Debates of May 15th, 2014

Opposition Motion—CBC/Radio-Canada

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Time has run out.

Questions and comments. The hon. member for Mississauga—Streetsville.

[Brad Butt, Conservative, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have been sitting here this afternoon listening carefully, and I almost thought for a few minutes that I was sitting in a funeral listening to a bunch of eulogies.

CBC is on the air as we speak. CBC will be on the air tomorrow. CBC will be on the air for decades to come. One of the reasons is that Canadian taxpayers are providing a subsidy to the CBC/Radio-Canada of almost $1 billion a year. That is a lot of money. That is because this government is committed to ensuring that the CBC continues to operate.

I ask the member to comment on a quote from Hubert Lacroix, who is the president of CBC, when he said:

When we consider all of that I think that the people who watch CBC-Radio-Canada will tell you very clearly that we discharge our mandate very well. If we judge by our ratings and the relevance we have in their eyes, it's spectacular. It has never been as high. Let's keep that in mind

I would like the member to comment on that.

[Isabelle Morin, NDP, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

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

His analogy is very odd. I will respond with another analogy. When a person has a leg amputated, he can still walk, but with one heck of a limp. That is what is happening. That is what the government is doing.

Yes, CBC/Radio-Canada will keep operating, but it will have to make do with less. That is what we are saying. We are saying that the corporation needs stable, multi-year funding. That is what we are asking for. I wanted to reread my colleague's motion, but I do not have it.

My colleague quoted Hubert Lacroix, who was appointed by the Conservatives. Monday morning, on the air, Mr. Lacroix referred to my colleague as “the infamous Pierre Nantel”. He had a particular way of talking about my colleague that made me wonder whether he might actually be quite partisan. I am sorry, but I will not base my opinion of the CBC on Mr. Lacroix.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

As you know, referring to another MP by name in the House is not allowed.

Questions and comments. The hon. member for Saint-Lambert.

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech.

I would say that this is a death knell. It is clear that when funding is cut, when our public broadcaster does not have the room to be as eclectic as possible, to reach as broad a range of television viewers as possible and connect with the public, then the public broadcaster is in trouble. That is the position the Conservatives are putting the broadcaster in. When budgets are cut then there will obviously be a negative impact.

That being said, a public broadcaster has its purpose. It is the primary and central tool of the public. The Conservatives are losing sight of that, as they have done with other crown corporations. We see that they are at it again with our public broadcaster and that is not right. This also has adverse effects on our democracy.

Can my colleague share her thoughts on this?

[Isabelle Morin, NDP, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for the question. I have not yet had the chance to talk about this.

Since we arrived here, we have seen this government constantly attack public services and crown corporations, such as VIA Rail and Canada Post. We saw the cuts that were made at Canada Post and more cuts are being made. This is a slow march to privatization. The last big wave of privatization came from Mr. Mulroney, who privatized 23 crown corporations during the 10 years he was in power. I wonder whether our Prime Minister thought to himself that he does not have a lot of time left and that he has to redouble his efforts during his final year. I think this is unfortunate.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

We will resume debate, but I will let the hon. member for Mississauga—Streetsville know that there are approximately seven minutes remaining in the time permitted for debate on the question this afternoon, so I will give him the normal signal as we get close to that time.

The hon. member for Mississauga—Streetsville.

[Brad Butt, Conservative, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, thank you very much for the guidance on the amount of time that is left. I do appreciate it. I will say a few things and then there might be an opportunity for questions and comments. I will play it by ear, depending on how animated I get in the discussion today.

I am kind of disappointed in the opposition parties today. One of the reasons I am disappointed is that there is a responsibility to remember that we live in the 21st century, not 1950. I heard a lot of opposition members refer to television shows that families watched back in 1950 and 1960, but the last time I looked at my calendar, it was 2014.

The world in broadcasting radio and TV has dramatically changed. A few members on this side of the House know quite a bit about that, and they have spoken very eloquently about the fact that our radio and television system has dramatically changed.

We have hundreds of channels that people can watch on their TVs. Canadians are choosing what they want to watch in many different ways and for many different reasons. We have excellent coverage of services throughout all of Canada, including northern and rural parts of Canada, which even a few years ago did not have great services. Many of those communities have excellent services today, with a lot of options.

However, we are talking specifically about the CBC/Radio-Canada today. It is an organization of which I am proud and it has been strongly supported by this government since we came into office in 2006. In fact, we recognize the excellent contributions the CBC, as our national public broadcaster, makes in Canadian society. We know that some remote aboriginal and official language minority communities rely on the CBC for their main way of having television and radio communicated to them. We respect that and we have continued to support that as a government.

The CBC is mandated to inform, enlighten, and entertain Canadian audiences and to offer distinctively Canadian programming that contributes to the exchange and flow of cultural expression. That programming is expected to reflect Canada and all its regions to national and regional audiences, while serving the needs of the regions.

The CBC must strive to produce the programming that is of equal quality in English and French, as well as reflect the different needs of official language communities and English and French linguistic minorities. As well, CBC/Radio-Canada is mandated to reflect the multicultural and multinational nature of Canada while contributing to a shared consciousness and identity.

The Broadcasting Act guarantees the CBC a degree of independence freedom as an arm's-length Crown corporation. This guarantee is based on the significance and importance of journalistic freedom in our democracy. Our government continues to work with the CBC in a manner that respects these independence principles and allows it to fulfill its cultural mandate.

The recent situation at the CBC is due to business decisions made by the corporation. It receives substantial funding to meet its mandate under the Broadcasting Act, and it is up to the CBC to provide programming in French and English that Canadians want. The choices in programs and services are made independently from government involvement.

Each year we provide financial support to the CBC totalling more than $1 billion to deliver on its mandate and its core services. It is an incredibly significant amount of federal funding. In fact, it is the most funding that we provide to any federal cultural or heritage crown corporation.

CBC/Radio-Canada is facing the same challenges as many other broadcasters: fragmentation of audiences, new content consumption methods, increased competition, and the list goes on. All broadcasters are striving to adapt to this constantly changing new reality. Large groups are being formed, new strategies are being tested, and broadcasters are looking for new ways to keep audiences. CBC/Radio-Canada is no exception, and must produce programming that Canadians actually want to watch.

With respect to the opposition motion, it does fly in the face of some of the experts who have commented on the current status.

Alex Levasseur, president of the Syndicat des communications de Radio-Canada, said that any eventual cuts will not be the result of a federal action.

France Belisle, who is the director of communications and public relations for CBC/Radio-Canada, said:

The problem is the advertising market, which is in decline.

These are realities that the CBC, like other broadcasters throughout North America and the world, is now facing. These are decisions that need to be made to ensure the long-term viability of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.

I believe I will be the last speaker on this topic, so before I sit down I just want to reiterate that all families in Canada cherish the CBC. We each have individual programs and services that we enjoy. To make sure that the CBC continues to be viable for the long term, there are structural changes and decisions that it will have to make, but this government stands with the CBC. We stand with public support in financing the CBC, and we wish the CBC 100 more years of success in this great country of Canada.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

It being 5:15 p.m., it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the business of supply.

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

In my opinion, the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Call in the members.

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the NDP would like the division to be deferred until Monday, May 26, at the expiry of the time provided for government orders.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Accordingly the recorded division stands deferred until Monday, May 26, at the expiry of the time provided for government orders.

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I believe if you seek it, you will find unanimous consent to see the clock as 5:30 p.m.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

The House resumed from March 6 consideration of the motion that Bill C-555, An Act respecting the Marine Mammal Regulations (seal fishery observation licence), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Marine Mammal Regulations

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

The hon. member for Manicouagan has five minutes to finish his comments. The hon. member for Manicouagan.

[Jonathan Genest-Jourdain, NDP, Manicouagan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to pick up where I left off a few months ago. If memory serves me correctly, my speech was about the Marine Mammal Regulations.

I was talking about genealogy and etymology when I concluded my previous speech on this topic. I am often told that my speeches are not altogether relevant. However, I would say that I transpose reality and provide some insight into comparative law, which means transposing one reality onto another riding or, often, another country.

In this case, we are talking about the ethics of hunting and fishing marine mammals. I felt it was important to put this into context, from the point of view of aboriginal nations and taking into account the realities in the communities, on reserve and in remote communities. I was talking about etymology because I mentioned my cousin Atshuk, who is actually a distant cousin. Atshuk means “seal”.

The fact that a person could have a name that also refers to a marine mammal demonstrates just how relevant that etymology is. It also highlights the close relationship that exists between aboriginal peoples and, in this case, marine mammals.

As I said last time, according to the oral tradition and the information that was brought to my attention, the Innu of Uashat were not necessarily hunters or sealers, but this has been part of a healthy and balanced diet for several centuries.

I mentioned all this to reinforce the fact that the most ethical methods of killing the animal for human consumption are those used by the first nations. It only stands to reason considering it took 10,000 or 20,000 years of trial and error to get to this point. We can all agree that after occupying a land for 10,000 years we have better knowledge of how to slaughter an animal ethically. The simple fact of naming one's children after a marine animal is a testament to the respect for and importance of that marine animal in the oral tradition, and also in the community's own social structure.

I know that the bill before us deals with seal fishery observation licences. Incidentally, the head of the Canadian Sealers Association said that groups and protesters come too close and interfere with sealers' activities. He added that sealers have powerful boats and weapons, and that groups and protesters try to interfere by resorting to dangerous manoeuvres.

Therefore, I understand that this bill seeks, by virtue of a written document, to put some distance between observers and the marine mammals. However, as I said during my last speech on this issue, a certain proximity exists, particularly on the ice. I am thinking about my father. In his house, which directly faces the St. Lawrence River, he can see seals in the morning. If he wants to, he can go on the ice and meet them, which is not really recommended. This is why he does not do so but, from a strictly practical point of view, it would be possible, given the proximity, the prevalence and the overabundance of this resource.

It is somewhat deplorable to consider seals as a resource, but there are too many of them right now and this is a real issue. It is quite something to see seals on a daily basis during the winter. We can see the atshuk at a certain distance. We can even see white coats. That is why it is necessary to support this special relationship and the methods that were developed over tens of thousands years by aboriginal people to kill the animal quickly. This expeditious method may sometime seem to belong to another era, especially to foreigners, to people from across the Atlantic Ocean, or to Europeans. However, I rely on knowledge and oral traditions to judge the ethical and expeditious nature of the techniques used.

In this regard, I wish to point out that the NDP unequivocally supports humane and sustainable seal fishery and, consequently, an eventual return to traditional practices or, at the very least, an in-depth study and real attention to ancestral practices that are expeditious, but that also spare the animal unnecessary suffering.

This reasoning can be applied to many other issues.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

The member's time is up.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Malpeque.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I am certainly pleased to speak to this motion, and I am in support of it. To be clear, the enactment of this act would require the Governor in Council to amend the marine mammal regulations to increase the distance that a person must maintain from another person who is fishing for seals from a half nautical mile to a full nautical mile, except under the authority of a seal fishery observation licence.

As I have said, the Liberal Party of Canada fully supports the Canadian seal hunt and the sealing industry, and we do place a high priority on the safety and well-being of all those who are involved in the seal hunt. What this motion really gets at is that this is a safety issue. Anti-sealing protestors have become more aggressive in recent years, and these activities that they are involved in not only endanger the lives of sealers trying to earn a living in a very tough and difficult fishery and in a way that is traditional to a lot of areas in this country but they also endanger their own lives.

My experience on this issue and the seal hunt and the fishery goes back some time. In fact, I was involved in a fisheries committee that did a study on a sustainable seal herd and the fishery in 1999. I can remember then fighting or arguing and debating with some of the anti-seal hunt people.

At that time in 1999, the anti-seal hunt folks would use that little white seal pup that is awfully endearing, a beautiful little animal. I remember vividly that they were using the white seal pup in the advertising for the anti-seal hunt, and it had been killed brutally, or they claimed it was being killed brutally. It was illegal at that time to kill white seal pups and it still is. Those are not the animals that are being slaughtered, if they want to say, or harvested, which would be a better word. However, what some of those anti-sealing folks were doing at the time, and still are, is using the advertisement of the white seal pup in their anti-sealing profession and spreading falsehoods in Europe and a lot of other places around the world. They are using it as a way to finance their organization, of which about 70% of the money goes to administration. It is quite a job creation program, and the result of that job creation program, by which they have convinced some Europeans to not buy seal products and to be anti-seal hunt, is that it is taking away jobs and opportunities for Canadians whose traditional fishery was the seal hunt.

When that report was written, the sustainable seal population of the harp seal herd was two million. Information provided by Fisheries and Oceans recently indicates that the northwest Atlantic harp seal population now is nearly ten million, up from that two million in the 1970s.

Imagine how much cod 10 million harp seals eat. That was a fact in the 1999 report.

I want to read a couple of sections of that report. Under the heading “Predation by Seals and the Impact on Cod”, it states:

One of the most controversial aspects of the debate on seals is whether predation by harp seals is impeding the recovery of cod stocks. None of the witnesses who appeared before the Committee claimed that seals were the cause of the collapse of cod stocks, which they clearly attributed to both foreign and domestic overfishing. However, it was noted by the Fisheries Resource Conservation Council in their April 1999 report “that the single cod stock in the Northwest Atlantic considered recovered, namely, the southern Newfoundland/St-Pierre Bank stock (3Ps cod), is the only stock that does not have a large number of seals occurring within its stock range.”

What it is saying is that seals do have an impact on cod stock.

The report goes on to specifically indicate how serious that impact on cod stock is:

According to DFO information, an average adult harp seal consumes between 1.0 and 1.4 tonnes of food a year. DFO estimates that the proportion of commercial species, particularly cod, is about 1 to 2%.

This figure is low because of the lack of data.

When we are talking about the seal hunt and cod and the anti-sealers, which the motion is trying to move further away from the seal herd itself, part of the problem is that little white seal pup, which is a lot more cuddly than a codfish. We do not see those anti-sealing folks out there saying, “My golly, these seals should not be eating all these beautiful little codfish”. I would accuse them directly. They used that little white seal pup. They still use that little white seal pup. It is not legal to slaughter that pup, but they are using it for fundraising purposes and are creating consequences in the lives of people involved in the seal industry.

To put it bluntly, the Canadian seal hunt is a humane and sustainable practice that provides jobs and food. It is also a traditional way of life for many people in Atlantic Canada, coastal communities in Quebec, and the northern regions of the Inuit.

While I support the motion, I believe that the government could have done more to protect the Canadian sealing industry, especially by trying to insert something into CETA, the Canada-European trade agreement, to prevent the Europeans from taking the measures they have taken against the Canadian seal hunt.

I do not want to spend a lot of time on that, but the bottom line in terms of the motion is whether it is really a safety measure.

I have outlined a number of areas where anti-sealers are using misinformation to promote their cause. They are using it to create jobs and income for themselves. They will go to any length to promote their cause and use misinformation to do so. All this motion would do is move those demonstrators a little further back from the seal herd.

I congratulate the member for West Nova for introducing the motion. It would put in place regulations that would ensure the safety of both those involved in the seal hunt and the protesters themselves.