Debates of May 11th, 2009

Fisheries and Oceans

[Raynald Blais, Bloc, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to raise a question of great significance to establishing a strategy for the present and for the future. It concerns an information and awareness program in Europe.

Does the member concur with me and other members that our main challenge, in addition to the demagoguery and disinformation of abolitionists, is to reach the population as a whole? The only means of achieving this is to mount an information and awareness campaign.

[The Speaker, Peter Milliken]

The hon. member must be brief.

[Mike Allen, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

I am working with this member on the fisheries committee, and he is right: At the end of the day, there is a tremendous amount of information out there, wrong as it is, that is against the harvest.

It is interesting what Rebecca Aldworth, no friend of the seal hunt, by the way, as members will know, said in her comments on May 5. She said:

The Canadian government used every trick in the book to try to derail the ban: massive lobbying, misinformation, and even threats of trade reprisals.

I think there has been a tremendous amount of effort from our parliamentarians, and on that front as well, which would suggest that there has been a tremendous amount of lobbying and information put out there. However, I would also say to this member: The information we are putting out there is correct, and hers is wrong.

[Rodney Weston, Conservative, Saint John, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague, the member for Tobique—Mactaquac, for sharing his time with me today on this very important issue.

I want again to state unequivocally that I support the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans and the statement that it made:

[T]he Canadian harp seal hunt is humane, responsible and sustainable and should continue for generations to come and the Committee strongly condemns the ban of Canadian seal products by the European Union.

I call on all Canadian parliamentarians to do the same.

Unfortunately, that will not be the case. Liberal Senator Mac Harb has already staked his ground on this issue and it is against the industry and against his fellow Canadians.

Senator Harb has chosen campaigns of fear, misinformation and emotional argument, over his fellow Canadians in the sealing industry. This is very disappointing but not entirely surprising.

Why is it not surprising? It is because this is an issue that the Leader of the Liberal Party has been silent on as well. He has not said a word, not one, none.

While the Leader of the Liberal Party has refused to tell the sealing industry what his position on the seal hunt is, his Liberal senator, Mac Harb, has run amok, working to destroy the sealing industry along with Canada's position and credibility internationally. The only person who can stop Mac Harb is the Leader of the Liberal Party, yet he has not done a thing.

For sealers in Newfoundland and Labrador and in Quebec, this must be tragically disappointing. For generations, sealing has been part of the fabric of Canada's east coast. All that these great men and women can do, who depend on the seal hunt for income, is watch the Liberal senator try to destroy their livelihood to make his European friends happy. After all, Senator Harb called these great Canadians barbaric. Shame on him!

I can tell the House that our government will do everything it can to deny Senator Harb any success on this issue. We are standing with the sealers and their families and we will be resolute in our support.

I am particularly disappointed with this ill-advised decision by the members of the European Union, because they know that it is the wrong decision. European parliamentarians are playing a political game with people's lives, fueled by misinformation and fact twisting by many people, such as Senator Harb. They know perfectly well that public opinion in Europe has been manipulated by radical animal rights organizations to the point where the public believes completely misleading and unfounded claims about Canada's seal hunt.

How do the members of the European Union know deep down that they made a wrong decision? We have told them. Over and over again we have told the European decision-makers that they are wrong to trust the information funnelled to them from Rebecca Aldworth and the Humane Society of the United States. We have repeatedly told them how the Canadian hunt is well managed and well regulated.

Sealers have come with us to talk about the importance of the hunt to their traditions and about how they respect the animals on which they depend for their livelihood and that of their families and their communities.

We have explained further that unilateral measures are not the answer and that the radical animal rights advocates will tell them anything to get this ban in place, whether it is true or not. However, European parliamentarians refuse to listen.

They refuse to listen because the environment has been poisoned by propaganda campaigns mounted by radical animal rights organizations. For over 40 years, radical animal rights organizations have maligned the Canadian sealing industry with vicious propaganda. The worst aspect is their myth about skinning seals alive.

In some circles, this myth is accepted as fact. Their multi-million dollar campaigns against the sealing industry spreads lies and propaganda to a point that no one familiar with the industry knows what is fact and what is fiction.

How do they do this? I will give an example. In 2002 and 2007, two radical animal rights organizations commissioned illegitimate studies on the seal hunt. These studies were in fact no such thing.

The participants went out to find what they were looking for, and lo and behold, they did. One concluded on the basis of an examination of 76--yes, that is right, 76 seals--that the hunt was inhumane.

Other scientists routinely examine thousands of skulls without arriving at such a conclusion. In fact, they conclude the opposite, that the Canadian seal hunt is humane.

The results of these so-called studies are now quoted routinely to perpetuate the myth that the Canadian seal hunt is inhumane. The written declaration of European Union parliamentarians use one of these studies to justify demanding a ban on seal products. Here is where the real irony comes in.

The European Food Safety Authority, which is the organization commissioned by the European commission to study animal welfare aspects of sealing, has said in no uncertain terms that the results of the so-called studies are not reliable. It said:

it is incorrect to conclude that 42% of the seals in the sample were skinned alive....

Further:

it is not appropriate to extrapolate from a small sample of 76 skulls collected in the Gulf of St. Lawrence over two days to all the animals killed during the entire hunt, which is conducted over several weeks....

Still the Europeans persist. They refuse to accept the opinions of their own experts. I do not understand it. It is beyond my comprehension.

At this point, I wish to thank my colleagues, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Minister of International Trade and the officials who have worked tirelessly to advocate for Canada on this most challenging of issues. I would particularly like to draw to everyone's attention the efforts of the Ambassador for Fisheries Conservation, Loyola Sullivan, whose record of achievement on this file is both extraordinary and commendable.

Our strenuous efforts to communicate with European decision-makers have included letters, telephone calls, delegations, speeches, an article in the European media, position papers and advertisements. We have written letters, and when I say “we”, I mean the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the Minister of International Trade, the Ambassador for Fisheries Conservation and the 28 ambassadors who represent Canada to the European Union and to the member states of the European Union.

We have written to our European counterparts. We have written to the members of the European Parliament. We invited key members to visit Canada. They did not come. Officials of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans emailed all 785 members of the European Parliament an advertisement we had placed in the European media. This was followed up by the diplomatic missions in the member states.

We have made telephone calls minister to minister, official to official. We have made interventions in meetings with European counterparts. Most notably, the Prime Minister has spoken to European presidents and prime ministers on several occasions. We have done everything possible to counter the movement to ban seal products in Europe.

I recently read an article containing an accusation made by some members of the European Parliament. They say that intimidation tactics were used in order to secure a vote in favour of a ban. Disturbing, yes; surprising, no. If this is true, it takes this matter to a whole new level.

These radicals and professional campaigners will do anything, and I mean anything, to achieve their misguided goals. They threaten; they intimidate; they use their vast resources to pound on an unsuspecting public their version of the truth.

What I say next I do not say lightly. These radical animal rights advocates, like Paul Watson from the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society, advocate the use of violence and terrorist-like tactics in their campaigns. For example, Watson said, “The fact is that we live in an extremely violent culture and we all justify violence if it's for what we believe in”.

In my society it does not. That quote goes to show how deluded and out of touch these people are.

Another is Jerry Vlasak, who has been outright banned from several countries. He is a cohort of Watson and is the biggest proponent of violence of any radical. He said, “You can justify, from a political standpoint, any type of violence you want to use”.

That is sick but yet another example of the kind of philosophy that drives these people. The sad thing is that deep down they all believe it to be true.

I read something that I found quite amusing, and I would like to share it with the hon. members today. During an interview—

[The Acting Speaker, Denise Savoie]

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member. He may be able to add some comments in response to questions and comments.

The hon. member for Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Madam Speaker, his last comment was “during an interview”. That is a very good way to end, because I can pick up on that.

On May 9, The Daily Telegraph, one of the largest papers in Great Britain, had an interview with the Leader of the Opposition. In this article, the leader of the Liberal Party said:

We look at the culling of deer in Scotland and wolves in Europe by farmers and find it very frustrating to see this reaction to a carefully regulated and managed cull here...“Europe’s inability or refusal to see the seal cull for what is smacks of hypocrisy and misunderstanding. “Paul McCartney, I love your music--but leave the seals to the people who know them. This is not marginal to us...

To me, that does not sound like not saying anything. This is one of the largest publications in Great Britain. Would he like to retract his statement about not saying anything, or would the hon. member from St. John agree with the leader of the Liberal Party of Canada in his assessment of just how well managed our hunt is?

[Rodney Weston, Conservative, Saint John, NB]

Madam Speaker, if the Leader of the Opposition made those statements, I retract my statement when I said that the member has sat silent on it.

As I said earlier, it takes all voices together. I call upon all parliamentarians to stand united and to take this issue to all Canadians to ensure they and Europeans understand how important this seal hunt is to the families in our communities and to the livelihoods of these families. It is so important that we all speak united today, and that is my point in this statement.

[Raynald Blais, Bloc, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like my colleague, who is chair of the committee and a member of this Parliament, to set aside his partisanship to the extent possible. I understand that one may be partisan to a certain extent; however, I have the impression that it can be readily modified.

In his speech, my colleague referred two or three times to Mac Harb in the span of a few minutes. However, he is but one senator and I have had the opportunity to meet with him to try to make him understand certain things. I learned that Senator Harb wanted his five minutes of glory and he got them. But that is enough and that is the end of it.

Starting now, what strategy would my colleague advise that the government and others adopt to counter the enormous challenge posed by 30 years of demagoguery and misinformation?

[Rodney Weston, Conservative, Saint John, NB]

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague is quite right. We sit on the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans together. I want to point out very clearly that I appreciate the position of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans and how clear it has been in its commitment to the seal hunt.

As parliamentarians in the House, it is very important that we clearly demonstrate this. That is what this debate is about today. We need to show Europeans and the world beyond our borders how important it is that we stand united on this point. Parliamentarians have taken that bold step. We passed the motion unanimously, condemning the action of the European Union. It is very important that we remain united, go forward united and come up with a plan to challenge this.

The Prime Minister is very convinced in his strategy to go to the World Trade Organization. There has been great leadership by our ministers. I believe we are on the right track, but staying united is number one.

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

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor.

My remarks are reflected very well and very strongly by all members, especially Liberal members from Newfoundland and Labrador, including the members for St. John's South—Mount Pearl, Avalon, Random—Burin—St. George's as well as Labrador. My colleague from Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor will be offering his perspectives.

Obviously there can be certain confusion around this issue. The seal hunt was first prosecuted by Europeans. The seal hunt provided the oil for industry of Europe. It not only provided the entire capacity for the streets of London to be lit at night, but it created millions and millions of dollars, pounds, marks or whatever European currency in wealth. The seal hunt was created by Europeans and had its foundations, but the seal hunt that we know was prosecuted well before that by first nations, by our aboriginal peoples, for food, social and ceremonial purposes and for the necessities of life. This industry is founded in sustainability. It has also provided untold wealth for the Europeans who first exploited it, those who now judge it.

There can understandably be some confusion in the European position. The fact is the position taken by the European Parliament, and Canadians and European parliamentarians need to understand this, provides an exemption for a continuing ongoing cull of seals for no food, social or ceremonial purpose and for no commercial purpose whatsoever within Europe.

In Sweden, for example, 35,000 grey seals will be culled because of their impact on some other aspect of the local ecosystem. They will be culled and thrown into the ocean, not used for food, for commerce or any particular purpose other than the strict purpose of a cull. The European Parliament has fully endorsed that position.

One can understand that there is certain confusion coming out of Europe, when we consider the fact that 70 million rabbits will be hung up by the back legs in France. While they are still very much alive, their throats will be slit and they will be bled out.

Other practices in the Faroe Islands, where it is a rite of passage to manhood for young men to slaughter countless numbers of whales, is fully sanctioned and condoned by the European Union.

One can understand the frustration that wells in the heart of anyone who comes from a sealing community or whose family depends on a sealing income to put food on the table and to make ends meet.

We need to get down to what the seal hunt truly is. It is a fully sustainable harvest, conducted humanely, not judged by the MP for Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, but judged so by an international committee on veterinarian scientists.

In terms of the sustainability of this industry, the World Wildlife Fund, the WWF, on its website says that at a population in excess of 5.5 million harp seals, at which the population currently stands, there are no sustainability issues that it questions.

For those who deem an income from this activity, it allows them an opportunity to create wealth and food and to market a product at no consequence. There is no pollution that comes from this industry. It is done in complete balance with the ecosystem. It produces a fully sustainable, natural product. This is a good industry, but those who promote against it are mis-intentioned.

Even Paul Watson, head of the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society, in an interview not too long ago, criticized the IFAW. He criticized Greenpeace. He said that it went after this issue as if it were an environmental issue. He said, in no uncertain terms, that this had nothing to do with the environment, that this was not about the colour green of the environment, it was about the colour green of money.

Paul Watson is acknowledging that this has nothing to do with the environment, that this is not an argument of merit, this is an argument about making money for organizations that promote against it. He criticized the International Fund for Animal Welfare. He criticized Greenpeace. He asked why it doing this, why it was misplacing so much emphasis and energy on communicating something which is not an environmental issue. He said, in answer to his own question, “It's because they are making millions of dollars off of it”, and he criticized that. He said real issues facing the environment, like the situation of turtles off the coast of Mexico or endangered fish stocks in other parts of the world, would lose attention because of the efforts, the activities and the false propaganda put forward by the International Fund for Animal Welfare, the Greenpeace society and others at that time.

Guess who is one of the leading forefronts of that misinformation that he, himself, acknowledged? Paul Watson. I guess the money is just a little too tempting.

One can understand what the frustrations are and where they are sourced. The Europeans themselves do not believe in what they are doing. The European Union has been very misguided. It has shown an immaturity by not listening to the facts. It is a young, fledgling democracy.

One has to communicate that very deliberately to the European Union, because it did not listen to the international veterinary scientists who formed a committee, who studied this issue and who came to the conclusion that the Canadian harp seal harvest was very much a sustainable harvest. It did not listen to organizations like the World Wildlife Fund, which said that this was a very sustainable harvest. It did not listen to the organizations that have a true stake in this.

I do not know what the European parliamentarians listened to, but they certainly did not listen to the truth. They listened to something else and that is very disturbing, especially as we enter a very sensitive and important time for Canadian interests in Europe.

The Prime Minister was recently in Prague, where he announced that we would formally engage in a fleshing out the Canada-European free trade agreement. The Prime Minister said that while the seal hunt was important to him, it was not worth jeopardizing or poisoning the Canada-EU talks.

A very well-read and well-reasoned commentator, Rex Murphy, recently said this about the Prime Minister's comments. He said that if the seal hunt was not worth jeopardizing Canada-EU trade for Canada, why was it worth jeopardizing Canada-EU trade for the European Union? If the European Union was prepared to engage in illegal trade activity at the very dawn of potential Canada-EU free trade talks, how valuable does it see the Canadian trading relationship? That is exactly what it should have done.

The Prime Minister should have communicated that to his European colleagues, not only on that occasion but on the occasion of the G20 summit. The G20 met in Europe not too long ago, on April 1 and 2. The purpose of the G20 summit was to ensure that G20 member states did not engage in any trade activity or practice that could jeopardize lawful trading activity. If they invoked illegal trade bans or trade barriers, it could cause the world to cascade into further recession if not depression.

While our Prime Minister was attending that G20 summit just weeks ago with his European colleagues, the Chancellor of Germany, the Prime Minister of Great Britain, the President of France, the ink was drying on the draft EU legislation that would basically create an illegal trade activity.

Action must be taken. Every tool must be used by the government to combat this illegal ban. The government needs to do more, and we will continue to press the government to do so.

[Randy Kamp, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans]

Madam Speaker, the fisheries critic for the Liberal Party speaks with great passion on this. I know he comes from Newfoundland, where this hits closer to home than for those of us from British Columbia, for example. I appreciate his sharing in this way.

What we were waiting for was a statement from his leader before the vote of the EU Parliament and a comment about the position of one of his caucus members. We thought that was a reasonable expectation.

The member ended his speech by saying he is going to press the government to do more. I would like to give him the opportunity to flesh that out a bit. What advice does he have for us? What does he think we should be doing from this point on?

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

Madam Speaker, one thing that could show a sign of hope and good faith to the sealers from the northeast coast of Newfoundland and Labrador to the northern peninsulas of Labrador is to make good on a promise.

Fishermen face severe circumstances, such as a lack of employment and a lack of income due to the ice conditions found on those shores. Almost all of them are sealers. The Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development promised that she would provide adequate and appropriate compensation, income support to those fishermen. That would be a great place to start.

However, another great place to start would be at the European Union. We need to say loudly and forcefully in the midst of the Canada-EU free trade talks that beginning these talks in the wake of an illegal trade ban by the European Union does not serve the cause of collaboration and bilateralism very well. Our Prime Minister needs to say that.

[Raynald Blais, Bloc, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Madam Speaker, the question is quite simple. I will ask it outright because I believe that it is the key to success in this matter.

As long as Europeans or others who wish to listen hear only demagoguery and misinformation, there is a huge risk. We have arrived at a crossroads with respect to the 2010 season and subsequent hunts but, at the same time, we see that for some 30 years there has been no response or rebuttal. There was no message about the seal hunt other than the abolitionists' misinformation and demagoguery.

Does my colleague agree that we must reach these people because it is the key to success and the truth?

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

Madam Speaker, I would truly like to thank my colleague from Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine for his leadership and input and involvement in this particular issue. Coming from a sealing riding himself, he understands the task we all face. He also understands many of the solutions.

Categorically, the answer is yes. We need to triple the efforts to get the correct message out. We need to counter the negative, incorrect, factually misleading messages that have been put forward by certain animal rights activists in their quest for dollars from people who accept the misinformation. I am sure those people can indeed accept the truth once it is offered to them.

We need to do more, but we certainly have a wonderful opportunity ahead of us, if we use it correctly. If the European Union genuinely wants to engage in more free, legal, rules-based trade with Canada, they can start immediately. They can be told by our government that the trade ban on Canadian seal products is deemed by every international trade expert to be illegal. It is contrary to the G20 summit declaration, contrary to the best interests of the world economy, and it must not be allowed to continue. That could happen now.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Madam Speaker, I thank the House for giving me the opportunity to speak today. I would also like to thank my colleague from Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte for sharing his time with me. I look forward to all the questions and comments from my colleagues in the House as we stand united on this issue.

One of the topics my colleague brought up was the history of the seal harvest and how it dates back centuries ago.

The genesis of the animal rights protest groups several decades ago was the IFAW, the International Fund for Animal Welfare. A lot of these protest groups are situated in Great Britain. I find it somewhat ironic that many centuries ago one of the main reasons for harvesting seals was to get the oil from the carcass to light the street lamps of London. More of these details can be found in a book called The Ice Hunters, by Dr. Shannon Ryan. Anyone who is interested in this topic should pick up a copy of this book. It provides great detail on the past.

Speaking of history and tradition, I received word today about a group in the town of Elliston that is hoping to have a seal hunters' museum in the northeast end of the town. That was a makeshift area for dealing with many people who died during the harvest.

When the harvest took place years ago, much larger boats were used. People would sign up to go out on these large schooners. We have heard countless tales of tragedy on the ice. There is one celebrated book called Death on the Ice, which talks about sealers who were stranded on the open water. They died, mostly due to exposure. The stories and traditions will continue.

We heard countless hours of debate in the House last week on this very same issue. We have come to the realization that seal hunting is a basic pillar of the history and tradition of the east coast of Newfoundland and Labrador in particular, but for other areas as well, such as Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine and Nunavut.

This started with the Council of Europe, in Strasbourg, France. A motion was delivered to its home nations banning the importation of seal products derived from the harvesting of seals. By doing so the council hoped to discontinue the harvest that takes place in Canada.

The odd part is that the wording in the motion dealt with Canada. Canada was being singled out. Right away, we could smell the politics in this, because the council did not seem to be picking on its own. There is evidence today that Russia still hunts white coat seals, which we abandoned in 1987. Norway also has a seal harvest. It has one for tourists as well. People can pay their money and harvest seals without any training whatsoever. Yet all this was seemingly absent from the debate that started in Europe.

There was miscommunication, or blatant misrepresentation in many cases, on the part of the animal rights group. It seemed that the politicians really wanted to go after Canada on this issue.

That brings us to the European Union, which has put forward something from the European Commission telling it how to deal with this issue. Some of my government colleagues have brought up the names of some organizations that brought this situation to the fore in Europe, such as EFSA, the European Food Safety Authority. It made some recommendations whereby seal products could be banned if they were harvested inhumanely, but evidence must be provided upon which the decision is made.

This was brought forward to members of the European Parliament, where the internal markets committee took over. Belgium and the Netherlands had already started their own ban. Something has also been tabled recently in Germany. They needed to have pan-European legislation regulating seal products for all 27 nations.

In this particular case, they put it to a vote in the House. But before that, they went to the committee. The internal markets committee, the rapporteur of this report, suggested that they do labelling and that they allow the importation of seal products that were harvested humanely. Lo and behold, there was one particular member of the European Parliament, from Denmark, who enlisted the support of 20 of the 27 committee members to overturn that exemption and have an outright ban, with one exception for a small hunt for the Inuit.

The lawyers then became involved in the European Union. The legal counsel of the internal markets committee told them that if they did this they would face a challenge. As my hon. colleague from the west coast of Newfoundland pointed out, it is illegal. They told him point blank that this was an illegal ban.

The member from Denmark stated in the committee, “No, it is not about trade or legalities. This is a moral issue, and this is a political issue”. Why is it a political issue? Because come early June, the members of the European Parliament have elections. The irony is that they accuse us of playing politics with it. Well, this is pure and simple politics.

My colleague pointed out what Rex Murphy said, which was a very valid point. If the onus is on us to say we should not be talking about this now because it might upset European trade talks, maybe that is a question they should have asked themselves. We are not the ones throwing this in jeopardy; they are.

Why is it always about Canada? I will go on record, right here, right now, and say that we have the most regulated, humane seal harvest, mammal harvest in the world. Yet, we are the target of the animal rights groups, always.

That is the issue we come down to. That is why we have to make a point of saying that enough is enough and now we will turn the light around. We should say to the European Union, “So, exactly what do you harvest? What about those wolves that you cull? What about the fact that you harvest over 30,000 grey seals in Sweden?” What about the fact that there are so many of what they call “nuisance species” around the world that they cull for the sake of getting rid of them? If they kill wolves because there are too many wolves and it upsets the population, what do they do with the wolf when it dies? What happens to that carcass?

Nobody asks these questions. If we went to Barcelona and watched a bull fight, chances are that bull will die at the end of that particular event. What happens to that bull? Has anybody asked?

Where is Paul McCartney asking about this? Where is Brigitte Bardot? I do not see Brigitte Bardot showing up in the middle of a bull ring, maybe because she is smart, but she does not appear. Yet time and time again she returns to the ice floe.

Why is this place a target? It is time for us to take the spotlight, take the target, and shine it there. They told me that sometimes that argument does not work, but what is working? I implore all members of the House to look at this issue and refocus.

Biodiversity is addressed in the United Nations, and it is something we adhere to as part of the seal harvest. For instance, clause 3 of the United Nations convention on biological diversity recognizes that “sovereign right of states to exploit their own resources in accordance with their environmental policies”.

That is the United Nations. The United Nations will say yes to this because we have adhered to all the principles by which a sustainable harvest can be maintained. Yet we find ourselves on the defensive.

Let us broaden this argument. Let us say to the world that it should harvest animals for the sake of biodiversity. Let us set the rules straight. If they do not want to harvest animals, then there is no argument here. But they do, and there is an argument. We are being singled out.

I want to thank the members of this House for allowing me to speak. I want to thank the government side as well as the opposition, who are united in this particular cause.

[Mike Allen, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for the history on this because he has a tremendous amount of knowledge on how this has evolved over time.

We have talked about the humaneness and the ecodiversity. One of the things the Europeans talked about was, putting aside the Inuit, still allowing by labelling and allowing that to come in when in fact everybody who practises the seal hunt in Canada uses the same methods.

Would the member comment on the hypocrisy and ludicrousness of that statement?

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Madam Speaker, the member raises a very good point.

I will illustrate it with a quick story. We had a meeting in Ottawa with members of the European parliament. At the time, I said that to absolutely negate the seal hunt that takes place on the east cost of the country is wrong.

This is really important to Newfoundland and Labrador, Quebec's east coast, and the Magdalen Islands.

I asked him whether he felt that tradition played into this, our tradition of a commercial seal harvest on the east coast. He said that he would not argue about traditions in the European Union because there were a lot of traditions that it was trying to get rid of. I told him to wait a minute. I said that the European Union had made an exemption for the Inuit based on tradition alone.

We understand what the European Union is saying about Inuit traditions and, absolutely, that should be enshrined in this as an exemption. However, what about our exemption as well? The hypocrisy runs so deep. I thank my hon. colleague for pointing that out because it is a very valid point of just how twisted this European political argument has become.

[Raynald Blais, Bloc, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Madam Speaker, I had the opportunity to participate in a mission to Europe with the Liberal member who just spoke. Any time we talked to Europeans or to parliamentarians, it was scary to see how deeply their thinking had been contaminated. Here is an example. Recently, the Magdalen Islands community radio station talked to a Swiss journalist. The journalist said that the seal hunt, as practised in Quebec and Canada, was senseless because the hunters killed the animals with hammers and baseball bats and so on. He had no idea about tradition and the hakapik. The grandstanding and disinformation persist even though we have been trying to get the truth out for years.

This goes to show that we will have to conduct a massive campaign. Does the member agree?

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Madam Speaker, I am glad my hon. colleague raised that point. When he and I were in Paris, we made what we thought was a compassionate argument. The word “barbarians” was thrown around. However, some members of parliament who were there expressed concern and asked that another look be taken at what we do. We cull animals. In other words, we take nuisance species out of the population. How do we do it? Nobody knows.

I do not know if the member remembers, but one British member of parliament actually stated to the rapporteur, “You know, in my park in my constituency, in my riding, we kill deer. I don't know how we do it, but if we ran into this park with clubs and started clubbing them to death, we'd probably have a big situation on our hands”. Maybe that is what they do. They just do not know.

However, I want to talk about the hakapik. Even the Independent veterinarians' group has stated that the hakapik is a humane way of hunting. When we talk about the Europeans using this, a small part of the hunting population does use hakapiks, but at the same time it has been proven to be humane.

We must remember that these animal rights groups want to eliminate the hunt, period. It has nothing to do with the type of mechanism. It will keep using words likes “hammers” and “baseball bats” and it is absolutely ludicrous.

[Raynald Blais, Bloc, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Madam Speaker, once again, the seal hunt is at the forefront of our debate here in the House of Commons. I say once again, but at the same time, I would like to say how disappointed I am that we are here today to talk about a decision that was just made in Europe. Yet everyone recognizes—and even some European parliamentarians recognize—that the decision was made based on the demagoguery and misinformation that has been circulating for some 30 years.

That is why people in my riding are extremely disappointed and frustrated by what is happening. People are perhaps even beginning to wonder if they too should not boycott Europe and cancel our planned trips, boycott French wine and Spanish wine, and so on, because what is going on right now is so appalling.

These people are parliamentarians who, like us, were elected and who will soon be heading to the polls. The elections begin on June 4. In fact, that is one of the major problems. They are going into an election, and are in pre-election mode. I do not think it is the same situation as here, or that these parliamentarians need to stand up and declare whether they agree with a certain measure or not.

I have a feeling it is just an automatic reflex—as some would say—and people are therefore becoming somewhat insensitive, but above all, oblivious to the decision that was just made in Europe. It is disappointing, it is frustrating and it is appalling that a Parliament, and one that is so young, has made such a decision.

Ultimately, it is a black eye in its history. That Parliament has made a decision based on the prevailing misinformation and demagoguery, and those who want the ban have considerable financial backing. They are highly intelligent, but they are using their intelligence for the wrong cause and they are consciously using it for destructive, and not constructive purposes. People in my riding are furious and I do not blame them one bit.

Now, how should we behave towards a parliamentarian who consciously decides to vote in favour of banning and boycotting seal products based on misinformation and demagoguery?

That is exactly what is happening, and that is why I feel it is important today to look at how all this has come about. We can use a scholarly word, anthropomorphism, which, in much simpler terms, means humanizing animals. People have succeeded in humanizing seals to the point where we talk about the “baby seal” and the “mother seal”. If this goes any further we will be talking about the father, the cousins and the extended family. It is as silly as that. It is also as dangerous as that.

People have succeeded in humanizing an animal to such a degree that they have aroused sympathy. Those who have seen whitecoats will agree that they are extremely cute. They are very cute, just as calves, lambs or even chickens could be considered cute. But we must not forget that we eat these animals. This is what is happening. We have gotten to this point because of a cute image and experts in demagoguery and disinformation who have the means to sway public opinion.

Speaking of means, the 2007 financial statements of the IFAW and the Humane Society show that these international organizations each raised $100 million U.S. in donations from individuals.

They make this money available to people who earn good salaries. Rebecca Aldworth, one of the people we have to fight, says anything and is a real liar about what is happening at present. I had the opportunity to tell her to her face what I think, and I called her a liar. We are at the point where we must no longer handle these people with kid gloves. We have to agree to say things to their face convincingly, but also respectfully.

I have no problem debating someone who feels that seal hunting makes no sense or that the hunt is not good and should be discontinued. That is an intelligent sort of debate. I am willing to respect someone who tells me that they are a vegetarian who does not eat meat and that they are against the hunt on those grounds. I respect them because I sense in their attitude and in what they say that they respect me as well and that they respect tradition.

This is a tradition, especially in the Magdalen Islands, the riding and the people I represent. I expect it is the same for people in Quebec, Labrador and Newfoundland, not to mention the Inuit of the far north. The seal hunt did not start all of a sudden just a few years ago because sealskin or fur became popular. Magdalen Islanders have been hunting seal for over 300 years. It is ancestral, traditional, perhaps even genetic. People have made that very clear to me.

I had a chance to participate, but I have not yet hunted seal. Perhaps I will do so one day to show my support. The end of March symbolizes a time of renewal for these people. The ice moves, and people know that spring is on its way. Spring in early April means fishing for shrimp. Then, in early May, people fish for lobster, crab and groundfish. It is traditional. Historically, seals and other animals were hunted for their meat and fur, but also for seal oil, which has various uses. Later on, I will talk more about things that can be done now that were not done historically, things that suggest the seal hunt can be viewed not only from the perspective of tradition and ancestral rights, but from another perspective too.

About thirty years ago, some visitors arrived with poor intentions but with a very good sense of spectacle. The people who experienced this told me about it. The visitors asked seal hunters in the Magdalen Islands if they could photograph and film them in action. To ensure that the action was vivid enough, they asked the hunters to hit the animals several times and, even if the animal was dead, to continue hitting it with the hakapik. By the way, a hakapik is a club with a hook that is not used to kill the animal. It is used by the hunter to protect himself when on the ice and also to drag the carcass to the boat. There is another projection on the opposite side from the hook.

It is a piece of rectangular iron that is not very thick and is used to crush the seal's skull so that the animal suffers as little as possible. It is designed for that purpose. Although using a rifle may seem easier and cleaner, would you use one on a boat? The ocean causes the boat to rock, making it difficult to hit the target.

The hakapik is a heritage tool still used in the Magdalen Islands. I have described how it is used. At that time, the hunter had already killed the animal. He was being filmed and they asked him to strike some additional blows. These same images were used in Brigitte Bardot's first campaign. The person who asked the hunter to appear in the film knew very well why he asked the hunter to hit the seal again. It was to make the hunt seem savage and cruel and to imply that the hunter was striking the animal again simply to vent his frustration or who knows for what other reason. It created a very bad image. That was the image used by Brigitte Bardot to launch her campaign against the hunt. That is the same image we have seen over and over again.

Recently, in 2007, the famous Rebecca Aldworth, whom I mentioned earlier, also showed up on the ice off the Magdalen Islands to take pictures. At one point, she saw a bloody seal that was not yet dead. For 20 minutes, she filmed that suffering animal, never thinking for a second to put an end to its agony by killing it.

The very same abolitionists, the very same people who condemn cruelty, used pictures, and because they needed those pictures, they acted cruelly. We need to remember that as well. That is part of the game. These people are willing to do anything.

The seal hunt is like an open-air abattoir. Do I need to say it again? I defy anyone who visits that abattoir to tell me he or she loved it, unless that person is cold-blooded and lacking common sense. That is what is happening at present. The hunt is an open-air abattoir, which makes it very difficult for us to fight these people with pictures, especially when they will use anything in any way they can just to get money from people who, when they see these pictures, say that the hunt makes no sense.

This is what we are up against, and it has been going on for 30 years, since the 1970s. That is where we are at. Today, the abolitionists are claiming victory. I feel they are claiming victory on the basis of demagoguery and disinformation. I have always said, and I will say it again, that one day the truth will prevail. That is the only way to deal with this situation. For the truth to prevail, it must be known and recognized. That is why we must engage in a huge information and promotion campaign in Europe and elsewhere. We must not forget that the United States has the Marine Mammal Protection Act, which states that the harp seal is an endangered species.

Yet, in 1970, there were 2 million harp seals, compared to about 6 million now. The species is not in danger, as the numbers show. These numbers were not made up. They are the result of a scientific analysis. In fact, those numbers may be even higher, because we are just talking about the harp seal, the one that is currently being killed and which is the subject of campaigns.

However, we do not hear as much about the grey seal, which is two to three times bigger, which eats more, and which is present in our rivers. Indeed, the grey seal is now present in our rivers, where we also find salmon and trout. This is what is happening right now. That same grey seal eats lobster and crab. In fact, it loves good food. I have no problem with that, but let us just say that there are a few too many of them. For example, it will often eat only part of a cod, because it likes that part better than the rest.

Personally, I love cod. I am the son of a fisher and cod is in my genes. It tastes very good, from head to tail, and it can be cooked in various ways.

Both the grey seal and the harp seal are big eaters. They do not eat peanuts or whatever: they eat products from the sea. Grey seals, which are a lot bigger, reproduce in very large numbers. I saw some of them not that long ago—last year—and I photographed them. There were about 30 grey seals, positioned very close to a fish plant, waiting to eat what was left from the processing, and also eating what was available in the water.

Seal can be eaten in various forms, such as rillettes and terrines, or it can be smoked. It is delicious. It can also be prepared in a number of ways. I even had the opportunity to eat it as a hamburger. I thought it did not make sense, because a hamburger is not seal, but it was just as tasty. So, it can be eaten.

We also know that the fur can be used. I did not bring the seal fur hat that I wear very proudly when our committee examines this issue. That hat is very useful when it rains.

Furthermore, research is currently being done on the heart valves of seals that could eventually help cure heart disease. A group of Greek doctors came to the Magdalen Islands and they successfully treated the valves in question in a clinical environment and used them on animals. Initial experiments have proven very successful and very positive. There is also the collagen factor.

Indeed, the seal hunt as an ancestral activity is not an activity like any other that can be easily replaced by something else. When Paul McCartney came to the Magdalen Islands, he said that if we gave these fishermen money, they would find something else to do.

First of all, in order to properly understand, seal hunters are fishermen who do not do it simply for the money, but also because of tradition, and because these are the first signs of spring, the first signs of marine life. For them, it is extremely important. They even go hunting in extremely difficult and dangerous conditions. The hunt went well this year. It was relatively easy, because seals were found just off the coast of the Magdalen Islands. People could even travel on foot to do their hunting, but that is not the case every year.

Sometimes the conditions are extremely difficult and dangerous, as I said. Now we have this decision by the European Parliament based solely on demagoguery and misinformation. This decision hurts; it is disappointing and extremely frustrating. That is why we must challenge this decision as aggressively as possible here in the House of Commons and elsewhere.

[The Acting Speaker, Denise Savoie]

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, Foreign Affairs; the hon. member for Hull—Aylmer, Public Service of Canada; the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, the Economy.

[Keith Martin, Liberal, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Madam Speaker, I must say that the issues affecting the Maritimes are much larger challenges, not the least of which is the destruction taking place within our seas of a wide range of fish and marine mammals. In fact, we know that the vast majority of marine mammals in the world are in danger of extinction. Most of the great whales are in danger of extinction and many of them live off the east coast of Canada. We have the northern right whales and the bowhead whales in the Arctic. We have a range of shark species that are on the brink of extinction. In fact, we have seen a massive decline in shark populations and large fish species in general.

With the destruction of our seas that is happening now, we are having dead seas. Huge sections in the oceans of the world are essentially dead, and it is getting larger. The seas are the key to life, not only in the oceans but also on land. As the species that live in the sea die, so will the species on land follow suit. This is something we need to understand very clearly. Many factors are affecting this, such as pollution and climate change, climate change being an enormous contributor to this.

Does my colleague not believe that his party should work with other parties, including the Liberal Party of Canada, in applying pressure on the government for an integrated response to tackle the death rate taking place in our oceans today, a response that includes Environment Canada, Foreign Affairs, International Development and Industry Canada, basically a whole of government approach?

[Raynald Blais, Bloc, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question and his comment.

I am under the impression that he just read one of the speeches that I made in committee or elsewhere on the Atlantic seal hunt. Indeed, any action or strategy regarding this issue must be unanimous, vigorous, rigorous and widespread. We cannot face this challenge without looking at the whole picture.

We have to keep in mind the issue of climate change and the fact that we are wondering what is going to happen to our marine resources. Will they be affected by these changes? How? Are there species at risk because ocean currents are changing, and so on?

A biologist from Rimouski, Jean-Claude Brêthes, who is a former chairman or member of the Fisheries Resource Conservation Council, once said that there are currently 6 million harp seals, which is the kind that is hunted. This is the only marine species that is not currently monitored. It eats whatever it wants, and it is not accountable to anyone. No one is watching what is going on right now. We do not know how much this species eats. It is an uncontrolled species that does what it wants to meet its needs. That is why we must try to control or stop all this, while respecting the Atlantic seal hunt, which is a traditional activity.

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

Madam Speaker, we hear the solidarity of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans respecting oceans and sustainability and understanding that is the key to be able to create wealth and income in the future.

I want to piggyback on the question of my colleague from Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca. The government indicates that there are seven million harp seals and this population is growing. It appears that Canada is doing its part. We do not participate in a whaling program, such as whaling harvests, as do certain European countries or Japan. We certainly do not condone preying upon endangered species as the European community often does. We certainly do not condone or support harvesting 35,000 grey seals for the purpose of a cull.

We also do not condone sending rogue fleets from Europe over to Somalia to prey upon the lawlessness of irresponsible fishing by certain European fleets off the coast of Africa. It seems to be very significantly damaging not only to the fish stocks but to Europe's reputation to be a steward of the oceans.

Would the member be able to comment on that?

[Raynald Blais, Bloc, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Madam Speaker, no one can lecture anyone on how to fish, especially not the Europeans. There used to be a species that was very prevalent off the Magdalen Islands' coasts. That species was the walrus and it has disappeared because of the British, from England, who came and hunted it off the coast of the Magdalen Islands, to the point where it was exterminated very quickly.

So, we have to be very cautious with the ecosystem in which we live. Furthermore, the Atlantic seal hunt is conducted and controlled in a way that fully respects the principles of sustainable development.