Sue Barnes

[Supply, March 12th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, Canada is part of a fast changing, competitive and interdependent world economy, an economy that is increasingly knowledge based.

This is not only because of new high skill jobs and high tech industries but there has been a steady rise in skill requirements in all sectors of the economy and in most types of jobs.

The facts speak for themselves. Since 1981 jobs for Canadians with a high school education or less dropped by two million but more than five million jobs were created for those with higher qualifications. Not all Canadians are in a position to easily access the knowledge and skills they will need throughout their lifetime to find and keep the jobs in a very different and changing labour market.

Barriers, most often financial, reduce access to post-secondary education for many of our students across this country. While the government cannot ensure that every Canadian will succeed, the government can enhance the equality of opportunity.

That is what our government has done in the 1998 budget. It has introduced a Canadian opportunity strategy which builds on actions in the 1996 and 1997 budgets and it also introduces historic new measures.

The costs of post-secondary education have risen dramatically over the past 10 years. Tuition fees and other student costs have more than doubled and those with low and middle incomes often face a difficult choice, the no win situation of forget higher education or incur onerous student debt.

This is no win for both the individual Canadians facing this dilemma and for Canada's economic future. The Canadian millennium scholarships are the centrepiece of the Canadian opportunities strategy. They are the single largest investment ever made by the federal government to support access to post-secondary institutions for all Canadians.

Through an initial endowment of $2.5 billion the arm's length Canada millennium scholarship foundation will provide scholarships to over 100,000 students each year over the next 10 years. Scholarships will go to Canadians who need help financing their studies and who demonstrate merit.

For full time students scholarships will average $3,000 a year and individuals can receive up to $15,000 over a maximum of four academic years. The Canada millennium scholarships could reduce the debtload that recipients would otherwise face by over half.

Canadians of all ages, full or part time, studying in publicly funded universities, community colleges, vocational and technical institutes and CGEPs will be eligible for the scholarships. The foundation will begin to award these scholarships in the year 2000.

The government is also introducing Canada study grants. These recognize that many student needs are not fully met by scholarships and student loans. Beginning in 1998-99 Canada student grants of up to $3,000 a year will go to over 25,000 needy students who have children or other dependants. These grants will help fund both full and part time students and will cost $100 million annually.

Nothing is more critical to Canada's economic successes in the 21st century than vigorous, broad based research and development. I am a firm believer for all types of R and D in Canada, both basic and applied science.

To support graduate students and researchers as they develop the leading edge skills needed in a knowledge based economy we will increase funding to the three granting councils to provide research grants, scholarships and fellowships. Over the next three years their combined budget of $766 million in 1997-98 will be increased by over $400 million.

By the end of the year 2000-2001, the council budgets, I am happy to say, will be at their highest level in Canadian history.

Student debt has become a heavy burden for many Canadians. In 1990 a graduate completing four years of post-secondary education faced an average student debtload of about $13,000. By next year the same graduate's average debt will almost double to $25,000. At the beginning of this decade less than 8% of student borrowers had debts larger than $15,000. Today and in the near future almost 40% do. That is a heavy load to carry into your future.

Last December federal and provincial first ministers agreed something must be done to reduce the financial burden of students. They asked the federal government to take action in the 1998 budget and we did. I must say that the universities and colleges in London, Ontario are very grateful that we have, and I know parents of future students are very grateful. Down the road, all Canadians will benefit from these highly skilled people.

First, students will get tax relief. There will be a 17% federal credit for interest paid on the student loans.

Second, we are increasing the income threshold used to qualify for interest relief on Canada student loans by 9% and more graduates will be eligible.

Third, we are introducing graduated interest relief which will extend assistance to more graduates further up the income scale.

Fourth, for individuals who have used 30 months of interest relief, we will ask the lending institutions to extend the loan repayment period to 15 years.

Fifth, if after extending the repayment period to 15 years a borrower remains in financial difficulty, there will be an extended interest relief period.

Finally, for the minority of graduates who still remain in financial difficulties after taking advantage of these relief measures, we will reduce their student loan principle by as much as half.

Together, these new interest relief measures will help up to 100,000 more borrowers and over 12,000 borrowers a year will benefit from debt reduction when this measure is fully phased in.

To keep their job or to get a new one, many Canadians who are already in the workforce may want to take time off from work to upgrade their skills through full time study but often lack the resources to do so. Several new measures will improve Canadians' access to learning throughout their lives.

It will start with at least six million Canadians who have RRSPs with total assets of $200 billion. To those people looking to further their education, this represents an important source of their funds. Beginning on January 1, 1999 Canadians will be able to make tax free withdrawals from their RRSPs for lifelong learning.

An individual who has an RRSP and is enrolled in full time training or higher education for at least three months during the year will be eligible. Individuals will be able to withdraw up to $10,000 a year tax free over a period of four years to a maximum of $20,000. To preserve the role of RRSPs in providing retirement income, the amounts withdrawn will have to be repaid over a 10-year period. In many respects, this plan resembles the home buyers plan.

The need to continually upgrade knowledge and skills can be particularly hard for the growing number of Canadians studying part time and trying to manage the difficult balance of work, family and study. We are proposing two new measures to help those people. Beginning in 1998, the education credit will be extended to part time students. They will be able to claim $60 for each month they were enrolled in a course lasting at least three weeks and including a minimum of 12 hours of course work per month. The measure will benefit up to 250,000 Canadians.

In addition, for the first time, parents studying part time will now be able to deduct their child care expenses. I think this is important. There are certain limits but it is important because previously only full time students were eligible to do this. This measure itself will benefit some 50,000 part time students with children. Any long range plan to acquire knowledge and skills for the 21st century must look ahead to the students of tomorrow and the best way to help those children's futures is to save for their education today.

That is why we have registered education savings plan contributions for children up to the age of 18 to a maximum grant of 20% on the first $2,000 in annual RRSPs.

It is unfortunate that I have limited time left. This budget deals with youth employment and offers $250 million over three years for information technology—

[Heritage Day, February 16th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, today is Heritage Day.

Canadians know that our nation's diversity is our nation's strength. Just the very word heritage must in this diverse Chamber instantly evoke different personal thoughts and memories.

As individual Canadians, the details of our lives, our families and our communities, our backgrounds are different. But for all Canadians, our tremendous and unwaivering pride in Canada is the same.

These are the feelings that every Canadian shares when we think about our wider heritage which inspires us as individuals, enriches us as a society and defines us as a nation.

If we were born here, we inherited it. If we chose to come here, we sought it out. It is ours to remember, to treasure, to learn from, to draw strength from and to be proud of.

Our Canadian heritage is a binding force which transcends geographical distances and unites all Canadians.

[Customs Act, February 6th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, you can count on me to fill a minute or two.

Given the words that I have been listening to in the lobby and in the House so far in this debate, it is important to emphasize the way this bill was handled. It was handled in a non-partisan and constructive manner. The input from all parties has been recognized and is appreciated.

This serves Canadians across the country well. It serves our employees well. It speaks to the good work which MPs can do in this country. When they see an initiative which makes sense, they move forward correcting irritating anomalies and bringing forth a consensus.

I do not want to make a presumption before the debate is over, but I believe this bill will pass third reading with the support of all parties. I look forward to continuing to work in this manner in the House. It is appreciated by all members of Parliament.

[Customs Act, February 6th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take the opportunity before the House of Commons to express my support for Bill C-18, legislation which I believe will enhance the safety and security of all Canadians, especially those who live in border communities across this land.

This bill will strengthen the enforcement role of customs officers by extending the scope of their powers so they can arrest and detain individuals suspected of Criminal Code offences. I am familiar with the work of customs officers. I have met many of these people across this country over my lifetime. In the process I have been enormously impressed with the scope of their duties and the professionalism with which they carry out their job.

I am also aware of the fact that on many occasions their efforts to protect the safety of Canadians have been hampered by the legal limitations of our Customs Act.

This legislation closes a longstanding gap in our ability to address at the border criminal activities such as impaired driving, child abduction and possession of stolen goods. It will also allow us to deal with individuals who are the subjects of outstanding arrest warrants. There is a clear need for our customs officers to be able to stop suspected criminals at the border before they have a chance to enter our country.

My region of southern Ontario has four major land border crossings which process 40% to 45% of traveller and commercial traffic coming into Canada. A lot of the criminal activity that has been observed by customs officers has occurred at these major ports and at others across the land.

Customs officers have witnessed behaviour such as impaired driving that has resulted in tragedy. They and their union have pointed out that such tragedies are preventable if the scope of the customs officers' powers is broadened to enable them to arrest and detain suspects until the local law enforcement can properly and fully respond.

Mr. Speaker, if you ask Canadians what distinguishes Canada from most countries, they will tell you that Canada is much safer and less violent. This is the type of Canada that Canadians want and the type of Canada this government will strive to maintain. We believe that all Canadians have a right to live in a peaceful and safe community and they expect us to do what we can to keep these communities safe.

Bill C-18 is one way that we can meet those expectations, by giving our customs officers the power to stop criminal activity before it reaches our communities. Clearly this bill will allow customs officers to do more value added work that makes a real difference. At the same time it will not diminish Revenue Canada's ability to continue with major initiatives that are allowing Canadians to seize opportunities created by liberalized trade and travel. It will also enhance and protect from any threat to our social or our economic well-being.

These initiatives are allowing the department to free up resources to concentrate on high risk traffic with more effective enforcement to control weapons and drug smuggling, as well as the illegal movement of people across our borders.

Customs officers already have the power to detain and arrest individuals suspected of customs offences under the Customs Act. For instance our customs officers deal with serious offences such as the smuggling of drugs and weapons.

Bill C-18 capitalizes on customs' unique position at our border points to act as a first response against crime. This means customs officers will be able to legally hold suspects until law enforcement agencies can intervene. Criminals will be dealt with at the right time, before they enter our country. By expanding the scope of customs officers' powers, Bill C-18 will greatly enhance the safety of citizens of border communities and in turn will contribute to the protection of all Canadians wherever they live in this country.

This legislation is not intended to replace police. What it does is it closes the longstanding gap by enabling our customs officers to act as a bridge to the law enforcement community. Customs officers will arrest and detain suspects, who will be turned over immediately to the police authorities for follow-up as they see fit. The provinces will continue to be responsible for the enforcement of the Criminal Code. Now customs officers will be able to assist them by providing the first response service.

This legislation is not about duplication. Customs officers will not investigate Criminal Code offences nor will customs officers be responsible for processing individuals for Criminal Code offences. Furthermore, customs officers will only be allowed to use these new powers while they are on duty at the points of entry.

The benefits of Bill C-18 to law enforcement in this country are very clear. That is why police officers, police chiefs and attorneys general all know that this bill enhances the ability to fight crime. As a result this bill has the support of police forces, police chiefs, provincial attorneys general, victims rights groups, the customs union and customs officers themselves. It has broad support because it makes sense. It is the right thing to do.

Bill C-18 is not broadening the scope of powers to customs officers who are untried and untested. Rather, the legislation entrusts these powers to a group of women and men who prove their value to this country every day as skilled, dedicated professionals.

The power to arrest is not new for customs officers. They have been arresting people for serious offences such as drug smuggling for decades. They have been doing so with professionalism and with respect for the rights of those involved. That will not change. Customs officers will continue to carry out arrests in a manner that respects the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The fact is this bill supports the efforts of the police and those involved in both law enforcement and the judicial system.

Once Bill C-18 is passed it will take six to nine months to implement.

The time will be used to renovate facilities, to designate officers and train them on the identification of Criminal Code offences and also on important aspects of the law, especially as it relates to the charter of rights and freedoms.

Customs officers will have the training they need to ensure that they act fairly and responsibly and within the confines of the law in carrying out these new responsibilities under Bill C-18.

The broader role of this bill envisions for our customs officers that these provisions will be carried out by probably about 2,500 officers who will be specially designated and trained. They will be drawn from those officers who are in regular contact with the travelling public.

Student customs officers will not have these powers. They will continue, however, to work with the permanent customs staff and designated officers who will be on hand to respond to the Criminal Code situations.

Canadians can also be assured that these designated customers officers will receive additional training to ensure that they act fairly, responsibly and within the confines of the law in carrying out these new functions and duties. No custom officer will be put in a position of having to carry out their new responsibility without the appropriate training. That would be unacceptable to this government. Our border communities and indeed all Canadians deserve nothing less.

We already train our customs officers in arrest procedures, the charter and other issues that relate to the powers of arrest. We will expand this excellent training program to cover areas such as the identification of Criminal Code offences and related court jurisprudence. In addition, this training will be coupled with a clear accountability structure which will outline situations calling for first response action.

I know that for some there is still the issue of whether to arm customs officers. It is not an issue for this government. We are firm in our belief that our officers should not carry weapons. The safety of customs officers is something we care deeply about. Customs officers already encounter dangerous people such as drug and weapon smugglers. They have never needed guns to effectively handle these types of situations. This is because, like police officers, our officers are expected to assess the safety implications of any situation. We want to avoid violence, and the best way to do so is to use common sense, not more weapons.

We are committed to supporting the work of our officers by giving them the additional training on the use of force for personal protection and to compel compliance within the law. Furthermore, by the time this bill is implemented, the department will provide protective gear to officers who request it. On those occasions when customs officers have to confront a dangerous person, their training and common sense will dictate that they avoid placing themselves or the public in danger. If they assess a risk to their safety, they will be expected to contact the police and withdraw from the situation. In other words, common sense and training will work hand in hand to determine the smart and the smartest response in each case.

I will deal now with the cost of this initiative. We have estimated that planning and start-up costs will be approximately $5.5 million. This includes the cost for training officers and for renovating facilities so that we may properly detain suspects until law enforcement agencies arrive and can intervene. After implementation, the ongoing costs will be minimal.

Bill C-18 will do a number of things. First, it will close that longstanding gap and strengthen customs officers' ability to assist in law enforcement in this country. Second, it will make use of the unique position of customs at the border to stop criminals before they enter Canada. Finally, it will make efficient use of our law enforcement resources to enhance the safety and security of all Canadians.

This bill also has to date the support of all parties in this House, a rare situation and one that speaks to its importance. We are gratified, and I want to stress that, by this support. We also appreciate the input from members of this House as well as the groups and individuals who have offered their help and support. Your ideas and suggestions will be very valuable in the implementation of this legislation.

Customs officers and their union deserve special praise. They identified an opportunity to improve the safety of Canadians and have worked very hard to make this bill a reality. On behalf of the minister I thank all members for allowing us to do what is right for Canadians.

Rest assured that during implementation we will continue to consult with our partners, both within government and outside, to ensure that this bill once implemented meets expectations.

In conclusion, by supporting Bill C-18 we demonstrate to all Canadians that when it comes to their safety and security we will not compromise. This bill serves notice to those individuals who pose a threat to the safety of our communities that criminal activity will not be tolerated.

In approving Bill C-18 we are recognizing the important role of Canada's customs officers at our border and demonstrating to all Canadians that we are prepared to do what is right to enhance the safety and security of communities across the country.

[Amendment To The Constitution Of Canada (Newfoundland), December 8th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I think I have spoken enough and my colleague is anxiously awaiting his turn.

[Amendment To The Constitution Of Canada (Newfoundland), December 8th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I fail to understand how non-inclusive are the minority rights of the member opposite. I think of the seven religions represented, as I stated earlier today to the member. The Muslims are not included. People of the Jewish faith are not included. Hindus are not included. Even atheists are not included.

This situation is like choosing which minorities to represent. Parliament does not have the ability to cover everybody. We do not have any taxing authority or public financing authority for the elementary and secondary school levels in another province. Education is an absolute provincial jurisdiction.

We are recognizing the will of the people of Newfoundland expressed in a very clear question voted on by a 73% majority in that province and in the unanimous consent of the provincial legislature. They are coming to us on a section of our constitution which allows us to do this in a bilateral way. There is no comparable effect on another province.

It is important for my voters in Ontario to understand. I answer the hon. member opposite by saying that I think he is choosing his minority rights and excluding others.

[Amendment To The Constitution Of Canada (Newfoundland), December 8th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to clear up the confusion in the mind of the hon. member opposite.

My comment was relative to ascertaining the percentage and the clarity of the Roman Catholic vote. If he reads Hansard he will see that in my speech.

There were witnesses who addressed this issue at the joint committee. I would refer the member to the report of the joint committee which was tabled last Friday. He will find the answers in it.

Again, to the member opposite who is a member of the Reform Party, I have difficulty understanding how a member of a grassroots party of the Reform persuasion who is constantly talking about referendum and listening to the people can stand there and be anything other than in support of this motion.

When 73% of the Newfoundland population voting very clearly indicates that they want this change, I am astonished that members of the Reform Party have not spoken earlier today. They are not listening to the very, very clear will not only of the people but of the province.

The legislature in that province unanimously gave its consent and forwarded to this. It is our duty not to do any amendments, not to say no, but to follow through constitutionally with our duty in this House and to listen to the province. The province has the jurisdiction on education. I think it has spoken.

[Amendment To The Constitution Of Canada (Newfoundland), December 8th, 1997]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources.

I would like to say that I am very pleased to take part in this debate on amending term 17 of the Terms of Union of Newfoundland with Canada. This amendment responds to an important need of our fellow citizens of Newfoundland because it will enable them, once it is adopted by Parliament, to proceed with the reform of their educational system.

This debate has been going on for a number of years in the province and the Government of Newfoundland has decided to put it to an end by promoting the secularization of the school system which has long been church run in the province of Newfoundland.

The amendment before us thus proposes a solution that is adapted to the educational context of Newfoundland and it is also the subject of a broad consensus in that province. It is that consensus that led the joint committee on the amendment to term 17 of the terms of union to recommend that the amendment be adopted both here and in the other House. Since it is not every day that we amend the constitution, we must acknowledge that we are experiencing here today in this House an historic moment in the debate.

I would not like to spend my time regurgitating the exhaustive overview of this debate because the House of Commons has already considered this matter on a number of occasions in recent months. I would, however, like to talk about a number of the aspects that I feel merit the amendment transferral from the parliament of Newfoundland, the House of Assembly, and the relevance of the joint committee's recommendation for us to consider.

All those who have taken the time to study the Newfoundland education system in recent years know how strong a call there was by the public in that province for educational reform. That was the conclusion arrived at in 1992 by the Williams royal commission which recommended that the education system in Newfoundland and Labrador be restructured to allow the government to administer it more efficiently.

The next five years were marked by endless bitter debates. We tried an initial revision of term 17 in the last Parliament which was approved via the referendum in the province in 1995. It did not end the debate, so here we are again.

Although the support was 54.4% in the first referendum of September 1995, the adoption of the proposed amendment did not end the debate. A request for an injunction by the representatives of the catholic church was granted by the Newfoundland supreme court on July 8, 1997, thus blocking the reform proposed by the provincial government. To resolve that impasse, Premier Tobin announced on July 31 that a new referendum would be held on September 2 to amend term 17 once again.

However, when he made that announcement he described the need addressed by this constitutional amendment: “During the last five years we have seen every attempt to reconcile these two ideas—educational reform and denominational rights—and it has ended in more confusion and more conflict”.

The text of the amendment submitted to Newfoundlanders for their approval was very clear. It read as follows:

(1) In lieu of section ninety-three of the Constitution Act, 1867 , this section shall apply in respect of the Province of Newfoundland.

(2) In and for the Province of Newfoundland, the Legislature shall have exclusive authority to make laws in relation to education, but shall provide for courses in religion that are not specific to a religious denomination.

(3) Religious observances shall be permitted in a school where requested by parents.

To express their opinion on this proposed amendment, Newfoundlanders were asked to vote again on the following question: “Do you support a single school system where all children, regardless of their religious affiliation, attend the same schools where opportunities for religious education and observances are provided”.

I do not think there is a single member in this House who can contest the clarity of this progress or this process. In this debate we have a responsibility as members of the Parliament of Canada first to ask whether the process used by the provincial government in this matter allowed the population to understand clearly the issue it was being asked to decide upon. Our answer to that must be yes.

As mentioned by the joint committee's report, an expert commissioned by the committee, Ms. Anne Bayefsky, specifically stressed the scope of the consultations held among Newfoundlanders, including minority groups in recent years.

Second, we have a responsibility to ask whether the consensus forged by this referendum is sufficient to proceed with the proposed amendment. Again I say the answer can only be yes. The proposal was supported by 73% of the voters of Newfoundland. It obtained a majority of votes in 47 of the 48 ridings in the province. Even in predominantly catholic areas where the proposal was likely to be more strongly opposed, it garnered significant support.

Around 75% of the catholics in Newfoundland and Labrador live in three regions: St. George's Bay, the Avalon Peninsula and the Burin Peninsula. Those three regions respectively supported the proposal with proportions of 59%, 72% and 72%. Support for the proposal in areas where Pentecostals are concentrated, though much more difficult to assess, was also significant bearing between 57% and 64%.

In addition to that public support, the proposal won the unanimous support of the Newfoundland House of Assembly. Four of the government members, including two cabinet ministers, are of the Pentecostal faith. Those four members who represent ridings in which 25% to 30% of the population are Pentecostal also supported the government's proposal in the House of Assembly. It is also noteworthy that a number of the members who had opposed the proposal during the referendum process nevertheless voted for it in the Newfoundland legislature.

In addition to the clarity of the consultation process and the extensive support for the proposal, there is a third reason why I believe this proposal deserves our support.

Newfoundlanders understand that the proposed changes are designed to establish a new school system, not to abolish any rights of a specific minority. They will allow the province to proceed with long awaited reforms by establishing a single, publicly funded and administered school system. This reform will strike a fair and functional balance.

The new term 17 is in no way designed to take religion out of the schools. It contains a provision obliging the authorities to provide courses in religion, stipulating that religious observances must be permitted in a school where requested by the parents.

Naturally, it cannot be expected that such a major constitutional amendment will garner unanimous public support. Nevertheless, as was recommended by the joint committee, I believe that the consensus which has been forged to date is broad enough and the guarantees to the groups affected are properly sufficient to move ahead with the proposal.

I know that there are those who fear change. However, it is my heartfelt conviction that the children of Newfoundland will be the first to benefit from this measure.

In my view, this debate we are having is meaningful in another way. I am referring to the bilateral nature of the amendment sought under section 43 of the Constitution Act, 1982. Yet I consider that, while this change concerns only Newfoundland, the whole country stands to benefit from it, as it provides Newfoundlanders with a first class tool to further their goal: a single education system better suited to their priorities.

In a word, this constitutional amendment will further enable Newfoundlanders to be Canadians in their own way, as Albertans and Quebeckers are. Our country is enriched by this diversity, and our system of government makes it possible.

In effect, a constitutional amendment, such as the one before us, demonstrates the flexibility of our confederation. The federation is evolving every day and it would be a mistake to see it as something static and impermeable to change. For example, we recently in the House adopted a constitutional amendment proposed by Quebec's national assembly. If it is adopted by the Senate, that amendment would make it possible to establish school boards in that province along linguistic rather than denominational lines.

We have chosen to go step by step. This is a way which serves Canadians well, just as it serves Newfoundlanders in the current debate. That is why I call upon my colleagues in this House from all parties to consider this carefully and to support this amendment to our constitution.

[Amendment To The Constitution Of Canada (Newfoundland), December 8th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I am very interested because I feel that issues of minority rights are important issues to be discussed. When I researched this area in this and the last Parliament it struck me that since Confederation there were only seven religions in the province of Newfoundland, seven minority rights groups in the hon. member's terms, involved in the funding of the education system.

To my mind there are more than seven religions currently in Canada. There have probably been more than seven religions in the past since Confederation in the province of Newfoundland. There could be people of Muslim background and faith, Hindu, or Jewish people wanting to educate their children. There are even people who exist in Canada whether we like it or not who are atheist and do not want religious education. Those are different minorities that have existed since 1949 and they certainly exist today.

When the hon. member talks about the status quo and the protection of minority rights, what about the rights of these people to have their faith or lack of it incorporated into a system? What happened in the past in the cases of children with different religious persuasions was that they had to be educated in schools that did not cater to them or did not have a comprehensive ability to deal with the religion they were involved in at home and in their lives.

I put that question very respectfully to the member opposite. What would he do about that, knowing full well that we do not have the jurisdiction nor do we have the infinite funding for all types of religions in their school systems?

[Seal Hunt, November 28th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, in recent weeks my riding and others across Canada have been contacted by very concerned Canadians about the seal hunt. There are a couple of comments I would like to put on record because I know there has been a lot of misinformation about the seal hunt.

There has been a televised advertising campaign put on by Canadians Against the Commercial Seal Hunt. It has launched an advertising campaign against Canadian sealers loaded with inaccurate and misleading allegations.

CATCSH alleges that Canadians are subsidizing an industry that kills baby seals. That is absolutely false.

CATCSH alleges that the seal harvest provides few economic benefits. That is also false.

CATCSH alleges that Canadians paid $3.4 million in subsidies and administrative costs in 1996 for a seal harvest that is uneconomic. That is absolutely false.

Contrary to the impression conveyed by this organization and other anti-sealing zealots, the commercial harvesting of seals in Canada is more tightly regulated now than at any other time in our history.