that ``transshipment'' is clear and that that the wording is not more restrictive than broader terms that have been agreed to. There are some areas that can be worked on.
Senator Adams: I will go from seals to turbot. I believe you are familiar with the fishery of 0A and 0B. Although Nunavut owns nearly 100 percent of 0A, the community dos not get much benefit from it. We have 26 communities, and it is mostly communities of hunters and trappers from Baffin who have the quotas.
Some foreigners have joined the Qikiqtaaluk Corporation in Nunavut. Almost 100 per cent of the landings in Canada go to Europe, and that is under NAFO regulations. With your petition, we hope that some day NAFO will ensure that goes to the people of Nunavut.
The quota for 0B is around 2,500 tonnes. That is worth a lot. Some in Greenland have partnered with Nunavik Tunngavik. I would like to have more competition for fishermen who want to get into fishing. Grise Fiord, Resolute, Arctic Bay and Broughton Island have joined the Baffin Fishery Coalition. In the future, the Nunavut Alliance Association will get more quotas. I hope the minister will recognize that more in the future.
Mr. Sullivan: Mr. Chair, on that issue, I just want to preface this by saying it is an issue, and allocations within Canada's jurisdiction falls outside my mandate. I deal with international issues, and in my role we push for Canada's status and to maintain and increase — if there are avenues there — our share of the pie in adjacent jurisdictions.
However, I know it is an internal domestic matter in Canada and I understand where you are coming from when I speak to your sealers. At the sealing conference last year, I met with the industry. I wanted to get a feel for it and I met with numerous governmental people on this particular issue. When I hear things I pass on those comments, because it is not an area for me to weigh in on, and it is certainly outside my mandate, but I understand the point you make.
Senator Adams: I understand the Governor General will go out on the sea ice today to try to get a seal, and I hope they are able to shoot one out on the sea. It was on the news last night that there will be a seal hunt today with a gun in order to catch a seal. I wanted to put that on the record.
Senator Downe: Mr. Sullivan, you have a very important position for rural Canada, and according to your statement you are extremely busy. I am curious about your budget. Since your appointment in 2007, has it increased or stayed the same?
Mr. Sullivan: Initially in 2007 it was funded 50 per cent between DFAIT and DFO. I guess the budget that was brought down in 2008 had a separate allocation within Foreign Affairs and International Trade specifically to deal with my office. I have a senior adviser and an executive assistant. I have two other people who work directly with me in my office.
My overall working budget, apart from the salaries and office, is roughly $300,000. I am able to operate my office on that, including all my travel.
Senator Downe: I am sorry, I did not hear, what was the figure?
Mr. Sullivan: There is an overall amount. It certainly gets allocated, and when you take the salary allocation out, there is a budget of over $300,000. I have been able to rent my office in St. John's, Newfoundland, and also fund any travel for my senior adviser and myself, plus the main office costs that should run an office from all other aspects. I have been able to do it on that, and I came under budget last year. Being a former Minister of Finance, I always will come in under budget.
I am not inhibited by doing the things I need to do because of any budget. I have been able to do it, and I plan ahead. I am probably gone 180 days out of a year, and there is only so much you can humanly and physically do. Those are the days I am away from home. For one-half of the year I am either on a plane or in meetings.
Senator Downe: It sounds like a bargain for the Government of Canada if you are doing all that — meetings and travel to Europe — as part of your job for that budget. I wanted to ensure you have the resources to do the important work you do. You have assured the committee that you do have a sufficient budget.
Senator Watt: Welcome, Mr. Ambassador. I have learned a lot, in terms of what happens in dealing with this sealing issue. You mentioned the fact that your mandate is limited to only to dealing with the government, in a sense, the government positions, the government policy, and the implementation of those policies.
What is the precise government policy in relation to the harvesting of seals and dealing with the countries that we are dealing with now? We seem to be interrupted by the outside, as a country, as a government, where they really have no business intervening in an area which is in the domain of this country. Do you also share that view? Let me stop there for a minute, and then I will go on after.
Mr. Sullivan: I gather the question deals with other countries basically intruding into areas into Canada; is that the gist of your question?
Senator Watt: Yes.
Mr. Sullivan: I think it is very unfortunate that other countries will try to dictate to Canada how we should look after our people. I have heard that from parliamentarians in Europe too, our indigenous and our non-indigenous people.
We have one of the best managed seal harvests in the world, rated by European experts, the European Food Safety Authority, as right up there with Norway, superior to any others around the world. They were all examined, except for the United States. Alaska was not part of the study done by the EFSA. In fact, some Europeans have indicated that they find it intrusive, and that that is a decision Canada should take. I do agree.
As an example, the media in Spain interviewed me and asked me if I agree with bull fighting in Spain. I said that is an issue for the Spanish people to decide.
The issue of sealing is an issue for Canadian people to decide, or for the people of Greenland to decide in their jurisdiction and other areas. It is an intrusion. That is the Government of Canada's view.
I spoke with a number of ministers when Belgium and the Netherlands decided, on April 28, 2007 — just after my first trip to Europe when I first became involved with the file — to pass their legislation. It was a done deal in Belgium. It was done deal in early July in the Netherlands. It was an executive decision. We were in a legal position in early July to deal with other countries trying to make decisions on Canada.
I spoke with members of the cabinet who attended the committee on July 31, 2007, and agreed to take WTO action within three weeks of becoming law in the Netherlands. That was articulated publicly in September 2007. On November 14 we had consultations on this issue at the WTO. Consultations are the first step in the WTO process with the European Union to try to see if there was a resolution to this issue. We did not go to a full panel, but the Government of Canada was committed to following through. I had no problems whatsoever in getting support at that level for this.
They did not move on Belgium and the Netherlands at the time because the European Union was coming with legislation that would override member states. This new legislation in the European Union will override what they did in member states. Therefore, to start an action when we did not know what the outcome of the European Union action would be, would be premature, tipping your hand and it would be all for naught because it would probably take two or three years, and this would be well over by then, which it was. That is why we did not move.
As soon as we anticipated that they might not approve the proposal the commission put forward to allow derogations, then Minister Day wrote to Baroness Ashton, the Trade Commissioner, and indicated they will proceed to WTO. The council has not voted on it yet. Baroness Ashton represents the commission that runs the bureaucracy there, and is the trade person from the U.K. who initiated that we will take that action. On other words, it serves as warning before they get to a vote on the issue. That was served.
We have been very strong on that issue, that they have no right to intrude on it, and we will take what actions are open.
Keep in mind that it still will not solve the problems of the hunt. You can go to the WTO; you can win your case, as we did with GMOs and now they are paying in the hundreds of millions overall in penalties and counter tariffs. If you win the case it does not open up the market again.
If there was an average of $2.5 million shipped into the European Union over the last three years, Canada would be able to put a counter tariff to that value on goods coming from the EU into Canada. That is the only course of action, if you win it. It will not solve the issue, but it is important to stand up and be counted on this issue, and that has been the policy and the direction.
It is an intrusion into an area that world experts have certified was sustainable. The WWF has stated they had no problem with the sustainability. Not one scientific body in the world has questioned the sustainability of it.
Experts have weighed in on the humane aspect. We have advanced and improved on those aspects, based on expert advice. Therefore, there is no basis to it, and that has been the policy, to take what avenues are available to do so. That is one avenue that obviously is quite open to be able to take action and that has been articulated publicly, too.
Senator Watt: If I understand correctly, this European Economic Community, EEC, is a bunch of the countries' representatives. The European Economic Community representatives that sit around the table are the member states. They represent the various individual countries in the EEC, correct?
Mr. Sullivan: In this decision, if I can clarify, on the co-decision process, which this is, it means the 785 members of the European Parliament that were elected across the 27 countries that come there do not represent the governments that put them there. They could be from a different stripe than the ruling government. They are elected to serve the public generally, but they are from that country because they have a certain number of seats, based on their size. Some are of different political stripes because some have proportional representation.
Under the current constitution of Europe, three bodies must agree, not only the Parliament. In Canada, Parliament decides. In this issue, the Parliament must agree and they come from everywhere. The majority from one country might be a different stripe than the government in power in that country.
Then there is the body of 27 countries; they are a powerful body, too. Technically, the 27 countries each have a permanent office in Brussels, headed by an ambassador or the permanent representative. Their instructions come to Brussels from the 27 governments of those countries. This council, the 27 countries, must also agree to the exact wording that Parliament agreed to.
That is where I said the 27 countries — the big ones have 29 votes right down to 3 votes — must obtain a qualified majority around the council, which is 255 out of 345 votes. Parliament must get a simple majority, which they already did. They are the two bodies that are powerful. The EEC is made up of the bureaucrats, the experts that drafted it. If their proposal is altered, which it was in this case and changed, they have the authority to pull it off the table. You cannot get that through unless all three parties agree on this issue.
They are all powerful; and there is an evolution of power within the European Union or from different treaties. The Lisbon Treaty is suspended anyway because Ireland voted against it. That would have some shifting powers. More powers have been moving to Parliament, as opposed to the commission and the council, but they must approve it, too.
It is not like in Canada, where you get legislation to Parliament, you get a majority, and it goes through. There are three entities. Generally, the European Union, the council and the commission work hand in hand and resolve their differences. In 227 cases under co-decision, 226 went through. The council and the commission probably get theirs together and then you have to come to a wording agreement in between. That is how it works. It is a complicated process, but no one group has the power.
Senator Watt: Where does the WTO sit in all of this? They are the ones that must deal with the matter one day, too.
Mr. Sullivan: WTO has no powers over the European Union. The WTO is a world body dealing with trade. Member countries sign on to agreements on the movement of trade. If we think that the European Union or the member countries represented by the European Union do not live up to their obligations, we can go to the WTO and take action. If we win it, we have the authority to put the tariffs back on. That is what you win.
They cannot order them to rescind legislation. That would likely not happen. If they are paying $100 million on GMOs because they do not want genetically modified foods in, are they going to pay $2 million or $3 million on tariffs on seals? That is an independent separate body with separate standing, but they are members of that body.
Senator Watt: If the Canadian government is going to make a move, where is the appeal? Where do we go?
Mr. Sullivan: I will answer that question with a comparison. If we pass something in Canada to deny the importation of European seals into Canada — we are saying they are not killing them humanely or it is not sustainable — where can the European Union go against us? The EU cannot tell the Parliament of Canada what to pass as law and we cannot tell the European Union what to pass as law. However, if you pass a law that contravenes your obligations under worldwide agreements you signed on to, then we will have to take recourse through the organization of which you are member, like the WTO. That is the avenue.
We do not have to change our law in Canada if the WTO tells us what we did was against our agreement. However, you probably will have to pay a reciprocal penalty tariff. I am not a legal person; legal people will have to answer what traditionally happens when you win cases, what are counter tariffs and what action is taken. However, you cannot rescind or overturn legislation; there is no authority in that body to do so.
Senator Cook: What anti-sealing groups have the most impact? You mentioned that they had the most impact on the European Union. Is there any information on how much funding they get, and is it public?
Mr. Sullivan: I think probably the biggest impact is from IFAW and HSUS, working with other groups within Europe, too. There was a consulting firm from Denmark commissioned by the European Commission to look at the impacts — including the veterinarian experts' report from the food safety authority and look at legal and socio- economic impacts. They reported, and asked for comments on their website for several weeks. Roughly two thirds of those comments came from the United States.
You can see what impact they are having. It has been driven primarily from the United States, but also from within other countries in the European Union because they need member states of the European Union to drive their issue. There are other issues, too, and other groups within their own countries are unique; however, overall, they are the two main groups.
I assume those groups get their funding from contributions from the general public. I do not know if there are governmental organizations that contribute. I do not know where they are getting their funding. It is probably from contributions to their organizations from major campaigns.
Senator Cook: I have one other question not related to sealing. We all know of the changes coming to the Arctic: Climate change and all the rest of it. What is Canada's position regarding the European Union's desire to become a permanent observer with the Arctic Council?
Mr. Sullivan: I think Minister Cannon made a statement recently in Tromso, Norway. I do not know the exact wording. However, generally, his statement indicated that the European Union is not sensitive to indigenous issues. There was a decision not to accept them at that time or to defer a decision on that issue. I think it is clear that Canada, based on Minister Cannon's comments, will not be a willing supporter of bringing someone into the Arctic Council who does not understand, by virtue of their actions, the indigenous issues.
Senator Cook: How would they get on the council? Is it within Canada's jurisdiction to block it?
Mr. Sullivan: I am not exactly sure, but I believe — and I will stand to be corrected — that any one of the members can veto acceptance. That is my understanding. Maybe there are people at the table who know more about the Arctic Council. However, my understanding is that it can be blocked by one of the Arctic Council members.
Senator Cook: Therefore, one veto would do it?
Mr. Sullivan: I think so, but please research it to ensure it is correct. That is my understanding.
Senator Johnson: This has been an excellent morning. Thank you, ambassador. I wanted to ask you something from the sealing side of life. In your presentation you commented that as ambassador you strive, `` . . . to combat overfishing and to improve the global management of fish stocks and ocean ecosystems.''
Could you tell us the status of the bottom-trawling situation, in both our country and other nations?
Mr. Sullivan: From the UN resolution on that issue that initially arose in the fall 2007, they wanted certain actions to protect the ecosystem — whether seamounts or coral, et cetera. Canada has taken a lead on this issue, within the NAFO region. They have worked with academia and looked at mapping out the seabed, such as recording instances of coral catches, or strict protocols on corals where you have to move from the areas and try to map these corals and the location of the more marine-sensitive environments.
NAFO received proposals last September. There was also an intercessional meeting in Montreal from April 30 to May 2 of last year, in which they had further discussions. They will be back at the NAFO table again. They feel that we have made significant progress in mapping this out.
I believe they have had ongoing discussions with WWF, one of the strong proponents from NGOs on this issue. It is not an issue that, on the detail level, I am personally immersed in. I am involved on the broader basis. It is one that we feel will respond to that particular resolution because certain seabeds are not conducive. Others are not effective if there is more of a gravel bottom as opposed to coral. There is a host of aspects to that. However, significant progress has been made and Canada has taken the lead on that issue.
Senator Johnson: We know the cold-water coral is important for the fishery to survive, so that is one of the major issues in fisheries talks. I wonder whether we have made new rules or regulations with regard to the trawlers and what kind of equipment they are using.
Mr. Sullivan: On that too, there are areas they would avoid and they will designate areas where there is no fishing. They will also look at areas where they will be monitoring fishing for a period of time, because it is in everyone's best interests.
With technology, things can always improve, where, in such a way, you could have a certain way off the bottom. You could have different technologies that could structure differently where one would be able to pursue a livelihood and do it in the most economically and ecologically friendly way. There are usually costs associated with these technologies.
However, they must also keep in mind — and this has been entertained, as well — that we must look at environmental protection because the future economy depends on how we deal with it, ecologically. There is a buy-in and significant progress made there. I am not the expert to answer any detailed questions.
Senator Johnson: What is happening with the whaling situation and our whaling population? Do you know anything about that? Do you have anything to do with that in your work with conservation?
Mr. Sullivan: I do not because Canada is not a member of the International Whaling Commission. We do not have any commercial whaling down in Canada now; there is a limited amount done for subsistence purposes done by Inuit. However, it is not an area that is significant in Canada.
Senator Johnson: In your vast experience, which countries do you think are doing the best work in terms of conservation of the oceans?
Mr. Sullivan: I think Canada is one of the leaders. I will name some. I do not want to diminish what some others are doing because I would not be intimately familiar with all. However, at different forums and meetings, the United States has been fairly conscious on the environment. The Australian and New Zealand governments have been pushing for sustainable fishing, generally, which means not only over catching fish, but also preserving the ocean environment. The ones I called out are the ones usually at the lead table and there are other countries, too, within the developed countries of the world.
One of the problems for the developing countries of the world is that many do not have the advanced level of technology and can damage the environment. However, there is assistance and cooperation among the countries.
That is one of my roles: I work with regional fisheries management organizations to gain a collective buy-in to sustainable fishing and to encourage adherence to rules. Mine is more of a broader scope: Getting political buy-in to those kinds of things rather than grinding out the details at the table.
Senator Johnson: Are you enjoying it?
Mr. Sullivan: I enjoy it. I always like a challenge.
The Chair: I want to draw your attention to NAFO. We had some hearings on NAFO and, as you know, the NAFO agreement is being revised. As a matter of fact, it is going through the process at the moment. I do not know exactly where it stands.
In the testimony we heard, particularly from former senior officials of DFO, serious concerns were raised about certain sections. I do not have the particular sections with me, although they were down in the 30s, as I recall. The concern was that because of the revision, NAFO, under certain circumstances, might have the ability to control policy within the 200-mile limit — not outside it, but within that limit.
Have you looked at the revisions to the NAFO treaty, and are you familiar with those changes? If so, do you share the concerns that there might be a possibility of NAFO influencing policy within the 200-mile limit?
Mr. Sullivan: The revised NAFO convention has yet to be ratified by the 12 contracting parties. I was not at that conference. I attended the previous year. I sat around the table with the adviser group on that particular issue. The adviser group advised departments from industry and representing unions and other players around the table on this particular issue.
The wording indicates that Canada can refuse; they must have Canada's permission if they want to do anything inside the limit. Let us look at shared science done with Spain, for example. Instead of the Europeans doing their science and Canada doing theirs, it is important to work jointly in areas where you can have the one vessel with both scientists working together and sharing their work and their findings. I think it brings credibility to the scientific issues. We can see and look at the same information. There are advantages.
There is no provision in the new, not-yet-ratified convention to give any country the right to come inside our waters except by the express will of Canada. If there is a proposal, Canada can veto that. Therefore, it cannot be done to my knowledge of what is in the Constitution and in the new convention.
In terms of the global management of fish stocks there are regional management organizations around the world where the regional management organizations, of which NAFO was a regional fisheries management organization, there are other ones like Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission, IATTC, and others. There are areas where they have control within the whole area governed by it. That happens in some other regional fishery management organizations.
How can you manage one stock on one side and a stock on the other side differently? Canada's advancement of management stocks has been at a higher level than others. If anything, they would have to move to Canada's level of enforcement rather than Canada going down to a lower level of enforcement.
There is nothing in it that gives them the power. In fact, Canada can veto it and does not have to agree at all. However, it is becoming a broader look at fish stocks. Fish swim and some are highly migratory. They cannot be dealt with in one geographic area and, since Canada's science and management has been at a high level, they will not bring in measures that will be stronger than Canada's, in any event. I cannot see that happening because we are very progressive in that area.
[Translation]
Senator Robichaud: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Ambassador, when you think of what is coming ahead, what are the important issues you anticipate to see on your agenda?
[English]
Mr. Sullivan: I see a significant one coming up. I will be leading a Canadian delegation to Spain. There are five regional fishery management organizations, FMOs, governing tuna. They got together in Kobe, Japan, in January 2007, a week before my appointment.
They are now getting together in San Sebastian, Spain, two and a half years later. They will be trying to bring a strong resolve to deal with some of the most overfished species in the world. All the countries from the five area FMOs will be coming together at that one. It will be a watershed meeting in the sense that I have not seen real progress from Kobe, which is crucial, because the bluefin tuna is an iconic fish, which has been significantly overfished. The impacts made out of five regional fisheries management organizations have impacts on others.
There are performance reviews done on all of these to ensure they are following the proper management and controls, and that enforcement is occurring, which is significant.
We have a whole host of issues in Canada. We have had great success and just completed the Canada-United States Albacore Tuna Treaty. The Pacific Salmon Treaty was put to bed on five of the chapters. There are not as many pressing issues on NAFO as there used to be. I am looking forward to ratification of that NAFO convention. Various countries also ensure that they sign on and agree with measures brought by the UN Fish Stocks Agreement.
There are many issues but I think the most pressing one in the short term is what will happen in the world tuna. They are catching smaller fish. That symbolic issue will be very important; it will probably set the stage.
Many of these countries are sitting on other regional fishery management organizations and if you can get a buy-in on some of these, it tends to push these others to reach a title level of control management and that is part of a big process.
Finally, every country has the right to fish on the high seas but they also have a responsibility to fish sustainably. Those are the issues we have been pushing.
The Chair: Senator Watt has a final question, and it has to do with exactly what is meant by ``subsistence.''
Senator Watt: Mr. Ambassador, I believe you are originally from the Maritimes and you are very with the activities and the daily livelihood of people on the coast, which is similar to those of the people I represent. I see the closeness between the Inuit and Newfoundlanders and people around the Maritimes who make their living off of the ocean. Therefore, I will not drill on what those are because I think you know as much as I do in terms of the activities.
In regards to the subsistence, the wording of the resolution passed on the word ``subsistence'' worries me because it is very vague. It does not give us any comfort. As a matter of fact, it works the other way. As I see it, down the road, this is only the beginning. They use the word ``exemption'' now, but perhaps, down the road, they will say you only use it for handicraft purposes and nothing else. You will not be able to market the product. Even if you try to market the product, strictly from the Inuit perspective, it will have a very different price setting.
On that account, is it within your mandate that you might want to take a good look at this issue? Would you be prepared as a commissioner to make recommendations, if it is within your mandate to bring the Inuit people and leaders in to hammer out whether it will be very different from the wording that is used by that resolution, or try to improve the resolution, if that is the route that you will take?
Mr. Sullivan: I am concerned about the implications of the wording, as well, until something is completed. That is what I alluded to earlier: We need to ensure the wording will not be more restrictive than intended.
Initially, there was to be a complete exemption for Inuit. Then Parliament had it down in their amendments and said, ``It will be limited Inuit exemption — ceremonial and education purposes.'' Then the council and commission got together and strengthened to contribute to the subsistence. The purpose was to not have it there at all.
I do not know what will happen, to be honest with you. However, that is an area that we need to follow up on and that will be followed up on regarding this particular agreement as they hammer it out.
Over all, I would not take any comfort in anything at this point, until it goes to a process. We must certainly not assume anything is a given. We must have the push to ensure that Parliament's or the council's wishes are not made more rigid than they are. That is the commission's responsibility now. Once they go through the process, the commission will have to craft that.
There was a reference that this should be dealt with by NAMMCO, the North Atlantic Marine Mammal Commission. A reference was made by Greenland to the European Union requesting that NAMMCO be the body to determine the standard. The EU said no and has kept it in-house.
Today with the issue of subsistence, it is vital that the Inuit be a part of it. We travel up to Greenland. On two occasions, I met with the minister and we met with them in Brussels. They accompanied us in Denmark and when we presented in Italy. We worked closely with them, through their minister and deputy minister, and with the Inuit in Nunavut with Deputy Minister Simon Awa. Mr. Awa has been in Europe with us on this issue and we have worked closely with the InuitTapiriit Kanatami and the Inuit Circumpolar Council (Canada) Inc. Both have representation on the committee that I chair. We met several times over the last year on this particular issue. We hear their advice and find that we are all on the same page. It is gratifying to know that all political parties in Canada are pushing on the one issue. That is one of the more encouraging aspects. When I am in Europe, I do not have to say that Canadians cannot agree. I hear over there that Canadians do not support it and polls show they do not support it, and that they are asked to do something that Canadians will not do themselves. Yes, they should be consulted and be an important part of the process.
The Chair: Ambassador, we thank you for spending this time with us. You have been most helpful. We have learned a great deal. Certainly, it has been a good education for me, and I believe I speak for all committee members. You have been frank and fulsome in your answers.
Mr. Sullivan: Thank you.
(The committee adjourned.)