Debates of May 5th, 2009

Seal Hunt

[Judy Foote, Liberal, Random—Burin—St. George's, NL]

Mr. Chair, it is interesting to be part of this debate tonight and to listen to the various opinions being put forward.

I think about the 6,000 sealers, those in Newfoundland and Labrador, who are impacted by this decision by the EU. I can only imagine what they are going through, having their livelihood taken away like that. They are people who have been sealing for years and years, resulting in a contribution to the economy of Newfoundland and Labrador of about $70 million annually. It is gone.

We have to ask why. What happened to it? Why did the EU take this decision? Why would they take such a punitive measure against Canada and Canadians?

I listened to my colleagues on the government side talking about what the Ambassador for Fisheries Conservation has done, or what the Minister of Foreign Affairs has done, what the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans has done and, yes, what the Prime Minister has done. I have to ask why they were not effective.

Why did this decision come down from the EU? We know only too well that no matter how much we talk about trying to change it, once a decision has been taken it is going to be much harder to turn it around.

Why does my colleague think that the government was ineffective, resulting in the EU putting a ban on the seal hunt?

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Mr. Chair, first of all, I do not think this is over yet and that we are just at a wake here. First reading has been given to this bill. and I do not think we should give up.

Someone asked me today if I thought the government had done enough. My answer was obviously not, because if it had done enough this would not have happened.

It goes back to the question that my colleague opposite asked: what advice do I have about changing the hearts and minds of the people of Europe? It is pretty obvious. We have to communicate with them. It obviously has not been done enough to convince their parliamentarians that they should have a more balanced view, that they should recognize that Canada is doing a lot to advance the cause of a proper hunt, with proper numbers and scientific evidence and ensuring the precautionary principle.

That obviously has worked. Canada has by its methods and efforts increased the seal population from 1.5 million seals in 1971, to 5.6 million or more today. Obviously this is not about sustainability. This is not about saving an endangered species. This is about something else.

I would venture to say that not one European in five hundred knows that the population of seals has increased by three or four times in the last 30 years. That is because the government has not told them.

[David Tilson, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Mr. Chair, I want to congratulate the member for his excellent criticism and contradiction of the illegalities of this resolution.

However, there is one item that really has not been discussed very much, and that is the exemption with respect to the resolution of the banning of the marketing of seal products. It is permitted only where the seal products result from hunts traditionally conducted by Inuit and other indigenous communities. What does that mean? Does that mean they can perform their hunts and sell their products? Who are they going to sell them to?

Secondly and more importantly, it is okay, according to the European Union, for the Inuit to get into this business, but it is not okay for any other Canadians who live in the maritime provinces. It is only that one category. Is that, dare I say, racist?

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Madam Chair, who do they think they are? They are not deciding whether Inuit people in Canada should be allowed to continue to hunt seals for their own use, for sustenance, for looking after their clothing needs, their food and all that goes with it. They have said as long as this is not happening for commercial reasons.

They may have made an exemption, but the exemption is not for commercial trading. The exemption proposes to recognize that it is okay for them to hunt by traditional methods. At the very least, it certainly is patronizing.

So my answer to the member is who do they think they are? They do not have control over what goes on in this country. They are trying to say they will not allow any marketing of these products, but they permit people to carry these products with them while they are travelling.

It is very patronizing at the very least. I would not go so far as to say it is racist, but it certainly is patronizing, and it has no place in a European parliament. I think they have got it wrong. Efforts ought to be made to ensure that the public of Europe is told that they have it wrong and that their national governments ought not to follow it; they should oppose it.

[Gerald Keddy, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade]

Madam Chair, this is an extremely important debate and one for which I have been on my feet many times in the House, as well as many of the other members here tonight.

Several times we have gone off on partisanship and partisan rants and I do not see any reason to stray from that. There is a couple of places where the record needs to be corrected. I have been listening to my Liberal colleagues say that somehow this happened since 2006. I have been here since 1997 and we worked hard to bring this to the fisheries committee and to the House but it did not happen. It did not happen in 2000 nor in 2001. We worked hard to have the voice of the sealers in Atlantic Canada heard in the Parliament of Canada, and it was not easy. It happened because of goodwill from every party here, primarily from the fish committee. That is a fact.

We just cannot say that the Tories took power in 2006, that this is an issue and what will we do. It is not that simple. This is a very complex issue. It is like saying that if the Liberals had stayed in government, we would not have global warming. It is like saying that if the Liberals had stayed in power, we would not have a global recession. We know that is nonsense. Trying to blame the intervention by the European Union on this government is the same thing.

I was here in 2006 as chair of the fish committee and I will tell the House about the Liberal record. In 2006, when we formed the government, up to that point there had never been a coordinated meeting, not one meeting, by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans or the Department of Foreign Affairs. The hon. member for Central Nova was the minister of foreign affairs at the time and he helped coordinate the first meeting ever between Fisheries and Oceans, Foreign Affairs, International Trade and Indian Affairs and Northern Development. It needed to be done and it was the right thing to do.

It was the same way when the former minister of fisheries appointed Loyola Sullivan as the international ambassador for fisheries. It needed to be done. Mr. Sullivan has in turn visited all 27 countries in the European Union and lobbied every one of those members on this issue. That does not mean the issue was solved or that we won the battle, but we did our job and we will continue to do our job, which means finding allies where we can find allies, and that means intelligent, rational debate in the House.

I was with one of the former Liberal ministers of fisheries at the NAFO meeting and I did not hear one word about seals. I do not think it should be blame the Liberals, blame the Tories or blame the NDP because they did not do enough or blame the Bloc Quebecois. We will defend Canada's interest. The Prime Minister, whether the opposition happens to like it or not, is the first Prime Minister to defend Canada's interest in sealing on the high seas when we arrested the Farley Mowat last year. It should have been done long ago but it was done.

We have defended Canada's interest in the European Union. One of the members opposite and myself were at the European Parliament and met with the committee on the environment. It was pretty tough sledding. I am not telling members that it was easy. They did not want to hear us. They did not want to have an intelligent, rational debate because they would lose if they had an intelligent, rational debate about the maintenance of the hunt and the sustainability of the hunt. They do not have any credibility on that issue and they know we are credible on that issue. That is where we need to continue to keep this.

Let us look at the European record on large animals. Several countries in Europe have a big game hunt. They have the worst record of any country in the world on a big game hunt with the most lost animals of any countries in the world with the big game hunt. They kill millions of muskrats every year in the Netherlands but no one cares if they are clubbed, trapped, poisoned or drowned. They just care that they are killed.

The Liberal member has said several times that 35,000 seals were killed. He is absolutely correct; 35,000 seals in Sweden and that is not counting the cull. That is not counting the cull in Iceland or in Europe, and it is not counting the unreported kills by the rest of the European Union members. These guys do not have a very good record on animal welfare.

I have been aboard the Louis S. St -Laurent at the front. We have witnessed the seal hunt close up and personal. It is absolutely correct. There is red blood on white ice and white snow. It is a great graphic picture but who are the real guilty culprits? I will name the name. It is Rebecca Aldworth, the head of the American Humane Society. She is the one who needs to be called to task. Her group took a seal that was drowning, which is a humane death, choking and bubbling on its own blood and pulled it out of the ice so they could film it dying a slow, suffering death. That is the American Humane Society. That is what we are dealing with here. That is reality.

If people do not want to agree with that, they should go find out the facts for themselves. Raoul Jomphe , the cinematographer from Quebec, was on the ice when that occurred and recorded that. He recorded the American Humane Society pulling this animal out of the water and breaking the laws of this land.

The Minister of International Trade has forwarded this cause. The Prime Minister has forwarded this cause. We are at a very difficult place right now. We know the Europeans have broken international trade laws. We know they have 60 days of consultation. We know there is a process going forward.

However, I must say that suggesting that we stop negotiations with the European Union on a free trade agreement at this time is somehow moving in the right direction, it is not. The way to deal with the EU is to keep it at the table, keep this up front and personal in front of it and keep the issue moving. However, if we stop talking, then we have to start all over. A lot of good work has been done by all members of the House on this very difficult and controversial issue, not for us in Canada because we have been educated.

Quite frankly, the members of the fish committee, who do stellar work on this issue, are still educating the members of the House. It was not all agreement when we started. It was not all agreement within the parties but we did our work as committee members and had all our parties on board. It did not come easily.

I forget which member said it but I commend the member for saying that it was the hypocrisy of this decision by the European Union. We have six million seals in the north Atlantic. We can debate whether it is 5.5 million or 6.5 million but here are a lot of seals and they do not eat turnips. If they did and we could somehow get them in a net, we could fly them over to Paris, Copenhagen, London or Rome and drop them. When they would see these seals coming up the streets on the Champs-Élysées, it would be interesting to see the reaction of the Europeans at that time.

In closing, and in all seriousness, I worked in the offshore fisheries for eight years from 1980-88. When we went out to Sable Island and that area in 1980, we used to land a fixed wing on the beach, go across to the helipad and get a chopper to the rig. I was on the Island 30 or 40 times and there were dozens of seals in 1980 and the spits were black with seals in 1988. That was the grey seal herd.

[Scott Andrews, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Madam Chair, I listened to the member speak quite eloquently about the work that has been done by all ministers and all parliamentarians. However, when we talk about the fisheries ambassador, he is just one person trying to convince over 600 parliamentarians of the importance of this fishery. The government has really dropped the ball by putting all this pressure on one person. I hope the government does not use Mr. Sullivan as a scapegoat and blame him for this because he is only one individual. The government likes to say that it has embraced all parties but it has not. If it has, why did it not bring a delegation of all parliamentarians over to Europe this spring? It did not do that. It sent one person over to do all this work. It is a shame that it has come to that.

I am glad the parliamentary secretary trade is here tonight because maybe we can ask him some questions. We now have the European Union at the table discussing this very important issue. What do we hear? We hear that Canada is not expected to let the seal products bog down free trade talks. Let us think about that for a minute.

Is the minister telling the people of Canada that this issue is not important enough to allow it to bog down the talks? It is trying to lower tariffs on metal machinery but there is nothing about the seafood markets. What exactly will the government do for the fishing industry and the sealing industry at the trade table?

[Gerald Keddy, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS]

Madam Chair, what I said quite clearly was that it was simply wrong-headed and irresponsible to leave discussions with the European Union at this time. If anyone thinks differently, it is simply from inexperience. We cannot talk to people if we are not sitting at the table. This issue will stay at the European Union and stay there with the discussions. Quite frankly, we have dispute mechanisms in place so that when parties cannot agree we have a third party, hopefully unbiased, that can make a decision. Without question, under the rules that it has put this ban in place, we will win at the WTO. I agree that it takes time. I also agree that we can make better use out of our fisheries committee and multi-party committees in this House lobbying the European Union. I think that is a good idea and it is something that we should be pursuing.

However, the Minister of Trade, the Prime Minister, our fisheries ambassador and the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans have raised this issue with every person they can raise it with and have lobbied as many of the parliamentarians in the European Union as possible. That is why nearly 50 of them voted against the seal ban, and good for them who voted against it, and another 47 abstained. I say shame on them abstaining but that was better than voting for it.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Madam Chair, I understand that this is not one particular government's concern. It is a House of Commons' concern and our Senate's concern regarding what is happening on this, I think, irresponsible decision by the EU to put a ban on sealing products here in Canada.

I used to live in the Yukon and in 1982, when when there was a proposal to ban the leghold trap, many first nations people lost their livelihood literally overnight when the Hudson's Bay Company was no longer buying furs caught by that method. Was the leghold trap a humane way of killing? Probably not. Were there alternatives? Yes. Could it have been done overnight? No. It had to take a gradual process in order to make that happen.

The sealing industry has moved many miles in terms of its humaneness of the kill. As we know, we no longer kill the white coats and that has been the case for many years. We know we have allies in Scandinavia, Russia and other countries of that nature.

However, the one thing that the European Union tends to forget, which I believe the hon. member was the chair of our committee when he heard this debate, is that the EU would exempt Inuit or first nations seal products.

The member did give a bit of a lesson on seals walking down the Champs-Élysées, but how can any European determine whether a seal coat, or pelt, or whatever, was caught by a non-aboriginal hunter or an aboriginal hunter? The reality is that it will successfully destroy a traditional way of life in Canada's north.

[Gerald Keddy, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS]

Madam Chair, that is an excellent point. A number of members have raised it tonight already.

The analogy and reference back to 1982 and the leghold trap is a very good one. I held a trapper's licence in 1982. What we saw happen with our aboriginal first nations and Inuit communities was absolute devastation. Proud individuals, who once had the ability to make a living and provide for themselves, suddenly had no ability to make a living and provide for themselves. The argument that only Inuit or first nations should be allowed to profit from sealing is so disingenuous that it is really quite sad.

This is the domino effect. Taking the low-hanging fruit pushes the first domino. We are the low-hanging fruit in this argument. We are the easiest to attack. European parliamentarians have been very successful in that attack. They still talk about the white coats. We have not killed a white coat since 1987. Anyone who knows anything about the seal hunt knows that.

The domino effect is they set the Inuit and first nations aside. They say, yes, that they can still profit from killing seals and their products, but what they will not say publicly is they will have no opportunity to sell those products. Therefore, the Inuit or first nations exemption is absolutely disingenuous and misleading.

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

Madam Chair, I would just like to ask the member whether he agrees with me that one way we can fight misinformation and demagoguery is to point out that there are various uses for seals. One of the potential uses is in treating cardiovascular diseases. Research is underway on seal heart valves, which may replace the pig heart valves currently on the market. Initial findings indicate that seal heart valves offer very promising results in terms of rejection and so on. So that is another tool we have. Does he agree with me that we need to emphasize the positive aspects of the seal hunt, such as collagen and seal heart valves, that may have applications?

[Gerald Keddy, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS]

Madam Chair, the hon. member brings up a very legitimate point. Omega-3 fatty acids have been around for a long time. It is in fish and seal oils and is a valuable byproduct, a very good and healthy product.

There is a relatively new product, and that is the harvesting of the heart valves from seals, which could have tremendous implications for human health. We first need to prevent this ban from occurring so we have accessibility to the heart valves. The ban is only in the discussion stage. My honest belief is that it will come into place by the European Union and we will go to the WTO and defeat it. In the meantime, we will work during the consultation process to try to prevent it.

The member mentioned a very good point about the heart valves and omega-3 acids. As well there is the flesh of the seals. I have eaten it on the fisheries committee, in the High Arctic and in my neighbourhood in Lunenburg County, Nova Scotia. It is very healthy, tasty meat. It is simply more than skins.

For the Europeans to be culling a herd of 35,000—

[The Deputy Chair, NDP, Denise Savoie]

The hon. member for Kings—Hants.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Madam Chair, as we have heard in the House, the European parliament earlier today passed a bill banning the import of seal products by a vote of 550 to 49. Let me state unequivocally that the EU legislative resolution in question is based on misconceptions, bias and prejudice, not fact.

By moving forward on an import ban, the EU is preparing to take what is in fact an illegal trade action. The EU is being driven to shut out a foreign market of seal products by little more than the aesthetics and cultural misunderstandings of its members.

I will be splitting time, Madam Chair, with the member for Bourassa tonight.

This is blatant trade protectionism. The Government of Canada has a responsibility to launch a trade challenge to defend Canadian interests. There is no science, ecological or otherwise, to ban Canadian seal products.

The reality is the seal hunt is sustainable, it is humane and it is economically crucial for thousands of Canadian families in Newfoundland and Labrador, in Quebec and Canada's north. Canada has acted responsibly in managing the seal hunt in a long term and sustainable way.

Annual seal quotas are developed on a basis of a ecosystem approach, which considers a wide range of factors, including ice conditions, climate, and the abundance of seal herds. The fact is the seal hunt is an important part of the ecological balance of these regions. Over the last 30 years, the seal population in Canada has grown from 2 million seals to over 5.5 million seals.

One of the reasons we have had a depletion of cod stocks in Atlantic Canada is the growth of the seal population, which has been astounding. If this EU ban is enacted, it may perversely result in the need to cull the seal herd in order to manage the over population. This result benefits no one, economically or otherwise. It would be the product of short-sighted bad public policy, which fails to recognize the sustainability and balance of Canada's seal hunt.

However, the members of the European parliament, who voted in favour of this resolution to ban seal products, have chosen to ignore the evidence. They have chosen to ignore the science. Instead they have acted in response to public pressure and special interest. They have based their decisions on falsehoods and misinformation.

Canada is a trading nation. We depend on trade for our standard of living. It is ominous that this year, for the first time in 30 years, Canada has entered a trade deficit.

A fundamental responsibility of the Government of Canada is to secure access to international markets for Canadian exporters, including our seal hunters. We know the government has been failing in this regard, with again the first trade deficit in 30 years. Our small open economy needs external trade for prosperity. With a trade deficit, that means Canadians are actually buying more than we are selling now, which is ominous in terms of our long-term prosperity and productivity.

Canadian exports to our largest trading partner, the U.S., have fallen over 20% last year alone. We need to diversify our trading relationships. The fact is the Canadian seal products industry have seen a tremendous downward trend under the Conservative government.

It is crucial to understand just how important the seal hunt is to thousands of Canadian families. Seals have been harvested for food, fuel, shelter and other products for hundreds of years. In Newfoundland and Labrador many remote coastal communities depend on sealing for as much as 35% of their total earned income. Furthermore, all seal pelts undergo processing within Canada, creating employment opportunities at plants across Newfoundland and Labrador and Quebec. The seal hunt has traditionally brought in tens of millions of dollars annually to Canada. It has been a crucial source of income for many Canadians.

Here is where a big part of the problem lies. The seal industry was worth roughly $32 million under the previous Liberal government. Under the Conservative government, we saw it reduced to $4 million last year.

The Conservatives have failed to take effective action to defend this industry against those who would repeat falsehoods and wild accusations to attack it. The Conservative government must defend the interests of the Canadian seal hunt community. It must defend the interests of northern Canada and Newfoundland and Labrador. The government has a responsibility to take the appropriate action right now to ensure that those interests are defended.

This is not against free trade and engagement. In fact, sometimes when we have rules-based free trade agreements, they can help defend the interests in industries like the seal hunt because we have other sectors upon which to leverage to defend the interests of important sectors like the seal hunt. The fact is we can proceed with discussions around an FTA with EU, but at the same time we cannot subordinate the interests of the seal hunt in our efforts to do so.

[David Tilson, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Madam Chair, my observation as to how all this happened was that the Heather Millses, the Brigitte Bardots, the American Humane Society and people of that ilk said not to hunt these beautiful little puppies. They said it was cruel. Yet this resolution is all about banning a trade in seal products for the purposes of retail sale. The European parliament is going to allow the hunt. It is going to allow Sweden to carry on with its cull.

Statistics have been given out in the House, noting that the number of seals has tripled since 1971. That is with hunts going on. I do not know what it is going to be without the hunts.

If this resolution carries and the seal hunt is dead in Canada, and it will be if this resolution goes to the very end, who will do the cull?

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Madam Chair, the hon. member raises a very good point. Other countries use ecological culls to manage the seal population, with no economic benefit whatsoever. If they want to pursue that as their policy, that is fine. We think it is bad public policy.

We do not want the European parliament to impose, effectively through this resolution, what is questionable public policy on Canada. We do not want it to damage the economy of regions like Newfoundland and Labrador and other coastal regions, including Canada's North, for no good reason whatsoever, destroying and attacking a tradition of coastal communities.

It is absolutely clear, from an ecological perspective, that there has to be some sort of hunt or cull. To deny the commercial viability of that is nonsensical. The government needs to take every action to make that case vigorously.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Madam Chair, my hon. colleague from Kings—Hants knows very well there are discussions about the ongoing Canada-EU general trade talks. Would he support a freeze or hold on those talks until this seal harvest issue has been dealt with?

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Madam Chair, I think one can pursue trade discussions and at the same time leverage on those trade discussion to increase pressure on Canada's position on the seal hunt, which is also the position of Norway and other countries.

I do not think it is an either/or. The fact is the more deeply integrated we are in the trading relationships with the EU, the better able we are to defend our interests on a sector like the seal hunt. In fact, if we have deep relations on sectors that are particularly important to the EU, we are able to leverage on those relations to defend what is important to us. I would argue that an EUFTA and those discussions can augment and fortify our capacity to defend the seal hunt.

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

Madam Chair, there is one obvious question and concern that this circumstance raises. In the middle of the initiation of these free trade discussions, we have an illegal trade action taking part on behalf of one of the partners to that negotiation.

Does my colleague, the hon. member for Kings—Hants, share my view that skill at the negotiating table and a clear, clean voice on this are absolutely essential? If they can raise these illegal trade barriers at such time, is there a possibility that issues covered under the trade agreement could fall fallow and will not be acted upon by the government? Will there be vigilance by members of the opposition with this free trade agreement?

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Madam Chair, I hope the government uses these FTA discussions with the EU to strengthen the defence of the seal hunt. I share with the hon. member a belief that this can be done.

I do not know whether the Conservatives would do that. As the official opposition, we certainly hope, expect and will demand, as the official opposition, that the Conservatives use every opportunity during these negotiations with the EU. The EUFTA is currently in its scoping stages. This is a very important time to raise these issues and to vigorously defend Canadian interests around the seal hunt.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Madam Chair, I am rising today out of solidarity. I am rising today to tell our fellow citizens, whether they are from Quebec, the Maritimes, the north, or elsewhere, that we were taken for a ride. Therefore, it is essential today that we go beyond partisanship and that we give ourselves the tools to protect the livelihood of the many families that are going to suffer the most.

As members of Parliament, we are here to conduct our business, but today some people are watching us and they want to know what is going to happen to them. This evening, I am not speaking as the critic on national defence issues but, rather, as the Quebec lieutenant of our Leader of the Opposition.

I know that some Quebeckers are watching us right now, and I want them to know that this party and all parties must work hand in hand. We must use the Prague summit to tell Europe and the European Union that what has happened is unacceptable. If we do not do anything, if we do not react, the European Union will not be the only one to act in this fashion. Asia will also do it.

Today, we have all talked about numbers. We know that this activity accounts for 30% of the income of these families, and these families do not make big salaries. Therefore, we must work together. I am not rising only because I am a Quebecker. Frankly, I was upset, during oral question period, with the answer given by the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. Instead of showing solidarity, she told us that, unlike the Liberals, her party was defending the seal hunt. That is totally unacceptable. We have always worked very hard to protect seal hunters and that industry.

Therefore, I would ask the government to be less partisan. We are having this debate today because we want to work hand in hand to make a difference and help those who are going to suffer the most. I do not have to stress the critical importance of that industry. That industry may also allow us to do something else. A German scientist has discovered that we can transplant the heart valve of a seal. From a medical perspective, this could lead to an extraordinary industry. We could get involved in processing activities. Seals can be used for many things. They provide food and fuel. Moreover, sealskin can, of course, be processed for our use.

Of course we will always remember Brigitte Bardot and the crying baby seal in 1987. Those days are over. I would like our Prime Minister, who is in Prague, to recognize that there is a problem and that if we want to save the industry, we need to have fewer cocktail parties and admit that there might be a cause and effect relationship between current negotiations and the situation facing the seal industry.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

The other side can talk all it likes, but I think that is important. Indeed, I have already received dozens of emails. A dozen or so emails from the Magdalen Islands represent, on a per capita basis, thousands of signatures from a city. We must work accordingly.

Both sides of the House have a tremendous amount of experience when it comes to governance, and if there is one word we must remember today, it is “solidarity”. We must reach out and work together. We are going to use the summit in Prague as an opportunity to send a clear message.

Perhaps we should go back to the European Parliament and show them that, in accordance with international standards, the animals do not suffer. Perhaps we need to exert greater pressure. If we take this to the WTO's tribunal, it will take years and years to resolve, as we know. That does not put food in the refrigerator.

We must find a way to ask that Canada benefit from an exemption, since our practices are sustainable and we are protecting the species. However, if we do nothing, not only would families suffer, but the wildlife would feel the effects as well.

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Minister of National Defence and Minister for the Atlantic Gateway]

Madam Chair, I commend my colleague and I reference the fact that he is the defence critic, but I think it speaks well to this debate that we have members from all sides of the House, from various walks of life and various regions of the country, who do feel so passionately about this issue, and with good reason: It affects Canadians in a substantial way. It affects people's livelihoods. It will have a dramatic impact on the north and the people of the north. These are the perhaps the Canadians who could most passionately make the case to the Europeans.

I would ask my colleague, my hon. friend, if he believes that one of the many things we could be doing, in additional to sending a unified voice to the European Union objecting to this ban that they have undertaken and educating them to the realities of what the seal hunt is all about, is to promote seal products in other markets as well.

I would also ask him if he believes it is important to have a unified voice from Ottawa, and will he undertake to speak to Senator Mac Harb and to remind him that we do need a unified approach from Canada?

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Madam Chair, I thank my colleague for his question.

It is clear, and has been for some time, that even the Liberal government had a unified voice. I do not know if the minister is trying to tell us that we are divided, but the Liberal Party of Canada is united and will work in a united manner. One voice may be heard, but it is not speaking for the party, only for itself. If I start looking through the people who represent other political parties, perhaps I will find a discordant voice.

The reality is that our party supports any action that will make it possible to protect the sealing industry. It is important to do so. We therefore have to act accordingly, in terms of processing, developing markets, and working to ensure that things happen in Canada as well. This is why I referred just now to the use of seal heart valves for medical purposes.

The important thing is to show solidarity, to join hands and work together. Unfortunately, when we look at the outcome of the vote in the European Parliament, we might ask ourselves some questions about implementation of the strategy. Perhaps some things have not worked. I would like to know, for instance, whether enough had been done in connection with the embassies. Did our negotiator do things in the right way? Did he have all the tools he needed? But most certainly, we have to present a united front of all parties in this the House.

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

Madam Chair, I would like to point out one thing, and I would ask the member for Bourassa whether he agrees with me.

We face an enormous challenge. We must convince not only European parliamentarians, but the European public. To do that, we need a massive information campaign and a strong action plan. Given the results to date, it is certain that we will eventually have to step up our efforts. We must be more rigorous and take a more aggressive approach, but eventually we will have to target the people of Europe. Our job is and will be to convince them that demagoguery and misinformation should not continue to dominate, as they did during the vote yesterday.