February 14, 2007
The following is a communication between the President of Canada-Europe Parliamentary
Association and Chair of the Canadian Observer Delegation, Senator Lorna Milne and the President of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE), Rene
van der Linden.
The aim of the Canada-Europe Parliamentary Association is to provide a structured forum for the exchange of
information and ideas between Canadian parliamentarians and parliamentarians from the European Parliament, the
Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, the Western European Union Assembly, similar European
parliamentary organizations such as the Parliamentary Assembly of the Organization for Security and Cooperation
in Europe (OSCE PA), the Conference of Parliamentarians of the Arctic Region, and individual parliaments of all
countries of Europe.
The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) is one of the institutions of the Council of Europe.
It is composed of representatives elected by the national parliaments of the member states from among their
membership. Unlike the European Parliament (an institution of the European Union), its powers extend only to
the ability to investigate, recommend and advise. Even so, its recommendations on issues such as human rights
have significant weight in the European political context.
Basically, PACE was given the task to investigate the Canadian seal hunt, to extrapolate whether the hunt was truly humane
or not. The Canadian Observer Delegation assisted PACE representatives throughout the process. The findings of this investigation would then guide the Council of Europe in relation to its stand on the issue.
It would appear this was not the case at all.
Initial communication from Senator Milne sent January 16, 2007:
Dear Colleague,
I am writing to you to express my deep disappointment about your decision at the meeting of the Standing
Committee in November to adopt Recommendation 1776 on Seal Hunting as revised by several amendments, even
though the Committee on the Environment, Agriculture and Local and Regional Affairs rejected these amendments.
As I noted in my last letter to you, the Canadian observer delegation had grave concerns about the amendments:
they did not reflect the evidence heard by the committee or the available scientific literature; they ignored
the process by which the committee had arrived at the draft recommendation; and their aim was to bypass the
work done by the Committee and restate the position expressed in the original and deeply flawed motion for
recommendation that led to this study in 2004.
In deciding to support the amendments, the Standing Committee has sent a clear message to those involved in the
study over the past two-and-a-half years, and especially to the Canadian observer delegation, that it is ready
to take the easy road of going along with prevailing public opinion in Europe and giving in to the enormous
pressure of well-funded lobbyists, while ignoring the outcome of a lengthy and thorough study conducted by a
PACE committee. The result is a contradictory and biased recommendation that includes several factual errors.
In our view, this does not reflect well on the organization.
|