Debates of Oct. 27th, 2016

Opposition Motion—Care for First Nations Children

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

It being 5:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.

The House resumed from October 3 consideration of the motion that Bill S-208, An Act respecting National Seal Products Day, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

National Seal Products Day Act

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

When the House last took up debate on the question, the hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader had seven minutes remaining in his time for his remarks, and so we will go to him now.

Resuming debate, the hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I am going to be fairly brief in my comments, because I know that this is a very important issue for a number of my colleagues, particularly those from the Atlantic region. However, rest assured that Canadians as a whole understand and appreciate the significance of who we are as a nation and how important seal products are.

From my perspective, I applaud the sponsor who has brought this bill into the House today, because I know how genuine he is on such an important issue. This is a very important issue, and as I suggested, it is a part of our Canadian heritage.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege for me to rise and speak to the bill.

As the chair of the Conservative hunting and angling caucus, I first want to pay tribute to my colleagues, the member for Cariboo—Prince George, who has spoken eloquently about this, and of course, my colleague from Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa. I know that my colleague from North Okanagan—Shuswap is about to follow up on this, and we will hear some very enlightened comments, I am sure.

This is an issue that transcends political party boundaries in the House. Therefore, members will see that my remarks will not be partisan, as some remarks can be in this place.

I want to talk about how important this issue is from the perspective of an Albertan.

Why would an Alberta MP want to speak to a bill that deals with national seal products? It is from my perspective of growing up on a farm in rural Alberta. I grew up on a Simmental cow-calf operation. We had milk cows, chickens, and hogs from farrow to finish, in a mixed farming environment. The connection I had with the farm, with the outdoor and rural way of life, led me to my passion, which is hunting and fishing. I love it.

I would ask for a show of hands, but I think it would be completely inappropriate. However, I think most members in the House, especially those from rural areas, love hunting and fishing.

What does that have to do with seal products? It is all about efforts, and there are efforts afoot all around the globe from anti-animal abuse activists who are constantly trying to shut down our rural and outdoor way of life. That is fine. In democracies around the world, everybody has the right to their opinion, the right to express those opinions.

However, I would be horrified if I lost the ability some day to ethically hunt for the food I want to provide my family with, or go fishing and spend time with my son, family members, and friends. We go fly fishing on the North Ram River or catch some beautiful brook trout in Gap Lake. I know that the same thing would be felt in all communities, and the pressure is there for all the coastal communities in our magnificent country to shut down the lawful seal harvest.

I will also come at this from a different angle. It was my privilege, because of my passion, that the good people of Canada paid for 70% of my post-secondary education. I was able to get into the University of Alberta and graduate with a zoology degree in fisheries and aquatic sciences. I furthered my passion by working for Alberta Fish and Wildlife on walleye experiments. I worked as a fishing guide in the north, and I was able to pursue that career. Therefore, I want to let people know how important wildlife management techniques are, from an aspect of governance and management, and one of the most effective wildlife management techniques that any government has is the issuance of hunting licences and hunting permits.

Imagine a situation where we have too much or too little of something. We can simply change the rules a little so that we could allow more wildlife, or more of something, to flourish in a particular area; and where we have a little too much of something, we can sell licences, tags, and permits to people. Not only does this generate a source of revenue for governments to be able to fund all kinds of various services and programs, and most notably these things go back into wildlife conservation efforts, but it also allows the government the ability to get rid of or to manage a problem when it has too much of something.

Most Canadians would be shocked to know—and I do not think that the average Canadian actually does know—that back before the moratorium on the cod fishery on the east coast, there were not nearly as many seals as there are today. There were slightly over one million seals. I spent a number of years on the fisheries committee, natural resources committee, and the environment committee in my 10 years as a parliamentarian. Members can correct me if I am wrong, but today I think we have in the order of six or seven times as many seals on the Atlantic coast of Canada.

At the same time, the cod moratorium in the early 1990s was very controversial and it very much impacted the industry and the way of life because of the inappropriate, some would say, mismanagement of the cod fishery. That stock has had a moratorium on it ever since. I am a fisheries biologist by training. That fishery should have recovered by now, and I know that in some places it actually has, but in the vast majority of areas, it has not.

This has cost so many people on the coast their way of life. I would not want that on anybody. I do not want that on the farmers I represent in central Alberta. I certainly do not want foolish policies affecting the way of life of my energy resource workers in central Alberta. I do not want this to affect the way of life of the people who live in our coastal communities. It is vitally important. This perspective is where I am coming from.

I applaud my colleague and admire his courage in bringing this bill forward, because bringing forward a piece of legislation that deals with this issue is often very divisive. It brings out emotions in people. It defies sometimes even logic when people use arguments one way or the other.

The bill focuses primarily on the traditional culture and heritage of Canada's indigenous peoples in coastal communities respecting the use of ocean resources. Why on earth would we not do that? Why on earth would we not promote seal products here in Canada. Why on earth would we not defend the people who earn a livelihood?

In some communities, the ability to harvest seals might only grant that family an extra $7,000 to $10,000 a year for the seal harvest, but if that family only has a household income of $15,000 or $20,000 a year, we are talking about a significant portion of their earnings. Some people live on those earnings. We should not even have to be defending this; we should be promoting this. The responsible harvest and use of these natural resources in a sustainable and ethical way is something we should be applauding, not admonishing.

We have heard report after report at the fisheries committee, the member who is the sponsor of this piece of legislation and I, saying how much has changed in the practice of seal harvesting over the years and how much more ethically and responsibly done it is today. However, in a world of social media and a world of celebrities, foie-gras-eating celebrities, in some cases, yacht-owning celebrities, in some cases, who take up charges that seem completely hypocritical, what do they say? We have blue sky, white ice, and of course, a harvest going on.

The reality is that it is completely ethical and sustainable to do so, and we should be not only applauding the people who do it but encouraging them and promoting them.

It makes complete sense from a wildlife management perspective. All parties in this House, when they are in government, have a great record of defending it, promoting it, and defending these interests at the European level, at the World Trade Organization, and so on. I think this piece of legislation, if passed, just puts one more feather in our cap as a nation as we promote this.

The bill also builds on the importance of ecological sustainability, through practices like the seal harvest, that help maintain healthy wildlife populations. I have already talked about that. One of my favourite events here on the Hill is Seal Day on the Hill. To have an actual day enshrined, not in a legislative way where we have a legal holiday but just as a day that recognizes the importance of this small but vibrant and necessary industry, is absolutely wonderful.

If we go to these dinners we see amazing products made out of sealskin. We have natural health products with seal oil and omega-3, amazing crafts that are made primarily by first nations and Inuit people. We have beautiful coats and beautiful mitts and boots. They are very beautiful, top-quality products. These products have a demand. There are people who are willing to buy these, and it makes complete sense that we would allow this to happen, and not only allow it to happen but encourage it to happen.

I can only say thanks to my colleague for sponsoring the bill and bringing it forward in the House of Commons. I want to thank all of my colleagues in the House of Commons who stand up against things like animal rights legislation posing as legislation dealing with animal welfare, as we saw with Bill C-246, legislation that would have actually been harmful to these efforts.

I want to thank all of the folks who work in this particular industry and risk their lives sometimes. Seal harvesting is one of the more difficult occupations one can have, but is done in a very safe and responsible manner. I wish them good health and safety as they continue with this.

I encourage all of my colleagues in the House of Commons to support this common-sense piece of legislation.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will start by saying that I will be supporting the bill, as I support rural communities across this country. I also support the long history of well-managed traditional wildlife harvest that has been the lifeblood of many communities for centuries and even millennia.

I know that the seal hunt is controversial and that support for it varies widely in different parts of Canada and different parts of the world. I know this. I was born and raised in British Columbia, where there was considerable opposition to the Atlantic coast seal hunt, especially 30 or more years ago when whitecoats were still being harvested.

I lived in Newfoundland for a few years during that time and witnessed first-hand the hard feelings between Newfoundlanders and animal rights activists from away, but I also witnessed the excitement in the spring when the first boats returned from the front and seal flippers appeared in local grocery stores. Yes, I have eaten flipper pie. I also spent a summer in the northern Yukon in the early 1980s and witnessed traditional seal hunting while on Herschel Island with an Inuvialuit family.

While I was born in British Columbia, I have to mention that I have a long family history with the seal hunt. My great-great-great-great-grandfather Azariah Munden came to Brigus, Newfoundland, in 1759 and by 1768, he was a sealing captain out of that beautiful port. In 1798, I know his crew took 10,000 seals.

In 1819, his son, Captain William Munden, built the Four Brothers, the first Newfoundland-made sealing schooner weighing over 100 tons. By then, Brigus was one of the main centres of the seal fishery in Newfoundland and the Mundens and other Brigus masters were world famous for their exploits on the icy seas, including the Bartletts, who captained the ships that took Admiral Peary to the Arctic and eventually the North Pole.

In the middle of the 19th century, the Newfoundland seal fishery harvested between 400,000 and 500,000 seals per year and was a critical part of the annual wages for many men on the island. Today, the fishery is rather different, and not just because the age of sail gave way to steam and then to diesel. There are six species of seals in Atlantic Canada, but only three or four are hunted regularly. Ringed and bearded seals are hunted in the Arctic, primarily for subsistence purposes. A few grey seals are taken on the Atlantic coast.

However, it is the harp seal has always been the main focus of the hunt and is the most abundant marine mammal in the North Atlantic, probably one of the most abundant marine mammals in the world. They are hunted in Atlantic Canada, the Canadian Arctic, and Greenland. The harp seal population right now is around eight million individuals. I hear 7.4 million from some seal experts. I have heard as much as nine million, but that population has been more or less stable for the past decade and more than triple what it was back in the 1970s.

The harp seal hunt is one of the best-managed harvests of wildlife in the world. For one thing, it is relatively easy to count these animals, as the adult females haul out on the ice to give birth to their young in the spring. I have spent my life counting all sorts of animals and can only dream of such an easy census opportunity. I know there are a couple of fisheries biologists in the House today, who can appreciate trying to count fish underwater. These are dark animals hauled out on ice. One could fly over them and count the dots. The population estimates have a good level of confidence.

About 65,000 seals were harvested last year in the Atlantic hunt, well below the quota set by DFO at 400,000 animals per year. This quota is somewhat above the number that would be set for a precautionary approach, but that would only be used if there were some level of concern about the population trend, and there clearly is not. This management policy is considered one of the best in the world and has been copied by other sealing countries, such as Norway.

I would like to finish by commenting on another topic that often comes up in conversations around the seal fishery and seal populations, and that is the effect that seal predation might have on fish populations, particularly the populations of the endangered northern cod and Atlantic salmon.

Both grey seals and harp seals are mentioned in this regard, since their populations have risen as those fish stocks have declined. I know there was an annual cull of grey seals based on this belief until 1990 in an attempt to improve the recovery of cod populations.

However, without going into details here, I would just say that culling one species of animal to improve the numbers of another species, when it has been our actions that created the problem in the first place, is problematic both in terms of biology and logistics. Therefore, I just wanted to say that I would be hesitant to support a seal cull as an effort to improve fish populations, but I do support the commercial harvest of seals on the Atlantic coast and in the Arctic, which in modern times is both well managed and humane.

I support this bill to showcase seal products as I support the rural communities that depend on the traditional seal fishery as a source of income each and every year.

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indigenous and Northern Affairs]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to speak to this bill. Those members in the House who know me know my passion for the sealing industry and my support for Inuit across Canada who depend so heavily upon the sealing industry, as do the people in the my riding and those across Atlantic Canada and in Quebec.

The bill, an act respecting national seal products day, was brought forward by Senator Céline Hervieux-Payette, a Liberal senator who has since retired from the Senate. It has now made its way to the House of Commons, championed by my colleague the member for Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, another individual who we know is a very passionate supporter of the sealing industry in Canada.

The bill would designate May 20 of each year as national seal products day throughout Canada. National seal products day would not be a legal holiday, however, it would be an opportunity for us to reflect upon the seal, the cultural use of the seal, the sustainability of the seal in our lives, and how it maintains its strength for Canadians as a source of food, as a source for crafts, as a source of economic sustainability in many regions across the country.

It is important that we recognize and honour this occasion. In fact, on several occasions, I have had the opportunity to host seal day on the Hill. This past year, I hosted seal day for my colleagues, the members of Parliament, but also for others who were supporters of the seal industry across the country. It was an opportunity for advocates and promoters, for artists and crafters, for Inuit and others, to talk about this industry and how it sustained them as individuals and also their communities. It is important we continue to do that.

Those members who know me know I am strong promoter of the seal industry. I wear seal nearly every day, in one way, shape, or form.

I grew up in a small Inuit community in the north. My father was a hunter and a fisherman. Seal was such a large part of the diet of our family. It was our main source of protein as we grew up, but it brought so much more value besides food sustainability.

The seal itself became one of the main products that was used in making clothing, in making things that we would need for use outdoors or indoors every day. To this day, my mother is still a crafter of seal products. She makes beautiful designs of product. We do not waste anything. We have full utilization of seal.

I do not know if I have ever seen a more sustainable harvest in my entire life as exists in the sealing industry. Back 30 or 40 years ago, there was exploitation of the industry by those who were non-supporters, whose only goal was to set out to sabotage the lifeblood and lifestyle of the Inuit and northerners. They were successful, which was unfortunate.

However, as Canadians, we are also resilient and those of us who depend upon this resource to sustain our families continue to fight back.

I watched many times, as a young girl, as my father, my uncles, and my brothers all fought those great protestors who thought they were barbarians, that they were less than everyone else in the country because they were trying to provide for their family in a very sustainable way.

The sealing industry is one of the most humane industries in Canada today. Everything about the seal is humane: the way that it is harvested, the way that it is cured, the way that it is utilized. There is no waste.

In fact, as my colleague spoke to earlier, it has probably become one of the greatest impediments to fish stock rebuilding in Canada, of all the arguments one could make. As we know, we have an overpopulation of seal because of those protesters, because of the way they have tried to erode the lifestyle of Canadians who depend upon this sustainable animal. Our ecosystem is in complete imbalance, an imbalance that has affected the livelihood of other Canadians, especially in Atlantic Canada, and Newfoundland and Labrador in particular.

The imbalance in the ecosystem is a tremendous impediment to the rebuilding of our cod stocks. Indeed, I live in a region where I watch seals go in the rivers and fish for salmon, something we would never have heard of 20 years ago. That is because they are starving, because their population is so large. They have nothing in the ocean left to eat. We have allowed the ecosystem in the ocean to become imbalanced, and that is affecting the rest of the food supply and the fish we depend upon.

Is that wise? Of course it is not wise, but that imbalance was created by people who did not understand the importance of the seal industry to the people who utilize it. When we fish from the ocean or harvest from the land, we do so leaving it in a sustainable way. We do not waste; we utilize. We do not do it for fun; we do it because we need to, and as a cultural part of our lives.

The Magdalen Islands, Bona Vista, St. Anthony, Nain, Kuujjuaq, these are all places around Canada where both Inuit and non-Inuit have used the seal all their lives to sustain their families. It is such an important part of our culture. It is unfortunate that we have seen the seal ban by the European Union, but I want to say that as devastating as impact has been on indigenous and coastal communities that depend on the seal harvest, we have been working hard to find a way to get our products back into the EU.

I want to recognize and commend the Inuit artists and the Inuit Art Council for the work they have done in building that relationship with the Europeans. I want to commend them for the show they did on indigenous art and seal products in the European Union just recently. They have made some progress and now all seal products from Nunavut will have access to the European market. We are now also working with the Government of the Northwest Territories to ensure that it too will have that access.

I wanted to point that out, because when most people hear about the seal industry, they hear it from well-funded protest groups that have their own ideology about how the ecosystem and society should work. Their ideology is not based upon the cultural values of people who live in Canada. We are a country where people respect each other. We respect the cultures of each other. In our culture, seal is a very important part. It is a part that not only feeds our body and nourishes us, but it is also the part that sustains us economically, and has for a long time. To be able to raise the profile of that is important.

I remember doing about five different shows promoting the seal industry in Montreal, Toronto, and Ottawa. We promoted the seal products of Inuit people and talked about the seal industry and how it works. Many people wanted to know more about what was happening.

I will be supporting the motion. I think it is a good motion and I would ask my colleagues to recognize the cultural importance of seal and to mark this occasion with my constituents and all Inuit and others in Canada.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise today to speak to Bill S-208, An Act respecting National Seal Products Day.

This bill is important in its purpose, in affirming the traditions and the heritage of peoples, especially our first nations peoples who inhabit Canadian coastal communities and seek to preserve a way of life and identity. If we examine the fabric of the identity of these people, we will find, interwoven in that fabric, the hard work and enterprising spirit, and many threads of tradition and culture that bring colour and distinction to their identity, and ours too as Canadians.

The bill affords the houses of this Parliament an opportunity to issue respect and stand with our fellow Canadians, the women and men in coastal communities, members of first nations determined to preserve their traditional way of life, to stand with Canadians with pride in the face of those who oppose the utility of the seal.

We need to stand up against those who would deny our fellow Canadians their way of life, those who would deny our fellow Canadians their cultural traditions, and those who would deny our fellow Canadians their identity.

As such, I stand in my place in the House today in support of not only this bill, but of our fellow Canadians who depend on seals the same way others depend on salmon or wheat or vegetables to pay their bills, the same way others depend on trees to feed their families, and the same way many other Canadians rely on our sustainable and natural resources to maintain their ways of life.

Our fellow Canadians deserve our support, and I sincerely hope our Parliament possesses the fortitude to afford this support. Now, more than ever, we must demonstrate solidarity with our fellow Canadians who seek to recover from the ill-conceived European Union ban of seal products in 2009. The EU ban was not based on science and it was not based on principles of sustainability. The EU ban was the result of a high-profile lobby campaign, fuelled by celebrities who took a few hours away from their lavish lives to denigrate and prejudice the lives of our fellow Canadians.

Sadly, their campaign was fed by biased information based on emotion, not science. The lobby campaign succeeded in undermining a sustainable industry based on seal hunts that were an important part of Canada's management of fisheries and oceans. What the EU did not see, through the smoke and mirrors of the celebrity campaigns, was that the Royal Commission of 1986 brought Canada's seal hunt into the 21st century.

The Royal Commission provided a foundation to ensure Canada's seal hunt was sustainable, sustainable for our seal population and sustainable for the complex ecosystems they inhabited. The Royal Commission also precipitated a modernizing of regulations to ensure the hunt would be carried out humanely.

Unfortunately, the EU has not only injured economies in our coastal and first nations communities, the EU's infantile ban has also harmed our oceans. Over time, we have learned that harvesting or not harvesting one species has impacts on other species and indeed the entire ecosystem in which we exist.

One might ask what an MP from the interior of British Columbia would know about seals or seal products. Well, in my former roles dealing with fish and wildlife management, and now as deputy critic for Fisheries and Oceans Canada and the Canadian Coast Guard, I speak with an understanding of how important it is to manage on an ecosystem basis, managing all species holistically, not just on a species-by-species approach.

In my home province of British Columbia, I have been witness to the reluctance to manage predator species and the devastating impacts this reluctance has had on prey and other species. This reluctance to manage predator species was born from similar campaigns based on emotion and vacant of scientific reason. Much like the campaign that led to the EU ban, these campaigns were supported by foreign funds and blatantly ignored the traditions, cultures and ways of life of our fellow Canadians.

I have also had the honour of travelling to Atlantic Canada for numerous meetings over the past few months, where I connected with many Atlantic Canadians who depend on the ocean for subsistence. The ocean and its bounty are their livelihood.

A fisherman friend from Newfoundland recently relayed to me that there was a time when the residents of Newfoundland and Labrador relied completely on the bounty of the sea, that the island of Newfoundland was founded on fishing and sealing, industries that supported the very survival of the inhabitants of Newfoundland. This was their way of life for hundreds of years, solidifying the importance of sealing in Canada's history as a heritage activity.

It has been over 24 years since the cod moratorium was announced, an announcement that precipitated the largest layoffs in Canada's history.

This fisherman also told me that the sealing industry is without a doubt a crucial element in helping the cod stocks of the northwest Atlantic Ocean recover from the devastating collapse in the 20th century. To ensure that the fisheries in Atlantic Canada will have a future, we need to protect them from an ever-increasing seal population, which is severely limiting their recovery. Population control is an essential tool that is needed to ensure that a balanced ecosystem can exist.

Hunters and fishers are able to harvest seals humanely, and they ought to be able to do that and be supported in this, as it is a means for them to provide for themselves and for others. By passing this bill, we would be helping to restore the way of life that existed in Newfoundland and other coastal communities that has been so drastically impacted.

We would also be building a stronger case for the EU to overturn its ban. By undercutting Canada's seal hunt, the EU ban has undercut an industry that has had an important role in maintaining a delicate balance in our ocean ecosystem.

A reduction in the number of seals being harvested has wreaked havoc on our fisheries. Canada's Atlantic salmon fishery continues to struggle, and we know that predation and a booming seal population is a factor. The same can be said for Canada's northern cod fishery and the snow crab fishery in Atlantic Canada, and the list goes on.

The EU ban has hurt the economies of our coastal and first nations communities, especially in our northern communities. In fact, I recently learned of a correlation between the imposition of the EU ban on seal products and an increase in the suicide rate in Canada's northern communities.

The EU ban has undermined a legitimate industry that was part of a broader system of maintaining a sustainable balance in the ocean food chains and ecosystems. Enough is enough. The European Union may close its market to our seal products and undermine our system, but the European Union and its chaos cannot and will not impinge on the pride and dignity of our fellow Canadians.

I applaud the sponsor of this bill for the fortitude to take on a challenging issue and bring it to the forefront, but I would be remiss if I did not mention a previous and similar bill that was introduced and passed in the previous Parliament. Bill C-501, passed in 2014, recognized National Hunting, Trapping and Fishing Heritage Day. We now have one day of the year that officially recognizes a fundamental part of our Canadian heritage that not only helped build this great nation but continues to provide food and sustenance for people across this land.

Bills S-208 and C-501 have very much in common. Both bills recognize the importance of our Canadian heritage, history, and way of life. Both bills seek respect for those people who make their living from our renewable and sustainable resources of fish, wildlife, and marine species.

If we fail to recognize and defend that which has made us Canadian, we open the door to exterior forces that would erode our identity, forces and voices that would detach Canadians from our heritage, our land, and our oceans and sever our connection to the earth.

The human race evolved by learning how to harvest and utilize the natural resources around us. In doing so, we are now learning that we must manage those natural resources around us in a way that finds balance. The people, including the first nations, who live on the front line of harvesting and who depend on natural resources such as seals understand this balance.

[David Graham, Liberal, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Madam Speaker, it gives me a great deal of pleasure to rise today to defend Senate Bill S-208, an act respecting national seal products day.

The issues in the industry have been well-explained by the many speakers we have heard, so I will not repeat what they have said. I agree with them. Their speeches were very good.

I seconded this bill sponsored by my friend, colleague, and mentor, the member for Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame. When he asked me if I would do it, there was no hesitation on my part, for while the seal population in the Laurentians is decidedly low, it is an important issue close to my heart, one I have been passionate about going all the way back to high school. There is a back story to this that members probably will not hear very often.

I grew up in a political but not partisan family, political in the sense of getting involved in the community, in issues, in nation-building in our own little corner of the nation. For reasons of opportunity not germane to this debate, I attended high school at a boarding school in Massachusetts. I received the maximum financial assistance from the school available to foreign students. There, at an institution founded in the latter half of the 19th century, called Northfield Mount Hermon School, I met students from dozens of countries, and as a teenager learned how to swear in many languages. Never did I swear so loudly as I did after the school invited a guest speaker on an issue that to that point I knew nothing about and had not even heard of. Therefore, when Captain Paul Watson of the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society spoke to the entire assembled student body about the need to destroy the sealing industry in Canada, and how he had sunk two ships through his activities, more than the Canadian navy itself had sunk since the Second World War, he said at the time, I twigged to its being a fundamental injustice.

As a 15-year old from rather far inland in rural Quebec, I did not yet know what the seal hunt was. Google did not yet exist, websites were often turned off at the end of the business day, Wikipedia was five years away, people still used the gopher protocol and had RFC 742, or finger, profiles, and so information had to be gleaned in more traditional ways. However, my instinct in listening to this energetic and very well-received speech, according to my fellow students, was that it did not add up. The seal hunt no doubt was an important part of Canadian culture in a part of my country I knew nothing about. It felt like an attack not only on a people or an industry but on my country. I took it as an attack on Canada itself.

I was never shy in school to identify myself as Canadian. Of over 1,100 students from around 75 countries, there were never more than about a dozen of us from here. Most of my classmates referred to me by the nickname they gave me, “Canada'”, and I can say that upon returning to Canada, it was a bit of a disappointment to lose that nickname, though in a similar way, in the years I lived in Ontario, I was just as proud to identify myself as a Quebecker, which I consider to be an integral part of my identity and who I am.

At NMH, we were early adopters of technology. Jonas Reed Klein had graduated in the class of 1993, two years before my arrival. A very promising technologist, he went on to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology that autumn, but was tragically killed in an unusual small plane crash in November of that year, the plane being knocked out of the sky in a collision with a skydiver. I never met Jonas, but my brother Jonah, who attended NMH before me, did know him, and one of my most important mentors in technology, my classmate Seth Schoen, who is now at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, met him, learned from him, and passed on a lot of that knowledge and his passion. As a result of Jonas' very promising career, and strong and, by all accounts, contagious interest in technology, his family set up a memorial fund at my school to promote the use of and education about technology. Had that series of events not happened, I would not be standing in the House today.

The technology fund created two things: one was the technology package needed to create a campus club called GEECS, a recursive acronym for Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, which had a 386 running Slackware Linux on a 1.2 kernel, where I got my first Linux experience, which directly resulted in my first career as a technology journalist and news editor at linux.com, under the mentorship of Robin Miller, known in the technology world simply as Roblimo, and made me probably one of the few people ever to use Lynx, the text-mode web browser, professionally. The other was a system years ahead of its time called SWIS, the School-Wide Information System, based on the first-class collaboration suite. By the end of my ninth grade in 1995, every student in the school had an email address, which we could use on the Mac LC 475s and Mac LC 520s in the Cutler computer lab. Somewhere between a BBS and a social network, the system allowed students and faculty to interact electronically with message groups on arbitrary topics in what was then a very novel way.

One of these groups was on food. Frequently, vegan advocates would argue for veganism, something they are well-known to do. Their argument, which was not unfair, was that people should not eat meat without knowing where it came from, that it was not justifiable to eat meat if one was not part of the process of how that meat ended up on one's plate. Being a life-long homesteader, my parents Joe and Sheila—any nearby Australians may want to take note of their names—were among the runners up for Mother Earth News' Homesteaders of the Year back in 2012, so I knew a thing or two about where meat came from.

My whole life, we have raised our own meat, vegetables, eggs, and so forth. Today, in our multi-generational household, we produce around 80% of the food we eat, when we are not here in Ottawa, of course.

My argument, therefore, back to these vegan activists was always, “Here's my connection to meat”, and then I would go into detail, “Here's how to raise a chicken. Here's how to slaughter a chicken. Here's how to clean a chicken. Here's how to store a chicken and here's how to prepare a chicken.” Of course, this put the vegan activists in a really awkward spot. The general consensus and response from them on the SWIS message board was, “Nobody should eat meat, except David.”

There is the trouble. When a vegan, an activist, or someone who is against the seal hunt but will happily go eat a hamburger tells me, or you, Madam Speaker, or any of our colleagues here, or our families, or our fellow citizens, what we can and cannot eat, what we can and cannot produce, and what we should or should not do, they are making assumptions about who we are, what our experiences are, and what our realities are.

In my years since, it has been important to me to learn about other people's experiences and realities, to become that much more worldly, and among many other things, to understand what the seal hunt actually is, beyond my baseline high school instincts. I would invite others to do the same.

When people all over the world tell our communities, who for over millennia have become very much part of the ecosystem in our coastal regions, where managing the seal population does not only serve to feed a population directly but also ensures fish stocks can survive the voracious appetites of our fellow predators, that this particular hunt is wrong and must result in a social and economic stigma that has nothing to do with reality, I believe it is important that we use our technology to post on our worldwide information-sharing systems what our reality actually is.

The stigma has made it so that buying seal meat in a grocery store, or through a fishmonger, which should be possible, is not possible. I believe it is incumbent on people like us, parliamentarians, in our position of protecting the interests of our society and of our future, to respond in kind, to say, no, we do not accept that social and economic stigma based on no facts whatsoever but only on a perception and on a quick political whim, where there is no real need to worry about the realities over there in Canada. No, we do not buy the argument that sinking warships in the Canadian navy as a protest against the livelihoods of our people is productive, fair, or justified. We will not put up with these attacks on a Canadian way of life, which goes back far longer than Canada as we know it.

It is very important for us to pass Bill S-208 and make May 20 national seal products day to make a statement that we defend our people and their way of life, that we defend the livelihood of our people, that we will celebrate our culture, and that we want to see our products succeed.

The bill does not make a holiday. It makes a statement. It is a statement I am proud to make, proud to shout from the rooftops, and one I hope my colleagues will be proud to make as well.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

Madam Speaker, I first want to thank my former employee and colleague. I did not even write the speech for him. With all the technical words in it, I am just not capable of doing it, quite frankly.

I want to thank him for that, because he illustrates a very important point. It is not just a holiday; it is a statement. That is absolutely correct. Here is someone who has no connection to any of the communities that have been mentioned, whether they are in the north, on the coast of British Columbia, or in Atlantic Canada, and he managed to make a connection as a Canadian, to all Canadians, over 30 million of us, to look at seal products day as a necessary thing.

I also want to thank my other colleagues, and I would like to mention some of them. Someone who did not get a chance to speak was the member for Nunavut, but I want to thank him. He has supplied many of the seal ties we see here today. He has truly been an advocate. As a matter of fact, when he greeted the President of the United States, he was wearing a seal tie. I think that is probably the first time that has ever happened with an American president, and hopefully not the last.

I want to thank the member for Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa very much, because he brought forward the argument of wildlife management. I want to share a story with him. One of my predecessors, the member of Parliament for Bonavista—Trinity—Conception, was Captain Morrissey Johnson. He captained a boat himself and then became a politician. He was on Front Page Challenge, a television show on CBC, as a guest about the seal hunt. He was asked what made him so convinced that seals were eating fish. His response was that they were in the ocean and they were certainly not eating turnips, which was a very illustrative point. I thought it was pretty good. I want to thank the member for that, and his vast experience with wildlife management certainly was educational.

I would like to thank the member for Red Deer—Lacombe, who pointed out that seals provide extra money for people with low incomes. That is very true. He compared it to when Europeans say they do not like the seal hunt and the cruelty it represents, and then eat foie gras. I do not have to illustrate how foie gras is made. I probably should not or we would not eat supper, but I do support that industry as well.

I want to thank the member for South Okanagan—West Kootenay. He talked about the coast-to-coast connection, his family being from Brigus, Newfoundland, sealers themselves, and then on the west coast with the Inuvialuit.

I want to thank my colleague from Labrador. She hosts seal day here. She has been an extremely passionate advocate for it, and I thank her greatly for all she has done. She is certainly a champion for this, more so than I am, quite frankly.

I also want to thank the member for North Okanagan—Shuswap for his comments. He talked about the EU ban and how unjust and unfair it is, which goes back to the point that was made by my colleague from Laurentides—Labelle about the fact that there are people who look at this as being extremely cruel, but have no problem wearing or eating other animal products without any idea where they come from, how they are slaughtered, or how they are raised.

Of course, I also want to thank my colleagues who questioned me during my first speech. I want to thank them for that, but again I remind them that this day, as my colleague pointed out, is not just a day of celebration. It is a strong statement for our communities. There are exemptions in place in places like the European Union for cultural reasons—aboriginal, first nations, Inuit—but quite frankly, they still do not understand how this works because they have to sell this commercially in order to make things viable, as well as the Atlantic communities.

All that being said, I want to thank all of my colleagues in the House for allowing me to bring this forward. I want to thank Céline Hervieux-Payette, a former senator, for being the genesis of this particular bill. It was my honour to bring it forward. I also want to thank the former member for Yukon, who also made a go at this and it did not quite work. However, it is now in the House for a vote. Let us hope this happens.

I will stand here to vote for Bill S-208 in the same way and in the same spirit that I voted for Bill C-501, and that is to protect our culture tied to wildlife, how we manage it, and how we champion it as Canadians.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

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

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

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

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Pursuant to Standing Order 93, the recorded division stands deferred until Wednesday, November 2, immediately before the time provided for private members' business.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

Indigenous Affairs

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Madam Speaker, tonight I stand with the Nuu-chah-nulth people to call on the Government of Canada to honour its commitment to reconciliation with first nations and to uphold the Supreme Court of Canada's decision.

It has been seven years since the Supreme Court of Canada reaffirmed the Nuu-chah-nulth aboriginal right to catch and sell fish. Even after a Supreme Court of Canada justice had mandated that the government deal fairly and negotiate with the Nuu-chah-nulth Nations on their fishing rights, they still remain without a negotiated agreement, or a reasonable offer from the federal government, to exercise their proven, established, and constitutionally protected rights.

Instead of being on the water fishing, where they belong, the Nuu-chah-nulth are still in court arguing with federal government lawyers, which sounds familiar, who continue to try to minimize their aboriginal fishing rights.

Just last June, in fact, we felt hopeful about meaningful progress when the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard met with the Nuu-chah-nulth chiefs here in Ottawa. Still nothing has changed, and the conflict continues.

At last September's meeting with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, it was made clear by DFO officials that their department had no mandate to implement the Nuu-chah-nulth Nations rights-based fishery.

That is when the Ha'wiih, the hereditary chiefs, dismissed the DFO regional director from their meeting and asked her not to return until Canada develops a meaningful mandate to implement their rights-based fishery.

In an unprecedented move, the Nuu-chah-nulth Ha'wiih, the hereditary chiefs, also told the Prime Minister that he is no longer welcome on their land until this conflict is resolved.

For thousands of years, salmon has been the main food source and sustenance of the Nuu-chah-nulth people. The Nuu-chah-nulth just want to find their rightful place in a new respectful and trusting relationship with Canada.

Here we have an economic development opportunity that supports self-determination, and finally we have a government that says it is onside and supports indigenous people with action, but instead, this government, like the Harper government, refuses to let them move forward. Indigenous people have repeatedly said, enough already.

As we know, the crown has a constitutional duty to consult and accommodate indigenous people before taking action that may affect claimed or proven aboriginal and treaty rights. This is a recognized legal requirement, pursuant to section 35 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court tells us that the underlying purpose of the duty to consult and accommodate is to advance reconciliation in the relationship between indigenous people and the crown. This duty to consult and accommodate is in line with the Prime Minister's mandate letter to the Minister of Justice. It seems that all the pieces are in place to move forward with a fair negotiation of Nuu-chah-nulth fishing rights.

Why is the government stalling? Why is Canada's relationship with the Nuu-chah-nulth Nations not moving toward reconciliation? The Nuu-chah-nulth deserve to have answers to these questions, and every time I ask these questions, I do not get the answers. The government lawyers continue to argue in court that Nuu-chah-nulth fishing rights should be minimized. The ministers say one thing and do another.

I have lived in the Nuu-chah-nulth territories for more than two decades, and I have come to know the Nuu-chah-nulth people to be respectful, kind, patient, and more than fair, so I am hoping the government will consider showing that respect back.

The Department of Fisheries and Oceans must be given a clear mandate to negotiate fairly. I ask the minister opposite to please explain the government's next action steps to resolve this conflict so the Nuu-chah-nulth can find their rightful place in this new relationship with Canada.

[Serge Cormier, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries]

Madam Speaker, let me first start by thanking the member opposite for his interest in this issue.

Establishing a renewed nation-to-nation relationship with indigenous peoples based on recognition of rights, respect, co-operation, and partnership is a top priority for our government.

To be clear, the federal government is not opposing the rights of the five Nuu-Chah-Nulth First Nations. On the contrary, our government remains committed to the consultation and negotiation process, and accommodating and implementing the rights of the first nations.

In its decision of November 3, 2009, the Supreme Court of British Columbia found that the five bands on the west coast of Vancouver Island have an aboriginal right to fish for any species of fish within their fishing territories, and to sell that fish. On appeal, the Court of Appeal for British Columbia excluded geoduck from the scope of the aboriginal right.

The decision also found that the first nations have a right to fish using their preferred means, which the court characterized as community-based, localized fisheries involving wide community participation and using small, low-cost boats. Consultation and negotiation with the five Nuu-chah-nulth First Nations have been ongoing since 2010.

Following the establishment of the right, the parties set up a substantive consultation and negotiation process that was modelled on treaty negotiations with a main table for negotiations and a joint working group for technical discussions to work with the first nations to address outstanding fisheries issues.

In addition to these main table and technical discussions, DFO senior officials have met regularly with the first nations to help work out the details of accommodating the first nations rights.

The matters that are the subject of consultations are complex. One of the significant challenges for these ongoing negotiations is that there is a different view on the scope of the right, which was described by the court as a right to sell fish into the commercial market place but not on an industrial scale.

Since 2010, significant fishing access has been provided to the first nations. For example, in 2007, the first nations had 23 commercial licences and they now have access to over 126 licences and additional quota. In 2015, to help guide the discussions, DFO developed a negotiating framework to enable DFO and the first nations to further test and evaluate the accommodation of preferred means of fishing through local small boat fishery approaches for chinook salmon and other species of interest to the first nations.

Through these consultations and negotiation processes, we are seeking to continue implementation of the court decision; provide regular communal commercial access for first nations to participate in commercial fisheries; enable fishing by the first nations using preferred means; ensure that after food, social and ceremonial requirements, there is access for the first nations and for regular commercial and recreational sectors in the fishery; and ensure that proper management and control mechanisms are in place to support conservation and compliance for all fisheries.

Again, these are complicated matters. The consultation and negotiation processes established by DFO and the five first nations have helped develop a common understanding of our respective views and is assisting us in finding mutually agreeable resolutions to outstanding issues.

The government is committed to working with the first nations through the current consultation and negotiation processes to accommodate their rights.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Madam Speaker, one thing the government has in common with government lawyers is that it is basically continuing to try to minimize the aboriginal fishing rights of the Nuu-chah-nulth. That is clear in what I just heard today and what we see in the courts.

This is not a nation-to-nation relationship. This is not about consultation and accommodation. Accommodation is coming to the table with a mandate to negotiate something fairly, respectfully, based on principles that will advance each nation to nation so they can thrive. This is the sustenance of these nations.

Will the government issue a clear mandate to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans to negotiate fairly with the Nuu-chah-nulth nations so they can implement their rights-based fisheries? I invite the member opposite to explain how the government will move beyond its words and show real actions that back up their commitments to the Nuu-chah-nulth people and indigenous people.

[Serge Cormier, Liberal, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Madam Speaker, as I said before, a renewed nation-to-nation relationship with indigenous peoples is a top priority for our government.

Once again, we are not opposing the rights of the five Nuu-Chah-Nulth first nations. Our government takes these rights very seriously and is working with first nations.

Consultations and negotiations with the five first nations have been ongoing since 2010.

Since then, significant fishing access to the commercial fishery has been provided. The matters that are the subject of consultations are very complex. The processes established have allowed for the essential exchange of views as we continue to work together to find mutually agreeable solutions to address outstanding issues and to implement this right.

I can assure the member that this government is committed to working with the first nations through the current consultations and negotiation process to accommodate their rights.

National Defence

[Erin Weir, NDP, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Madam Speaker, back in June, I asked why the government had not started an open and transparent competition to replace the CF-18 fighter jets. At the time, it appeared to many observers that the government was set to do a sole-source deal to obtain Super Hornets. To give credit where it is due, the government has not yet purchased Super Hornets through a sole-source deal. However, to the government's discredit, it has still not started a transparent process to replace the CF-18s.

One of the key arguments against an open competition is that it would take too long. I want to put it on record that, if the government had started an open competition when I pressed this issue in June, we would now be four months into that process. If we back up a little more, part of the Liberal election platform was an open and transparent competition to replace the CF-18s. If the Liberals had kept that promise upon taking power, we would now have had a year to conduct that proper process. If at some point down the road the government comes out with a sole-source deal to purchase Super Hornets or some other aircraft to replace CF-18s and says there is not enough time to run an open competition, let us remember that the government has already missed so many opportunities to do the proper process.

I am really hoping that the parliamentary secretary across the way is going to update the House on where the government is at on fighter procurement and is going to explain why the government has not yet followed through on its promise for an open competition.

However, since we have such limited information to work with on fighter procurement, I do want to address another troubling trend in military policy, the increased sabre rattling toward Russia.

This summer, the Liberal government thrust Canada into a leading role in a very provocative military deployment to Latvia against Russia. The government made this decision without consulting Parliament. I believe that, for a deployment of this nature, the government should come before the House and make the case to explain what it doing, why it is doing it, and what the exit strategy may be.

South of the border, we have the likely next president of the United States, Hillary Clinton, promising a no-fly zone in Syria. What that would actually mean, if the United States were to follow through on that promise, would be to shoot down Russian planes over Syria. In short, that would mean war with Russia.

Earlier this month, Russia conducted a civil defence drill with 40 million people. The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists has its doomsday clock set at three minutes to midnight. I am proud of the role the NDP has played as a voice for nuclear disarmament and peace, but this should not be a partisan issue. Canada as a whole should be working for nuclear disarmament and peace. Unfortunately, the Liberal government has obstructed UN efforts to ban nuclear weapons and continues to take a provocative stand versus Russia.

Our country needs a better defence procurement policy and less military provocation.

[John McKay, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence]

Madam Speaker, first, being in this place for a number of years, I have noticed that whenever there is a great success, it is greeted with deafening silence.

Today, we had a great success in the national shipbuilding strategy. The government announced that it had shortened the time process effectively by two years by simply picking a single hull design. It has invited 13 contractors, all the interested contractors, to submit bids, and that will all be done by April. Therefore, we are moving almost at lightening speed, in government terms, to fulfill the crying need of the Canadian Navy.

I take note that the hon. member submitted his question in June. However, he should take note that shortly after the submission of his question, on July 6 to be precise, the government invited all five contractors, in an open and transparent way, to update all their information. All of that information was collated and received on the quality of the various jets that were being considered. This information has been brought forward, collated, and is being prepared for a memorandum to cabinet.

Therefore, in about one year's time, we have gone from what was essentially a chaotic process of procurement for the jets to: (a) having the cabinet make a clear decision as to the kind of jet that is needed to replace the F-18s; (b) inviting all five contractors to submit, in an open and transparent way, what they think they could do to fulfill the requirements as set by cabinet; (c) completing an analysis and collation of the information for the preparation of a memorandum to cabinet so cabinet can make an informed decision on this open and transparent process.

Therefore, quite candidly, we have more than responded to the hon. member's inquiry.

[Erin Weir, NDP, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the response from the parliamentary secretary. I noticed he used the adjectives “open and transparent” many times. He said that they were gathering information in an open way, but even the parliamentary secretary has not claimed today that the government has kept its promise to conduct an open and transparent competition to replace the CF-18s. That is certainly what the NDP is pushing for in the House.

I also note there was no response at all to the points I made about the provocation of Russia. I would simply note that U.S. President Theodore Roosevelt's foreign policy was to “...speak softly, and carry a big stick”. By contrast, our Prime Minister's foreign policy is to speak inconsistently and carry a selfie stick.

Our country needs better defence procurement and less military provocation.