THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON FISHERIES AND OCEANS
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Thursday, October 27, 2022
The Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans met with videoconference this day at 9 a.m. [ET] to examine and report on Canada’s seal populations and their effect on Canada’s fisheries.
Senator Fabian Manning (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Good morning, senators. My name is Fabian Manning, I’m a senator from Newfoundland and Labrador, and I have the pleasure to chair this meeting.
Today, we are conducting a meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans.
Should any technical challenges arise, particularly in relation to interpretation, please signal this to the chair or the clerk, and we will work to resolve the issue.
I would like to take a few moments to ask the members of the committee who have joined the meeting this morning to introduce themselves.
Senator Ravalia: Mohamed-Iqbal Ravalia, Newfoundland and Labrador. Good morning to our witnesses, and we look forward to your testimony.
Senator Cordy: Jane Cordy, Nova Scotia. Welcome.
Senator Francis: Brian Francis, Prince Edward Island.
Senator Busson: Bev Busson, British Columbia, covering the other coast.
The Chair: Thank you, senators. We may have another senator or two joining us, but we are not sure yet.
Before asking and answering questions, I would like to ask members and witnesses in the room to please refrain from leaning in too close to the microphone or remove your earpiece when doing so. This will avoid any sound feedback that could negatively impact the committee staff in the room.
On October 4, 2022, the Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans was authorized to examine and report on Canada’s seal populations and their effect on Canada’s fisheries.
Today, under this mandate, the committee will be hearing from: Isabelle Laberge, Senior Director, Food Safety Division, Canadian Food Inspection Agency; and Kathy Twardek, Director, Food Safety and Consumer Protection Directorate, Canadian Food Inspection Agency.
On behalf of the members of the committee, I thank you for taking the time to join us here today. I understand that Ms. Laberge has opening remarks. Following the presentation, members of the committee will have questions for you. The floor is yours.
Isabelle Laberge, Senior Director, Food Safety Division, Canadian Food Inspection Agency:
Mr. Chair, good morning. I appreciate the opportunity to speak with members of the Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans today on seal harvesting for meat. My name is Isabelle Laberge, and I am the Senior Director of the Food Safety Division at the Canadian Food Inspection Agency.
[Translation]
I invite committee members to ask their questions or share their comments in the official language of their choice.
Mr. Chair, today I will provide an overview of the role the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, CFIA, plays in regulating facilities that process seal meat for human consumption.
I would like to begin by stating that Canada is recognized as having one of the most effective food safety systems in the world and has implemented a robust food inspection system under the Safe Food for Canadians Regulations, SFCR, which came into force on January 5, 2019. The SFCR replaced several commodity-specific regulations including the Fish Inspection Regulations, which applied to seal meat.
The new regulations are consistent with international food safety standards, strengthen Canada’s food safety system, and enable industry to innovate and create greater market access opportunities for Canadian food products exported abroad, including seal meat.
In Canada, seal meat processors are regulated under both provincial and federal food legislation depending on the level of trade. If the meat is intended to be traded interprovincially or exported, the processor requires a Safe Food for Canadians licence for preparing the seal. If, however, the seal meat stays within the province or territory, the provincial or territorial food legislation applies, as well as certain federal requirements on food safety and labelling. It is worth noting that food inspection in provincial seal meat facilities is generally carried out by provincial governments, municipalities or regional health authorities.
In federal facilities that process seal meat, the CFIA is responsible for enforcing the Safe Food for Canadians Act and its associated regulations, as well as the Food and Drugs Act. Federally regulated processing plants must follow specific key requirements of the Safe Food for Canadians Regulations, such as holding a Safe Food for Canadians licence to operate their business. These processing plants must also have preventive controls in place, including a written preventive control plan, and meet traceability requirements.
The harvest of seals and the carcass handling practices conducted by seal harvesters are not licensable activities under the Safe Food for Canadians Regulations and, therefore, do not require a Safe Food for Canadian licence or a preventive control plan. However, seal harvesters are required to handle the seal carcass in a manner that prevents contamination, damage or spoilage.
The CFIA administers and enforces federal legislation, but compliance is ultimately the responsibility of food companies. The CFIA verifies their compliance with the legislation by conducting various types of inspections in facilities, including, for example, scheduled risk-based inspections, sampling, and targeted inspections related to food safety investigations.
When there is reason to believe that a food is contaminated or does not follow federal regulations, the CFIA may employ various compliance approaches and will typically initiate a process to investigate and recall products, if necessary.
The CFIA develops and shares guidance materials specifically for the seal meat industry, such as the Code of Practice for the Harvest, Transport, Processing, and Export of Seal Products Intended for Human Consumption; this guidance sets out the controls to put in place, from harvest to final packaging and exporting, to ensure the seal meat is safe for human consumption.
In conclusion, Canada has a robust regulatory foundation and inspection system that supports food safety and consumer protection for all foods, including seal meat. And certainly the CFIA values engagement and collaboration to continuously improve and address issues related to seal meat production for human consumption, and food safety more broadly.
Once again, I thank you for giving my colleague and me this opportunity to appear before you.
We look forward to your questions. Thank you.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Laberge, for your opening remarks. I’m sure it’s going to raise some questions.
Senator Busson: Thank you very much for a very extensive review of what your agency does. Certainly, I suspect from another perspective, seal harvest is a very small part of a rather large responsibility for your agency. You talked generally about seal meat and the treatment seal meat gets from your agency as far as human consumption and/or export. I wonder if there are any regulations or special rules and procedures when it comes to seal fat or seal protein products that are manufactured. Can you talk about that a little bit if you wouldn’t mind?
Ms. Laberge: Yes, certainly. The Safe Food for Canadians Regulations apply to all of the processed meat products derived from seals: obviously, the meat, which is more typical, but there are other sub-products which have some value either in Canada for interprovincial trade and export. This includes seal oil, some typical organs that are of interest, the meat, of course.
Senator Busson: As you answered that question, it raised a question in my mind. During your introduction, you talked about looking for innovative and creative opportunities for products for exports. Could you talk about that comment vis-à-vis the seal harvest and seal products generally? In your agency, what do you see that the exports are and where do they generally go? Please share if you have that information.
Ms. Laberge: Let me address that. We modernized the regulations in a way that leaves more space for innovation. As possible, we are removing regulations that are too prescriptive and not necessarily focussing on the ultimate outcome, the ultimate outcome being food safety. I wouldn’t have specific examples for seals, but, generally speaking, during the modernization, we removed a lot of the very detailed or prescriptive regulations. If the regulations have not accounted for some new practices, new products, new commerce, it is already built in that the purpose is outcome-based food safety. It is really up to the industry — the regulated party, the party wishing to engage with the export market — to demonstrate that whatever approach they are using is meeting the outcome.
Of course, in our inspections, our inspectors are trained to navigate with less prescriptive regulations, and they can always obtain technical support from experts within the agency or even elsewhere in the federal government to validate that the approach a specific industry wants to apply is sound and will meet the outcome. That is the theory of the Safe Food for Canadians Regulations, and we are already seeing some opportunities within the industry. Unfortunately, I wouldn’t have a specific example for seals. It is a very specific, niche market. As you mentioned, it is one tiny part of the CFIA mandate, but the same approach, the same spirit, would apply. If a company is interested in a new market, new product, there is always that option of working with CFIA and making sure that they can still meet the outcome of their regulations.
Senator Francis: I wonder if you could confirm whether there are any Inuit-owned facilities that are certified to process seal meat for export, and if so, where are these located? Also, are you aware of issues preventing the export of seal products by Inuit to the EU?
Ms. Laberge: This is a very precise question. I don’t have the answer for that. We’ll have to come back specifically.
Senator Francis: If you could provide that to the clerk.
Ms. Laberge: Maybe what I can say, though, is we are aware of interest for some seal hunting businesses to supply niche markets in the Inuit communities across Canada. I know around Toronto, for example, there is a demand. Now, specifically whether Inuit-owned companies have a federal licence, I don’t know. I would need to verify that.
Senator Francis: If you could provide that information to us in writing. Thank you.
The Chair: To our witnesses, any questions that you may be asked this morning that you don’t have the answer to, you don’t have to worry. You can forward it in writing to the clerk afterwards and that will be fine. We pose the questions, knowing that sometimes you may not have the answer at your fingertips, but that’s the process that we follow.
Senator Cordy: Thank you very much for being here. It is not always the area of the department that we hear from a lot, so it’s good to hear from you. Did you say there is a demand for seal meat in Toronto? Is that what you said?
Ms. Laberge: What I was mentioning is that we are aware of more and more interest in ways to supply niche products, one of which is seal meat in Inuit communities that are in larger cities. I mentioned Toronto as being one area that I heard of. Those are anecdotes, but we hear of some interest, and we help our inspectors know how to respond to questions, so we are aware of that.
Senator Cordy: I wasn’t sure if I misheard. That’s why I asked for clarification. Thank you. That is a trivia question we could ask people.
You said you are trying to allow for more innovation within your whole department, including inspection of seal meat and removal of more prescriptive regulation. How easy and quickly can accommodations be made? Sometimes with government regulations you feel like you are trying to steer the Titanic. It seems to take a long time. With a lot of discussion now about sealing and the sealing industry, is there a move by the department to act as expeditiously as possible to get any changes in regulations done quickly?
Ms. Laberge: Do you want me to? You go ahead.
Kathy Twardek, Director, Food Safety and Consumer Protection Directorate, Canadian Food Inspection Agency: Yes, I will start.
With the Safe Food for Canadians Act and Regulations coming into force, with rolling coming-into-force dates, in 2019, there were very significant steps in the direction that Isabelle has been talking about. The regulations are much less prescriptive. A lot of prescription was taken out of them, so they are outcome-based. That way of getting to the outcome is where the innovation for companies comes in. They have the chance to find their own way to get there, but they have to get to the outcome.
Senator Cordy: But they can get there?
Ms. Twardek: In different ways.
Senator Cordy: When you said that processors are subject to scheduled inspection, I wondered why they are scheduled and not random inspections.
Ms. Laberge: Yes. We have all types of inspections. We do have scheduled inspections but also random, based on risk.
The Chair: As a follow-up to Senator Cordy’s questions, in regard to inspections — whether they are targeted or planned — have you any examples to give to us of seal-processing facilities that have been inspected but, for some reason or other, are not living up to the code, if you follow what I’m saying?
Is there any concern by your department in relation to the processing facilities that are available in Canada at the present time? I know they are limited.
Ms. Laberge: We can verify that. Quite frankly, we are not aware of specific concerns with seal meat. Expectations are general hygiene practices. The expectations are actually relatively easy to meet for the industry.
You are probably aware that the meat sector — red meat, poultry — is extremely regulated. We don’t have the same level of rigidity in the seal meat industry. It is more like the fish industry, where the general good hygienic practices need to be met — preventive control plans, et cetera.
All to say, we are not aware of specific issues with seal meat, but we can verify if you are interested.
The Chair: I would appreciate that.
Ms. Laberge: Yes.
The Chair: The only concern from your department in relation to inspections has to do with the food products? If there are any other products being produced from the seal, it is not your concern. The only concern that you have is if part of that seal, whatever part it may be, is used for a food product? Am I stating that correctly?
Ms. Twardek: We are interested in the food that comes out of the seal. For a bit of breadth about the agency, we are responsible for plant protection and animal health. I’m not thinking, though, that these apply directly to the question. We are not concerned exclusively with plants and animals that become food. We have broader reach than that. Part of the mandate is to protect the resource base. I think it is just the food part.
The Chair: Yes. I wondered if just part of the seal was used — a seal oil capsule, as an example — would that fall under your agency, the inspection of that product to be exported or sold?
Ms. Twardek: If it is a natural health product or a drug, it would come under the inspectorate of Health Canada.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator Ravalia: Does the CFIA offer training to seal harvesters or processors on the code of practice for harvest, transport, processing and export of seal products intended for human consumption? Are you directly involved with that process?
Ms. Laberge: We did not hear the question well.
Senator Ravalia: Do you offer training to seal harvesters or processors on the code of practice for harvest, transport and processing for exported seal products? Do you have some provisions in place that have to be followed before the products can be exported?
Ms. Laberge: The training we offer is for CFIA inspectors. However, we have a lot of guidance for the industry in a written form on our website. We constantly make sure that the guidance is up to date.
Specifically about training, I would say there is no specific training for industry, but the inspectorate will take the time to explain what is required of businesses doing the processing of seal meat. There is always compliance promotion accompanying the regulated parties so they can understand and put in place what they need, what is required for their regulations.
Senator Ravalia: In July 2022, there was a suggestion that avian flu may have been impacting Quebec harvest seals and causing death among these seals. If you hear of a potential outbreak like that, what is your response to that particular seal herd? Do you then send inspectors out to ensure that the quality of the meat is safe and that it hasn’t been impacted by an external virus or agent?
Ms. Laberge: Fisheries and Oceans Canada, or DFO, is responsible for the seal population, the health of animals. I know that we have a memorandum of understanding with DFO for contaminants in the seal population, specific contaminants that may be indicators of the health of the population.
Specifically, on the avian flu incident, CFIA was working with DFO last summer when those indicators emerged. We were collaborating with DFO to align approaches and make sure that there is complementarity in the response.
As to food safety, avian influenza does not have any effect on human health. There were no concerns raised in terms of the safety of the seal meat. I believe the concerns were more for what effect it could have on the seal population, but also the wild birds. I don’t know if I was clear enough in my response.
Senator Ravalia: You have responded.
My final question is related to our export markets. I have heard from some of my own friends who are seal exporters that on occasion, with certain far eastern markets, COVID has allegedly been detected in packaging. That has then led to a holdup in the export and an audit process. In those instances, are you directly involved?
Say there is an allegation that a seal product ended up in the Philippines and the packaging allegedly showed a COVID-positive test and therefore the entire process and company had to be audited before any further products could be exported. How involved are you in that issue?
Ms. Laberge: Those issues are dealt with by our colleagues in international affairs. Many aspects of it come into play. The scientific basis was actually the first concern because during COVID, very early, in the early waves, there was a lot of collaboration with the Public Health Agency of Canada and Health Canada to verify what implications COVID would have on food safety. Very early, we were able to provide enough evidence that COVID was an issue of public health but not of food safety. Some countries saw this a bit differently, and it has caused some additional burden on exports. Our colleagues in international affairs have been addressing those concerns and providing the necessary assurance.
Maybe I should mention, though, that the export market for seal meat is relatively thin. We are aware of Hong Kong, South Korea and Norway, I believe. So it’s a relatively limited export market, and we’re not talking about large volumes. We’re talking about very small volumes. So such incidents would not necessarily significantly affect seal meat exporters because it’s already very thin.
Senator Ravalia: One would expect that the science would suggest the virus likely doesn’t survive on the packaging for any duration. I think that is what has caused some degree of consternation for individuals who are then caught in this audit track, which significantly impacts their earnings and their ability to export.
The Chair: If a company is seeking a market in Hong Kong for a seal food product, your agency would have to give a green light to that company before they start processing the product for export.
What type of system is at play? How robust is it? How does a company get to a point where they can export? I’m wondering about time. If a company arrives on your doorstep today saying they have a product, can you give us a ballpark about how long that would take? What will the process be in order for that company to move ahead?
Ms. Laberge: I won’t be able to provide the granularity in terms of timelines, but I will just mention a few basic elements that would be required. First of all, the company needs to acquire a licence under the Safe Food for Canadians Regulations. The licence also comes with a requirement for a written preventive control plan. So they need to be in good order for what is required in the Canadian regulations to be able to export. Those requirements are the same for export or for interprovincial trade.
On top of that, specifically for export — for many other types of food products but for seal meat and other meat products in general — the CFIA would validate the export requirements of the foreign country and negotiate with the country about whether Canada’s regulatory system meets those requirements. Before any shipments — before the export starts — there have to be export certificates for every shipment going to the export market.
How long does it take? I’m sure it really depends on where the company is in terms of a degree of readiness to meet the requirements of the Safe Food for Canadians Regulations and the degree of readiness to meet any potential additional requirements from the country receiving the product. When all of this is met, the CFIA can issue an export certificate.
I will turn to my colleague Kathy to see if she wants to add anything to what I said.
Ms. Twardek: I was just thinking what a thorough answer that was. You covered everything.
The Chair: Okay. Thank you.
Senator McPhedran: You referenced guidelines on the website. Is that the code of practice, or are you referencing something in addition to your code of practice?
My questions are geared to the code of practice, so I’m just trying to understand if there is something else out there in addition to the code of practice.
Ms. Laberge: On the website, we have guidance in general on how to comply with the Safe Food for Canadians Regulations: how to acquire a licence, how to even submit applications, what to expect when an application is received and what the interactions are. All of that is really detailed. But specifically, there is a code of practice and, yes, it’s a long name that Kathy might know.
Ms. Twardek: Code of Practice for the Harvest, Transport, Processing, and Export of Seal Products Intended for Human Consumption.
Senator McPhedran: So we’re talking about the same thing. When was this code of practice last reviewed and/or amended? How recent is it?
Ms. Laberge: I don’t have an answer for that.
The Chair: Could you investigate and get an answer back to us?
Ms. Laberge: Yes.
Senator McPhedran: Thank you. I thought that was an understanding. For anything for which you don’t have an answer, we just assume you will follow up. So I won’t keep repeating.
I’m trying to understand your code of practice and then how that possibly intersects or duplicates. Are the requirements in your code of practice also in the Marine Mammal Regulations? Is there a significant difference between those two documents in relation to seal meat?
Ms. Laberge: You are referring to two documents?
Senator McPhedran: Yes, Marine Mammal Regulations.
Ms. Twardek: Please jump in at any time, but we’re responsible for the products when they become food. I think when they are still animals, it falls under DFO. So that’s probably the marine mammal information. What I don’t know — but we can find out — is if that guidance was prepared in collaboration with DFO or not.
Senator McPhedran: As I understand it, appendix 1 of your code of practice does relate to harvesting. It hasn’t yet become food, and that’s where the question about possible overlap comes in and the question of whether there is any substantial difference between your code of practice and marine mammal regulations.
Ms. Twardek: That’s a good question. There is quite a significant amount of detail in that part about how to position the harvest to minimize contamination later. I do note that now we’d have to actually do a bit of background to find out what the collaboration was in that space.
Senator McPhedran: And a comparison if you see any differences. For example, it would be helpful to know if either your code of practice or the regulations actually have different standards or different requirements from each other.
Ms. Twardek: Right. I will note that it is a code of practice. It sets out good manufacturing practices, in this case good harvesting practices, to get to a positive outcome.
Senator McPhedran: If I’m understanding your point, your code of practice would not equal a formal set of legislated regulations?
Ms. Twardek: Right. We talked about outcome-based, and this is a way to get to that outcome.
Senator McPhedran: Okay. Then, that raises an interesting question, because where you come across contraventions or not meeting the standards set out in your code of practice, what do you do? It’s not legislated. It’s a set of recommendations, essentially. What happens?
Ms. Twardek: The basis is that there are different ways to get to the outcome. If someone doesn’t particularly follow that way but they can demonstrate that they have met the outcome, they have demonstrated it, then they’ll be in compliance. The only caveat I would say — and I’m saying this generally — is that there could be, in certain circumstances, a particular prescriptive rule. We have outcome-based rules, but we have some rules that are —
Senator McPhedran: Rigid?
Ms. Twardek: Not rigid, no. Precise. I can think of it in particular in the labelling space.
Senator McPhedran: When you say the outcome, the outcome that matters here is the approval, is reaching clearance from your department?
Ms. Twardek: And behind that, the outcome is safe food.
Senator McPhedran: Right. Presumably, your approval is granted because it is considered safe. Okay. Thank you.
Also in the code of practice, there are requirements for vessels and the storage requirements on the vessels. Again, this is a comparative question. How does the code of practice, that section, relate to requirements from other sets of regulations from other departments as they affect other Canadian fisheries? Do they differ?
Ms. Twardek: Great question. I think that’s a very similar answer. I’m picturing the Coast Guard actually. It would be a follow-up to see how the annexes were created.
Senator McPhedran: Okay, great. Just to be clear, it’s a focus on the vessels.
Ms. Laberge: If I can add, codes of practice — and I would assume this one as well — they are aligned with very general, good, hygienic practices that are recognized internationally. They come from a basis that is understood, generally speaking, by regulators across the world, like food hygiene specialists. They are really based specifically on what is expected of food safety in countries in the world, like do not cross-contaminate, keep clean conveyers, keep the cold chain. They are really basic food hygiene principles. I would assume that we’re talking about the commonalities that would not necessarily show disparity with other sets of regulations. I don’t know if I’m clear.
Senator McPhedran: Just to pursue this a little more. I’m trying to envision in my mind what happens when you have notice of some concern that gets expressed about the processing, but you have your standard met. There is a concern expressed about perhaps some methodology that is being applied further down the chain of production, but you look at your approval and you see that the product meets your safety standards. Is that the end of it? I mean, even if a concern is expressed, but you see that the outcome, as you put it, is a product that is safe by your standards? The approval is there, but there are concerns expressed. What do you do? Do you send out inspectors? Do you make a note in the file? How do you respond to that?
Ms. Laberge: The outcome that is to be met is definitely for food to be safe on a consistent basis so. There is a lot of focus placed on what the control measures are and if they are stringent enough to deliver safe products on an ongoing basis. It’s really not about looking at if one specific food is safe, but if the way of producing the food is sound, we can assume that the end product will be safe. The CFIA does not inspect every single food. We are focusing on the behaviour, how the industry puts in place all of the necessary controls to deliver a safe food.
In that sense, how an inspector will follow up will be more looking at the process, looking at the preventive control plans and identifying areas of improvement. It’s a continuous process. Some companies will have regular visits from an inspector and will have places to focus attention and improvement, so it’s a continuous process. But there are situations where an inspector will need to request a corrective measure immediately. It does happen every once in a while where activities must stop, something must be corrected, and during that period the company needs to work diligently to bring the practices back under compliance. There is a vast degree of different ways, and it is always based on a level of degree and harm and the seriousness of the problem. There is always that judgment applied by inspectors.
Senator McPhedran: Thank you. My question was somewhat different. I was asking about complaints, and I was asking about what happens when you get a complaint, even though you look at your outcome and the product has been approved by you.
Ms. Twardek: Something that my colleague mentioned is really pertinent in answering that question. It’s a continuous process, and things can change. Somebody may be licensed and have even exported, but it doesn’t mean that something couldn’t go wrong in their system.
In the case of a complaint, we would look at the type of complaint, the nature of the complaint, because there can be a broad range of types of complaints. We would look at the nature of the complaint, and depending on the risk that it could pose, an inspector may go out and do an inspection.
To pick up on what Isabelle has said, in doing that inspection, they may find something has gone amiss and needs to be put back on track, or they might find that everything is running just fine and the complaint isn’t valid. There could be any number of outcomes.
Does that help?
Senator McPhedran: Yes. One last clarification. If I’m understanding you correctly, you do receive complaints and only on some occasions does an inspector go out? There is a process that happens to evaluate the complaint and to make a decision as to whether or not that complaint is going to trigger an inspection?
Ms. Twardek: Yes.
Senator McPhedran: Thank you.
The Chair: Before going to Senator Busson, I realize that the amount of seal meat processed in Canada is very limited. We’re not talking about a large amount of seal meat being processed, especially for export. We are not talking about interprovincial for export.
In the recent past — when I say “recent past,” a half-dozen years or so — have there been any concerns raised with your agency in relation to a product that is processed here for export? I realize the numbers are small. Have there been any issues raised in the last six or eight years that you are aware of in relation to a product that had been processed here, whether interprovincially or for international trade?
Ms. Laberge: Well, we’re not aware of any such issues. We can verify if you would like.
The Chair: Okay. Senator Busson.
Senator Busson: Thank you very much. Thanks again for this very interesting look into the work that you do and the important work that you do around food security in Canada and elsewhere.
Some of the research that’s been supplied to us suggests that it’s not a big part of your work and not a big part of Canadian exports of meat, but one of the things that I was curious about when you were talking about the export of seal meat to other countries is whether you knew what form the meat took as it was exported; is it generally frozen, dried? Is there a specific form of export that people are looking for for meat?
Some of the research that we have been supplied says that Burkina Faso is a receiver of that product as an export from Canada, which suggests to me that that’s probably a minimal amount of meat product that goes to a very small country. I’m wondering — it’s sort of a double question — whether you know how many other places in the world the meat is exported to and, again, what form that takes as it’s exported?
Ms. Laberge: It’s a very good question. Forms of export product like seal oil and seal meat — Is it frozen or dried? Is it canned meat? We don’t have that information. The three places where there is an export market and from which we obtain information from our international colleagues are Hong Kong, South Korea and Norway. But it’s far, right? I assume it’s possibly not in a fresh meat state. We can verify that.
Senator Busson: To supplement that question, Mr. Chair, if I could. Again, you may not be the right people to be asking this question, as it’s a bit of a cause-and-effect question: Is it the fact that we export very little seal meat to countries around the world because we don’t have a big harvest, or is it a demand question, that nobody needs or is looking for that kind of meat product, therefore, we don’t produce it?
It’s a backhanded way of asking do you think that, if there was more product available, inspected and certified for export, would there be more markets for these products?
Ms. Laberge: Yes. This is outside our area of expertise, definitely. We could give you our gut feeling, but it’s probably not most helpful. It’s a very niche market, seal meat. Even in Canada, not everybody eats that. I would tend to think it’s such a unique product. Let’s take this back and see how we can obtain that information for you.
Senator Busson: Thank you.
Ms. Twardek: If I might just add, as you are asking the question, I am wondering who the best person is to ask that of. Because it’s seals that we’re talking about, it could be DFO. I’m not 100% sure. It’s along market development lines, so a department in that kind of an area.
The Chair: Thank you to our senators. Thank you to our witnesses.
It is interesting, as chair, listening to your answers and understanding why we have questions, because we’re dealing with your agency, Health Canada, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Global Affairs Canada, Public Health Agency of Canada, everybody has a part to play. Trying to find an avenue where we can all drive in one direction to help the industry is where we’re coming from.
I understand why it’s difficult for processors and harvesters to try to determine where the future is in this industry when everybody plays a part in trying to develop it. Hopefully, we’ll find some answers as we go forward.
Thank you for your time again this morning on behalf of the committee. It’s a different aspect of the industry, having you here, but it’s been interesting to learn things from you.
We trust that the few answers you didn’t have at your fingertips this morning, that you will forward them to our clerk as soon as you determine what they are. Thank you for that.
(The committee adjourned.)