Fisheries Committee on May 5th, 2009

[Gerry Byrne, Liberal, Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL]

Yes, Mr. Chair.

I wish to move that, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans report the following to the House: that the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans fully endorses the harp seal hunt, that it approves of current regulated killing methods, approves that the harvesting of harp seals of the age cohort known as “beaters” and older is fully acceptable and that the Canadian harp seal hunt is humane, responsible and sustainable and should continue for generations to come; that information of the committee’s position, along with the results of the recorded vote, be made immediately available to the public through media advisories prepared by the clerk and distributed throughout Canada.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

You heard the motion as read by Mr. Byrne.

Is there any discussion?

Go ahead, Mr. Kamp.

[Randy Kamp, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission, BC]

Mr. Chair, I think I understand the motivation behind this, and all of us as committee members are supportive of the seal hunt.

In light of the very recent action of the European Parliament in their motion to ban importation, I wonder whether we should include comment on that in this motion. I would be prepared to amend this motion by replacing the rest of the paragraph after “the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans fully endorses the harp seal hunt” with this: that the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans fully endorses the harp seal hunt and strongly condemns the ban of Canadian seal products by the European Union despite overwhelming evidence in support of its sustainability, humaneness, and value to thousands of coastal Canadian families.

That would be my amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Mr. Kamp is moving an amendment to Mr. Byrne's motion. The clerk will obtain a copy of his amendment.

Go ahead, Mr. Byrne, on the amendment.

[Gerry Byrne, Liberal, Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL]

Mr. Chair, I seek clarification.

Does Mr. Kamp want to replace basically the entire content of my motion with his new wording, or does he want to add this amendment to the body of the text of my motion?

I seek clarification as to whether that is the case. I don't think it needs to be an “either/or”; it can be an “and”. If Mr. Kamp's amendment is to add content to the motion without deleting content, I wouldn't have a problem. I do have a problem with deleting content. I also question if it is in order to amend a motion in a way that would negate or delete the actual intent or context of the motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Go ahead, Mr. Kamp.

[Randy Kamp, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission, BC]

In my view, the amendment is completely germane. It doesn't change or negate the intent of the motion. It simply restates it in other words and adds another element, the ban of the European Union.

To clarify, yes, the amendment was to replace in the first paragraph all of the words after harp seal hunt”. I felt it was a little more elegant in terms of its references to sustainability, humaneness, and so on. It doesn't use the word “beaters”; I think Mr. Allen might be right in suggesting that “beaters” has some interesting connotations for some people. I tried to keep the same elements in there in terms of being humane, responsible, sustainable, and so on; I just reworded it and added that other element at the same time. That was the intent.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Thank you, Mr. Kamp.

Mr. Weston.

[John Weston, Conservative, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

I want to say that it's the first time I've heard the words of Mr. Kamp's amendment. But as I heard them, it struck me that if I thought of a 25-year-old university student at Whistler, or a 50-year-old single mom in West Vancouver, or other people I represent, they would readily agree with what I just heard, but they would probably take issue with several parts of what Gerry has proposed, mainly because they're not educated about it. They might disagree with “should continue for generations to come”, because we don't know what “generations to come” may bring us. They might agree it's humane, but think it could be more humane. They might say it's acceptable, but not fully acceptable.

In other words, there are many parts of Mr. Byrne's proposal, which we all agree with, that are more controversial than necessary. It seems to me that if we can reduce the controversial part and get something across that addresses the real problem—the real problem is that people want to stop Canadian products from crossing borders—and if we highlight that, we're more likely to generate a large degree of support for what we're doing in the House.

I think it's more than about getting a vote passed in the House, and Gerry, you're going to do that with this. I think it's about unifying Canadians as well. So I would support the proposed amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Mr. Byrne.

[Gerry Byrne, Liberal, Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I think Canadians, whether they live in the Gaspé, the Magdalen Islands, the north shore of P.E.I., or the northeast coast of Newfoundland on the northern peninsula, are looking for leadership from their parliamentarians and assurance that they understand the issue.

The term “beater” is used in the Fisheries Act. It's an actual term in the definitions in the Fisheries Act describing an age cohort. It's used by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans in our licence regulations.

No, I don't think soft-selling this issue is really what our sealers and our sealing communities want to hear. They want to hear that their parliamentarians understand the industry, understand the issue, are prepared to confront it head-on with fact, are not afraid to use language that's actually used and incorporated into the government's own documentation, the regulations, and the general description of the industry. They're looking to see whether we're prepared to endorse the rhetoric and the sloppy language of the animal activists or whether we're going to stand firm and tall with our sealers and our sealing communities to say this is wrong. These negative campaigns based on misinformation are all about misinformation. If the government itself uses the term “beater”, if fisheries officers use the term “beater”, what's next? Are we going to amend my motion by saying we want to hug baby seals, because baby seals are really what we are trying to protect? Why don't we incorporate “baby seals” into the motion? Exactly. Come on.

This is exactly how the hunt is prosecuted. It's done in a very humane, sustainable, and ethical way. It describes the industry, and having parliamentarians not shy away from that language, having parliamentarians not shy away from that fact, does more good for this industry. And that's exactly what our sealers want to hear: that we are not held captive to the false and misleading language of those who promote that Canada should stop killing baby seals.

I'm not going to put “baby seals” into my motion. I'm not going to take out the other language that is completely appropriate as well, because that's exactly how this industry is conducted. Having 12 parliamentarians stand up and say for the record that this is exactly what we stand for and that what has occurred in the past, what is occurring today, and what will occur in the future is solid, is humane, is ethical, is responsible, is sustainable, that's the way we need to go. If the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans won't even adopt that, well, if the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans and its members slink away from that, put in an amendment that we cuddle baby seals, while you're at it.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Mr. Byrne, you had a question in your previous intervention around the amendment being actually appropriate, as you thought it negated the intent of the motion. I have conversed with the clerk, and she advises me that the amendment is appropriate.

Mr. MacAulay.

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

It's unfortunate, then. I understood first, incorrectly, that Mr. Kamp intended to add it. I think it's most important that this committee endorse the seal hunt and indicate that it's fully acceptable and that it's humane. I think this motion was going to do a number of things, but unfortunately what we're into now is just going to cause difficulty.

If we do what Mr. Kamp has indicated he wants us to do here, I think we've destroyed the intent of the motion. Most people I represent, or all of them practically, oppose the seal hunt ban, understand the language of this motion and, I would think, want it fully supported by this committee. This day, seal hunters and the seal industry need our support, and what's in this motion fully does that. It does something for the committee too.

I think it's most unfortunate for the government to try to change the intent of this motion, and I disagree.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Thank you, Mr. MacAulay.

Monsieur Ouellet.

[Christian Ouellet, Bloc, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I think that this is an extremely important motion and that it needs to be passed today. It is truly very important for us to support sealers. The motion shouldn't be defeated because of a word, particularly since the word is quite acceptable in French. The problem only exists in the English version, not in the French.

I suggest that in the English, we put the French word in quotation marks. Consequently, we would not be using the word “beater”, only the French word, especially as most sealers are francophone. This would thereby respect Mr. Byrne and Mr. Kamp's ideas. Everybody would be happy.

I repeat, Mr. Chair, that it is important in my opinion for us to adopt this motion today with or without that word, since it must be adopted. It's important to our sealers. Without a seal hunt, there would be so many seals that we wouldn't know what to do with them anymore. It's essential, at a time when the meat could be used, which is wonderful and which is currently being lost.

This motion needs to pass. If Mr. Temp and Mr. Byrne agree, we could put the French word in the English text. The French word is quite acceptable, “brasseur” is not beater.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Monsieur Levesque.

[Yvon Lévesque, Bloc, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This is not a new situation. For many years, various Europeans have been making representations that, more often than not, are misleading. We have asked for expert opinions to ensure that the seals were being killed in a humane way and were not suffering too much. Obviously, when anything is killed...

Aside from a minor change in the hunt itself, all the arguments brought before the European Union referred to that situation and to these objections, and it was presented in that way. “Softening” a representation often signifies our backing down, a sense of guilt. I am putting the quotation marks because I am not sure that this is really a softer stance. However, we should not feel guilty about what has been done to us. We should not have to justify ourselves before our own citizens, who agree with us.

The motion being presented seeks to make known internationally that we intend to maintain our position and defend it. Furthermore, mention has been made of the fact that we want to file an appeal before the WTO and we are not alone: others want to intervene with us. To that end, we must maintain the attitude we have always had and continue to say that we are right in what we are doing and that it is acceptable. It is by demonstrating that we are sure that we are right that we will maintain our strength in international circles.

I am not directly opposed to Randy's motion, I think it is fine. I was already aware of the motion and I will continue to support it as it was originally introduced.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Mr. Weston is next, on a point of order.

[John Weston, Conservative, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

I am not sure what Mr. Lévesque just said. Is he supporting Mr. Kamp's amendment?

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

That's not a point of order, Mr. Weston.

[John Weston, Conservative, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Okay. I do have a point of order. If we pass this amendment, how does it get into the House? What do we with this?

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

This motion will be reported to the House, whether in its amended form or its original form.

[John Weston, Conservative, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Immediately.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

That will happen as soon as it's prepared.

Mr. Andrews.

[Scott Andrews, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have to say that I'm pretty disappointed with where I see this particular issue going.

With all due respect, Mr. Kamp, the words you've put around this are fine, and I think all of us agree with the words you have put there, because it is very important that we convey this message.

However, I don't understand, Mr. Chair, how you could allow a motion like this to substantially change what's before the committee. You've killed four lines of this motion explaining the seal hunt and its approved killing method, so I don't know why you won't take a little friendly amendment here to move your words, which you've said, down to the bottom, and furthermore, to add the words that you've added, because the words you had there are very important as well.

But to take away a motion that was put forward by my colleague here is ridiculous. It's ridiculous that you would do that for partisan reasons.

You look, you look, and you look at the word “harvest” and you look at the word “hunt”. These are all terms that we use in the seal industry. Depending on where you go, they like you to use the word “hunt” versus “harvest”. It's the way things happen on the ice.

There's the word “beater” as well. The seals are referred to this way because of the coat. There's actually that name for it: the raggedy-jacket. It's a white fur when they're losing it, and once they lose this jacket, that's the term they use. It's used for younger seals. It's the way we've been describing seals all along, and we shouldn't be afraid to tell it like it is. I don't understand why we want to soft-sell this.

Listen, we have to be honest and upfront with people. For too long now, we've been soft-selling this, and it has not gotten us anywhere in the world. Let's be honest and upfront with each other.

I like your words, I think they're great, but I think they can be added after the last semi-colon there. Furthermore, the committee agrees that we need to do this. I don't understand why you're trying to bring a soft sell to this.