Debates of May 5th, 2009

Seal Hunt

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Madam Chair, it is certainly a pleasure for me to stand today and express my opposition to the European legislation that would ban the placing on the market of seal products except under very restricted conditions. Those conditions would exclude the vast majority of Canadian seal products and will in all likelihood ensure the collapse of any potential market for such products.

I am astounded that some European parliamentarians believe that such a ban is justified. An examination of available evidence leads to the absolutely inescapable conclusion that the seal hunt is sustainable, it is humane, it is appropriately regulated, and it contributes very significantly to the local economies of dozens of small communities along our Atlantic coast and in northern Canada.

This legislation is not based on any scientific or legitimate legal foundation. No. It is based on misinformation and manipulation of public opinion. I do not believe and I do not think any other members of this honourable House believe that this is an appropriate use of legislative power.

We must be wary of single interest groups with unlimited funds who are prepared to use those funds to influence public policy to their own ends.

I am going to discuss the European proposed regulation providing the House and anyone who is watching this debate with some of the background to the proposal and some detail on the legislative process.

I will talk about three main issues that fuel the debate over sealing. I will explain why the arguments posed by the anti-sealing movement are so very and absolutely wrong.

For many years opponents of the seal hunt have sowed misinformation in the European imagination. They published inflammatory and misleading images accompanied by commentary criticizing the Canadian seal hunt and encouraging the audience to contribute generously to anti-sealing organizations. These images are broadcast far and wide by the friendly media. By friendly media I mean the media that is friendly to this cause.

This misinformation has led to the development of a body of public opinion in Europe which is decidedly anti-sealing.

A significant part of the anti-sealing campaign has been to bombard elected representatives with correspondence and petitions designed to persuade them that there is strong opposition toward the seal hunt. As a result, members of the European parliament requested the European commission to draft legislation to ban seal products.

The European commission requested the European food safety authority to investigate the issue of animal welfare. The European food safety authority acknowledged several difficulties in its report, notably on the reliance on some studies that are not scientifically rigorous, and lo and behold may contain some bias.

In its conclusions the report notes that seals can be and are killed rapidly and effectively without causing avoidable pain, distress, fear and other forms of suffering, but it raises a concern that it is not always the case.

To allay this concern the report suggests that seals should be killed using a three step process which involves striking, checking for irreversible unconsciousness or death, and bleeding to ensure death. This was the same process recommended by the independent veterinarians working group that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans was already implementing as early as 2007.

I am pleased to be able to say that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans has implemented the necessary changes to the marine mammal regulations and to license conditions governing the hunt to make the three step process mandatory for the Canadian seal hunt. That means that we have addressed the concerns of the European parliament.

Despite the obvious weakness of the arguments favouring the ban on seal products, the European commission tabled a proposal for a regulation concerning trade and seal products on July 23, 2008. The proposal includes mechanisms for the exemption of products of an Inuit hunt and for derogation of products of hunts that can be demonstrated to be conducted in a humane manner.

The legal basis for this proposal was drawn from a European Union treaty and relies upon the consideration of internal market harmonization and animal welfare concerns, driven by public perception of cruelty. The ban is already legislated by some member-states of the European Union. Over the past several months, the legislative proposal has been studied by committees of the European parliament and of the council of ministers. Many amendments were proposed. Some were rejected and some were accepted.

We do not, as of yet, have full and final details of the exact wording of the legislation. We have been given to understand that the text that has been agreed upon is one that permits the placing on the market of seal products resulting from hunts traditionally conducted by Inuit and other indigenous communities. Other products such as souvenirs and products from hunts that are conducted on a not-for-profit basis will also be permitted.

I am now going to discuss the three key premises to the opposition of the seal hunt: that it is not sustainable, that it is only of small economic value for Canadians, and that it is inhumane. All of these premises are patently false. The truth of the matter is that a large and healthy population of harp seals lives along Canada's Atlantic coastline. The population of harp seals has risen dramatically in recent decades, from 2 million in the early 1970s to over 5.6 million seals today. In other words, the estimated number of harp seal has nearly tripled.

Quotas are set annually using a precautionary framework, an ecosystem approach, and peer-reviewed scientific advice. The seal populations that are currently hunted are in no way considered endangered or at risk. There is no reputable international scientific organization that has raised a single concern about the harp seal population in the northwest Atlantic. Not one. Clearly, the commercial hunt does not threaten the harp and hooded seal population in Canadian waters. There can be no doubt that Canada's commercial seal hunt is absolutely and unequivocally sustainable.

Second, opponents argue that sealers, processors and exporters derive little financial benefit from this work, so a ban would have little impact on them and the communities in which they live. That is rubbish. It is hard to imagine an argument that is more ignorant or harmful to the hard-working people in Canadian coastal communities. In Newfoundland and Labrador, for instance, approximately 2% of the labour force, some 5,000 to 6,000 people, derive their income from sealing. Sealing is an essential component of the local economies of many remote communities. These are places where jobs are few and far between and where men and women must take advantage of every available opportunity to provide for their families. For thousands of Canadians, the seal hunt accounts for more than a quarter of their annual income.

Seal products are not just limited to the skins or pelts. Our policy advocates the fullest possible use of the animal. The products such as meat, collagen and omega 3 are all derived from seals and marketed internationally. These are health food products. In addition, new and promising medical research has determined that harp seal heart valves are superior to those currently used in human heart valve transplants. It is thought that demand could be as high as 300,000 valves per year.

There can be no doubt that Canadians obtain economic benefits from using our natural resources. I think we can all agree that the perceived cruelty of the seal hunt is the greatest obstacle to overcome. I think we can also agree that witnessing the death of any animal is not a pleasant experience. However, no third party observers and no television cameras are permitted in a slaughterhouse. Nobody sees what happens in there, but the whole world sees what happens on the ice floes in the Gulf of St. Lawrence.

Canadians care about the welfare of animals. Canada is committed to setting humane standards for animal welfare. With regard to sealing, Canada has been very active in setting standards and rules for humane killing methods. The management and methods of the commercial seal hunt are based on peer-reviewed science and advice from veterinarians to guarantee that seals are killed and skinned in a humane way. Canada seeks out the best scientific information on humane killing methods and requirements have been continuously updated based on this information.

There can be no doubt that Canada spares no effort to ensure that the seal hunt is conducted humanely.

[Scott Andrews, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Madam Chair, I am truly impressed by the member. He serves on the fisheries committee with us and he sometimes continues to amaze me with his thoughtfulness and insight into these matters. I want to congratulate him on his presentation tonight.

I will stick to a couple of technical questions for him. He can converse with the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, who is sitting next to him. He referred to the propaganda debate going on in Europe, and I have two questions.

First, a lot of advertising is done in the weeks leading up to this EU vote. How much advertising did the Department of Fisheries and Oceans do, leading up to this vote? How much paper advertising besides the press releases and the spin? How many actual dollars were put on the table to try to change the minds and hearts of those parliamentarians and the public at large?

Second, did the Department of Fisheries and Oceans pass on those words of the member in the form of an information package on our sealing industry? Were the 600 members of the EU sent an information package on our sealing industry, highlighting the facts of which the member just spoke?

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Madam Chair, I think the question really is this. What has this government done to defend the interests of sealers? One of the first things we did was to appoint Loyola Sullivan our fisheries ambassador almost immediately when we took office in 2006.

I will say a word or two about our fisheries ambassador. He has been a tireless advocate, working on behalf of not only the fishing industry, but particularly, sealers, in his work at the European Union. He has come before our fisheries committee numerous times. Every time the committee has requested the fisheries ambassador to come to the committee and report, the committee has been virtually unanimous in its approval of the hard work he has done.

Furthermore, we have sent the past chair, Mr. Fabian Manning, along with other members of Canadian delegations, over there to work and advocate on behalf of sealers in Canada at the European Union.

We have done an absolutely incredible job in standing up for the rights of sealers in Canada.

I guess my question back to the hon. member is this. How much correspondence has Senator Mac Harb sent to the European Union, advocating the other way?

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

Madam Chair, I, too, appreciated the member's speech. I have come to know him better through our work together in committee. I appreciate his cooperative approach and his hard work.

I would like him to comment on measures the Canadian government should take. I said, “the Canadian government”, but I think that it should work with Quebec and the other provinces. What should governments do in the short, medium and long terms to address this situation?

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Madam Chair, my colleague knows full well the process at the European Union. Now there is a 60-day waiting period. At the end of the 60-day waiting period, we have to wait and see what approach it will take. At that point, I believe the minister has already indicated that if things should go badly and negatively, we will proceed down the path of a WTO challenge. That is the most effective and rapid way we can approach solving this situation.

People ask why a member of Parliament from Alberta, who sits on the fisheries committee, would be so passionate about this issue. Coming from a farming background, I know full well the benefit of looking after and caring for animals in a way that is humane and that is sustainable. A farmer's livelihood depends on it no differently than a fisherman's life depends on it.

When we have an advocacy group basically advocating its issue, using false and misleading information and under false and misleading pretenses raising funds to advocate on a single issue, setting a precedent whereby the European Union can unilaterally decide if Canada can or cannot export products into the European market when they are obtained in a humane and sustainable fashion, what threat does that pose for farmers on the Prairies? That is a very alarming question. That is why this government will stand firm in its resolve and use every mechanism possible to ensure we defend the rights of all Canadians to use our natural resources in a way that is sustainable and humane and that protects Canada's interests.

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

Madam Chair, I commend my hon. colleague, who is from Alberta and who originates from the farming world, on his interest in this issue. I have served with him on the fisheries committee.

I have two quick questions. He praised Loyola Sullivan, the conservation ambassador for the government. Before Loyola Sullivan came along, there were no bans in Europe. We had one in the Netherlands since then. We now have one in Belgium. We have one on the table in Germany. Now the internal markets committee has taken over and have put this ban in place, a complete ban, no derogations or exemptions as were originally set out. They were overturned.

Where did the ambassador go wrong and how can we correct that action in the future so it does not happen again?

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Madam Chair, I appreciate the hon. member's attack on a fellow Newfoundlander. The reality is Loyola Sullivan has done a magnificent job. He has done an absolutely wonderful job representing our interests. These problems squarely rest on the misinformation campaign out there by advocacy groups that simply want to see their one issue resolved. Let us make no mistake about it. This is an issue for which they raise millions and millions of dollars and pay themselves handsomely compared to what a sealer gets. This is a very frustrating thing.

This is not in the hands of the ambassador. He does not have a vote at the European parliament. He has been over there working as tireless advocate. When he has appeared before the fisheries committee, as I stated earlier, he has presented himself and Canada's case very well. He defended his actions before the fisheries committee on several occasions for which the entire committee was virtually unanimous in its consent.

What is very frustrating is the fact that it would be nice if all parliamentarians, not only from the House of Commons, but also from the Senate, could get together and be a unanimous voice on behalf of Canadians. I do not know what the Liberal policy is on taxation. I do not know what the Liberal policy is on the seal hunt. Members say one thing and they come here and do another.

For example, look at the gun registry. Those members tell their constituents one thing. Then they come here from rural Canada and they say that they will defend their interests on the gun registry, but vote against it. They say that they will defend their interests on the seal harvest and they come here and defend it.

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

Madam Chair, I listened with interest to the member for Wetaskiwin when he talked about the activity in the WTO. I speak with experience as a lawyer. It seems to me that going to the WTO is like going to court. We know they do not have a very strong legal position, so we go to court. Meanwhile, we are sitting down and negotiating with these very same people. Why would we say that we do not need to negotiate because we will go to court. Once we say that we will to a court, like the WTO, the people who they negotiate with will say that they do not need to talk about this because we have said that we will resolve it, so it is off the table. That seems to be a very backward step.

The member dealt with the issue of somebody being offside in the Senate. The Senate is the other place and it does what it does. The European parliament seemed to be very effective in passing resolutions with 50 people offside. It had a very effective resolution 500 to 50, or something like that. Why is unanimity such a big deal as it seems to effectively pass resolutions?

We need a government to be at the main table, act decisively and defend the interests of Canada where it counts.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

I speak from the position, Madam Chair, of a party that at least understands what it is like to govern the country and knows what it is like to speak from a unanimous voice. The Liberal Party should understand, as the Conservative Party does, that the responsibilities of governing are much different than the responsibilities of sitting in opposition.

When it comes to the WTO, why would we sit down in negotiations to try to resolve this issue when the law is already there? There is a mechanism in place at the WTO. Why do we not engage and use the process already in place? The hon. member suggests that we negotiate a process and then try to get a solution to the negotiated process. The process is already in place. Why not start with that one?

[Siobhan Coady, Liberal, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

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

Tonight I stand to speak to the issue of the European ban on the seal hunt. I am frustrated, as are the 6,000 sealers who usually take to the ice floes during March and April every year. I am frustrated that misinformation and deliberate mistruths would cause the European Union to impose a ban on the import of seal products.

Years ago, I remember going to the waterfront in downtown St. John's for the blessing of the fleet. We had fleets going to the ice floes at that point in time, sealers taking to the ice for needed food and to earn much-needed money after a long, hard, cold winter.

Even today, we still see that happening. Unfortunately we do not necessarily have the blessing of the fleets in downtown St. John's any more because fewer and fewer people are going to the front. Today there are some 6,000 people heading to the ice each year, 6,000 people earning a living. Twenty-five per cent to thirty per cent of their income comes from the seal hunt. In 2006, for example, $30 million was contributed in income to harvesters from the seal industry, nearly $55 million to the provincial economy.

It is truly nearsighted, unfortunate and concerning that the European Union would take this action at this point in time, without having the full, robust debate with Canada on this very important issue.

For the people watching tonight, for the animal rights activists, I want to ensure they understand that the sealers of Canada are committed to a sustainable harvest based on humane harvesting methods, supported by solid science and sound principles. Seals are not an endangered species. White coats are no longer taken from the ice floes of our country.

We have had close to 6 million seals around my province of Newfoundland and Labrador. It is at a point now where we can see seals going up the salmon rivers after salmon because they have pretty much shelled out all the cod around Newfoundland and Labrador. It is truly very severe and scientifically unsound that we would have that many seals doing this much damage and nothing about it.

I stand here today because campaigns by animal rights welfare activists to ban the seal hunt are based on misinformation of cruelty in the harvesting practices. It is truly unfortunate that we continue to allow this to happen. As an hon. colleague pointed out, this kind of misinformation earns them a lot of money and it earns them a lot of opportunity to earn more money and raises their profile.

Unfortunately, they should be putting their actions to other cruelties in this world, rather than on the seal hunt because the seal hunt is humane. It is a very conservation-oriented practice.

While we have the representatives of the European parliament allowed to make this decision based on this misinformation, we need a balanced review of the industry in our country.

The implementation of this ban represents a loss to the Canadian people and to the sealing industry of $2.4 million. It is truly a failure on behalf of the government of our country that we are now in this situation. I call on the Prime Minister, who will be in talks very soon with the European Union, to take action now. The government must challenge this decision with the World Trade Organization, as has been said.

The Prime Minister has a duty to express his government's opposition. He has a responsibility to our sealers and to Canadians to talk to the European Union officials when he speaks with them during the European trade talks. The ban on seal products has detrimental effects not only to the sealers, but to our ecology, especially around the coast of Newfoundland and Labrador.

The Prime Minister has to address these trade issues with the European Union and all of our trading partners. Opportunities to correct the information spread by the animal rights extremists have already been forfeited by the government. We must not allow that to continue. It would be unconscionable not to correct this record when he meets with EU officials, and I ask him to do so.

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

Madam Chair, I appreciate the fact that the member for St. John's South—Mount Pearl has so eloquently captured the issue about the frustrations surrounding this illegal trade ban.

I will put this question to the member as well and ask for her insight. Earlier this evening I asked a very specific question to the parliamentary secretary. I quoted the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development when she said, when it comes to helping sealers with ice compensation, since they are currently unable to fish because the pack ice is blanketing the shores there:

That is why we are working with the Department of Fisheries to make sure that we are looking after these individuals, and we will be addressing that situation very soon.

That is a quote from the minister. When I asked the parliamentary secretary when it was coming, he said I should ask the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, not the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development, that the problem lies there.

Could the hon. member provide some insight or information as to whether she believes compensation of some sort is owing to these people? This is an illegal trade action. When it came to other illegal trade actions, like the softwood lumber agreement, the Conservative government was very quick to act. Why is it not doing anything now?

[Siobhan Coady, Liberal, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

Madam Chair, I thank my hon. colleague for that very important question.

Indeed, the sealers of our country, the sealers of my particular province of Newfoundland and Labrador, absolutely must have compensation. That is without a doubt, without discussion. I implore the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development and I implore the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to act very rapidly.

This is an illegal trade action, as my colleague pointed out, not dissimilar to what occurred in British Columbia. We have to take decisive action right now to help these people.

It is very critical to their livelihood. This is an absolute must for this time of year especially, as a bridge from having a very cold, difficult winter and not having enough money to get them through to the summer harvest of fish.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Madam Chair, I would like some clarification.

The member is a Liberal member. She comes from a party that understands the importance of caucus solidarity, particularly when governing the country.

If the Liberals are honestly and sincerely proposing to someday again govern this country, can I count on this member to implore her leader to stand in this place tomorrow and declare the Liberal policy when it comes to sealing and to have the Liberal Party and the Liberal leader basically dissociate himself from the caucus colleague who has broken caucus ranks?

[Siobhan Coady, Liberal, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

Madam Chair, I thank the hon. member for that unusual question.

I thought we were here to talk about the seal hunt. You are talking about a colleague breaking ranks. I am not quite sure to what you are referring.

I think this is a very important--

[An hon. member]

He doesn't know either.

[Siobhan Coady, Liberal, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

He does not know either.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[The Deputy Chair, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Order, please. I would ask the hon. member to address herself to the Chair and for the other members to restrain themselves.

[Siobhan Coady, Liberal, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

My apologies, Madam Chair. I am new in this House, and as I said, very frustrated about this occurrence today.

It is very important. Many of our colleagues around the debate this evening have talked about solidarity within the House of Commons on this very important issue.

The European Union has moved against the World Trade Organization. It has moved unilaterally on this issue and has imposed a ban on our seal products. This is very serious.

I ask the member to understand how important this is to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, how important this is to the sealers, how important it is that they stand by the sealers of Canada right now to ensure they have the available resources to get them through the next little while, to work very diligently on ensuring the resolution of this trade dispute and to raise it when the Prime Minister is in Prague this week on trade talks.

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

Madam Chair, it is an honour to speak here, not just in the case of this particular ban, and not just because of the atrocious action being taken by politicians in the European Parliament, which I will get to in a moment.

We stand here for the memories and the traditions of people like Jack Troke of Twillingate, of people like Mark Small, who lives in my colleague's riding of Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, and of people who tragically lost their lives many years ago, the story of which was told in a novel called Death on the Ice. These are the people for whom we stand here today, to make sure that we fight for what they believe in and the traditions and rights of their ancestors. Their story has to be told and we have to defend it. It is our responsibility and it is our right, and we must exercise it to the greatest of our abilities.

I want to add some context to this debate. When it first started, the European Commission had put out some derogations or exemptions, as they called them. The original European ban started in member states. It started in the Netherlands and followed through to Belgium. I made interventions with many of my colleagues sitting in the House. We told them about the slippery slope they were creating by doing this.

Obviously, some people in the European Commission believed in what we were saying, because exemptions were put on for commercial harvests done responsibly and done through government regulations to the point where it was a responsible hunt. The exemptions were in place for them.

Here is what happened. They turned this issue over to the internal market committee, and the 27 members of that committee looked at it and said they were definitely going to play politics with this issue. They overturned the exemptions, and it is now a complete ban.

When that was done, the rapporteur of the report from the United Kingdom said that if these exemptions were put in, trade sanctions would be avoided.

Lo and behold, a member of the European Parliament from Denmark said this was not about legalities. The committee's own legal counsel told them it would be wrong for them to do this, but the member from Denmark stood and said this was about politics alone.

Elections are going to be held in the European Union in June, and these members want a feather in their cap. As one of my colleagues pointed out earlier, less than 20% of the people get out and vote for European parliamentarians, so they need an issue to make themselves look good. Yet they accuse us of using this as a political scheme. This is their scheme.

They are doing this because they do not care about the traditions. They do not care about the people who died on the ice. They just want to keep their jobs. They want to keep security for themselves. Shame on them.

That is why all of us are standing in this House tonight, because if we do not, we will be disregarding history. There is too much at stake here.

This is not just for Newfoundland and Labrador. This is for Quebec's east coast, for the Gaspé, and for the Magdalen Islands too. This is critical for all Canadians.

We need to be vocal. We have to tell the Europeans that it is a slippery slope. They have an unregulated hunt in Germany for deer and boar. They kill over one million animals. It is not regulated. It is not fair. We have to tell the Europeans to look in their own backyard.

We need to tell their rural MPs, their people who live in the country, and their hunters that they have to be aware of this because they will get bit in the end. What is happening to us will happen to them. The dangerous precedent that they are going to bring forward to the European Union will cause problems for them.

Animal rights groups do not go after those people who stand in big stadiums and kill bulls for sport, not yet, but they will now, and good on them. They deserve to feel the wrath that we are feeling. We are being singled out here.

So I would suggest to the House that we take note of this situation and tell these people what they are doing, that they are setting a dangerous precedent. The Conservative government has to do the same thing.

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

Madam Chair, my hon. colleague from Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor spoke very passionately, as Newfoundlanders and Labradorians do on very critical issues.

He knows of a movie, which was done many years ago, called The Viking in which we saw sealers jumping from one ice floe to another. If a guy fell in, they kept going because they could not stop due to the speed they had to travel in order to make the minimum salary to be able to feed their families.

This is the history about which my hon. colleague talks. What the European Union has done is ripped that history out of the very heart and soul of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

Could he comment further on the psychological effect this will have on people, especially on the outport people of that fabulous province?

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

Madam Chair, I want to congratulate my colleague. He and I have worked for a few years on this issue. He has been a passionate advocate as well.

He just encapsulated the story and the tradition. Here is the ultimate irony of this. There is an exemption for Inuit, with which we agree, for ceremonial purposes, but the Inuit have even said that if we get rid of the commercial hunt, what is the point of them doing this.

What about our traditions in all of this? When I spoke in Europe with my colleague from the Bloc Québécois, we put this forward. This is our tradition, too. When I told the European parliamentarians that this was our tradition, one of them said to me, which was very interesting, that they did not use traditions over there because we were trying to get rid of a lot of them. I asked why they had these derogations for certain places in Europe that had to do the culls, but not for us. Our story is not being told.

That is the story the member of Parliament for Sackville—Eastern Shore brought up. The issue is that this is a sustainable hunt. If we have to turn around and cull these animals, slaughter them because they are a nuisance, that is the biggest shame of all, to cull like they do.

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

Madam Chair, there is no doubt about it. Champagne corks popped tonight. I am sure the U.S. Humane Society and Rebecca Aldworth was overjoyed at this event, that an exemption was put into the legislative resolution brought forward in the EU.

Rebecca Aldworth is personally overjoyed that 35,000 grey seals will now be slaughtered in Sweden, with an exemption from the European Union. She is delighted that this is happening. It is pathetic because that is exactly what the resolution brings on. There are so many exemptions built into it to protect the interests of the EU.

I will raise this question with the hon. member. The EU has built in an exemption that if stocks of fish, which the Europeans currently prey upon in the northwest Atlantic, the nose and tail of the Grand Banks, ever become somewhat endangered, it will allow a Canadian seal hunt to protect its access to our fishery. Is that right?

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

Madam Chair, that is a very eloquent point. The point is in this derogation the EU looked after its backyard as well.

With regard to Rebecca Aldworth, what is next for these people? Where do they go next? The fact is Russia has banned the seal hunt, yet we still have no idea whether it will import them. It is absolutely hypocrisy at the highest level.

In this situation, it received its derogation, as my hon. colleague pointed out. The derogation involves the culling and the slaughter of seals for the sake of protecting its own stocks, some of which, and this is a very valid point, could be in our own waters. It is an absolutely ridiculous way to push this thing through. It was completely and utterly out of self-interest politically, particularly this derogation.

Where is the derogation for people who maintain this population? We went from two million to six million seals in a very short period of time. With the absence of a hunt, we may be approaching nine million or ten million. Therefore, the situation that the Europeans have caused is highly hypocritical.

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

Madam Chair, I appreciate the opportunity to participate in this debate. It is an important issue.

We are here to discuss the impact on Canadians of today's vote by the European parliament to move toward a ban on seal products.

We have occasionally expressed, in these almost four hours, some frustration with one another, but I think our frustration is primarily motivated by the European parliament. I think everyone in the House believes, because I have heard nothing to lead me to think otherwise, that there is no justification for a ban on seal products derived from a humanely conducted hunt such as Canada's seal hunt.

We have made this point on this side that strong representations have been made over the last two years to inform the European debate on this issue. I myself led a delegation to the North Atlantic Fisheries Ministers Conference, in Greenland, and we brought this issue up. We had another North Atlantic Fisheries Ministers Conference that I was part of, in Malta, where again we brought this issue up, particularly with the European Union.

As my colleague, the member for Wetaskiwin, has said so eloquently, our Ambassador for Fisheries Conservation, Mr. Loyola Sullivan, has worked very hard on this issue. I am sure he would be willing to provide any member of the House with a long list of his activities on this particular file.

That is why it is so frustrating, having worked so hard on this issue, to find the European parliament still moving in this direction. In all these representations we have made, the Government of Canada has provided objective evidence that the Canadian seal hunt is humane, sustainable and well managed. We have said that over and over again. We do not just say the words; we provide the evidence for that.

In fact, some members of the House would have been part of that meeting we had, as part of the fisheries committee, with European parliamentarians. We went over these issues with them again and again.

Unfortunately decision-makers in the European Union appear to have ignored this good information, and they have instead relied upon misinformation disseminated through animal rights groups and others.

I think we all agree that this kind of misinformation that has been disseminated by these radical animal rights organizations really is deplorable. Not only to they torque the facts in their favour, they rely on outlandish allegations against the good people who make their living in this industry.

Take, for example, this quote, which can be found on an anti-sealing website. It states:

This is the third day of the annual Canadian blood fest. Already several thousand baby seals have been brutally snuffed...”

This is the kind of thing we find on these websites and in their fundraising materials. I think we would all agree that this is a gross example of the misleading stories that these radical activists make up.

We all know it is illegal to kill baby seals, otherwise known as white coats in Canada, and yet these groups continue to propagate the myth that this is going on. As a matter of fact, this has not been part of the industry in Canada for more than 20 years.

The reality is that because of the measures taken in Europe today, Canadians will suffer, specifically our Inuit people. The Europeans believe that this measure will have no impact on the lives of the Inuit, as it includes a limited exemption for trade in Inuit-harvested seal products. However, they clearly have not listened to the Inuit, who have said that an exemption for them would do nothing to protect their market access.

The very existence of a market for seal products depends on the availability of a critical mass of these products, which we would not have if this ban were to go through. We only have to look at the devastation that the 1983 EU seal import ban brought to Inuit communities as clear evidence of the utter futility of such token exemptions.

While leading a delegation to the Czech Republic, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans asked representatives from the Government of Nunavut to make presentations to EU officials. In those presentations, it was made clear to EU officials that an exemption for the Inuit is an insult and would be worthless. However, today we find ourselves in that very situation, potentially no market in Europe and an exemption for the Inuit.

I think we would also agree that this has not been an informed debate. In fact, it has not been a real debate on the issues at all. There has been no rebuttal of the evidence submitted by Canada and others. Rather, there has been a constant stream of misinformation.

We want to remind the European community, by way of this debate, of what Canada's seal hunt is. It is a hunt that is culturally important for many coastal Canadians. It is a hunt that is well managed and humane, and it is a hunt that is carried out on seal populations that are abundant and in no way endangered.

The sale of products from Canada's sustainable and humane seal hunt provides much needed benefits for economically depressed fishing communities with few economic alternatives. The current harp seal harvest is conducted as an economically sustainable activity. It can make an important contribution to the annual income of people living in rural coastal communities, which also favours support for the traditional family and social ties and reduces out-migration to large urban centres.

In communities with few economic opportunities, this income is vital. The seal hunt can provide direct employment for over 6,000 people on a part-time basis per year. There are also many secondary economic benefits derived from the seal industry. While the seal hunt contributed approximately $30 million to harvesters' income in 2006, for example, it also contributed approximately $55 million to the Newfoundland and Labrador economy.

One question that has been asked in Europe is why the seal hunters do not move from rural communities to earn a new livelihood. To me, this is a stupid question. With due respect, why should our sealers give up their way of life any more than someone from Europe in a similar situation would? I am sure that if we were asking their parliamentarians to have their people move and do something else, they would find that as insulting as we do.

Our answer is that Canada does not believe that people who depend on a legal, sustainable and renewable, resource-based activity should be expected to move to find jobs in other locations. It is as clear as that. The coastal Newfoundland and Labrador communities have depended on seals for hundreds of years, and the inshore seal fishery has long generated income that enabled fishermen to feed their families until the summer fisheries began.

The seal harvest provides valuable income at a time of the year when income opportunities are few in those remote communities. People are able to remain in their communities to raise their families, as they have done for hundreds of years. In this way, the seal harvest supports sustainable communities, and that should be important to all of us, as Canadian parliamentarians. Banning seal products and forcing people to move is an unfair intrusion into the lives of people who work hard at a legitimate and well-managed activity.

We have also heard tonight that for the Inuit of Nunavut, living from the land and the sea in their settlement areas is integral to their culture and their traditional and current way of life. This is recognized in the land claims agreements. Harvesting and other rights set out in these agreements are protected by Canada's Constitution. This is a very important issue for them. Let us be very clear in the House and to those who are watching, fellow Canadians, but also Europeans, this ban will have devastating effects on aboriginal and arctic populations.

The Minister of Foreign Affairs made this point quite clearly at the recent meeting of the Arctic Council, where the European Union's request for permanent observer status was refused. In fact Canada supported that refusal, because the EU actions that were anticipated on the seal trade ban have not demonstrated an understanding or appreciation for the Inuit way of life. Of course, we agree with that.

It is critical that this Parliament stands united against those who wish to eliminate the Canadian seal hunt, whether it be European parliamentarians or a senator in the other place. We need to remain united on this front, and we will continue to do so.

In closing, I wish to reaffirm the Conservative government's support of the sealers and their families. We will stand with them in defending the sealing industry against attacks from Europe and even from within our own Parliament.