Gerry Byrne

[Fisheries and Oceans, May 13th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, on April 22 the unemployment minister informed the House and 3,000 anxious families that Service Canada and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans would soon announce an income support program for fishers affected by severe ice conditions. Almost immediately however, the minister's own officials refuted her.

Since then I have asked nine questions in the House and have been told yes, Service Canada and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans will soon make an announcement.

Yesterday in committee, the deputy minister of fisheries had something else to say: Discussions have never taken place between these two departments.

What does the minister have to say to this House now?

[Environmental Enforcement Act, May 12th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I have a timely question and perhaps the hon. member could give some insight to the House on a circumstance that I am working on on behalf of stakeholders from Atlantic Canada.

Just recently, a barge called the Shovel Master, which is owned by the Irving Corporation, sunk off the coast of southwest Nova Scotia. On board were 70,000 litres of fuel oil and that oil now sits in that barge on the bottom in some pretty rich fish habitat. It is there and contained but, as we know, it will eventually break apart. That 70,000 litres of fuel oil will go into the natural environment, causing serious destruction of fish habitat if and when it does.

It is a time bomb but the bomb has not yet exploded. Does this proposed act contemplate any remedy for that? Are there any provisions that would guard against future circumstances? I say future circumstances because no specific pollution problems have been identified today but, obviously, there will be one tomorrow. Is there any remedy under this proposed act that would allow for the government to enforce a role for the owner company to clean up that circumstance or is that left for another act?

We do know that a very similar circumstance just occurred in the Gulf of St. Lawrence involving the Irving Whale, another barge full of fuel oil, which cost the federal government upwards of $40 million to clean up, with no cost being borne by the original owner of that particular barge. Was proper contemplation given to that circumstance within this proposed act? If not, what would be the appropriate statute or legislative base for the government to act to impose a requirement for that company to clean up that situation?

[Committees of the House, May 11th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, one of the ways we could indeed help sealers from the northeast coast of Newfoundland, the Northern Peninsula and the coast of Labrador, is for the government to actually do what it committed to do in the House, which is to provide some income support for fishermen who could not earn an income this past year because of very difficult ice conditions.

Would it be of any assistance to those fishermen, who happen to be the seal fishers of this country from Newfoundland and Labrador, if the government made good on its promise and provided the ice compensation that it committed to?

[Committees of the House, May 11th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for providing some comfort, some reinforcement to what we have known for generations to be a fully sustainable, humane practice that has been conducted in compliance with World Trade Organization rules and requirements.

I will ask the minister the following question, and it is a very direct one. It has been suggested that to raise the issue of the seal hunt and what we consider to be an illegal trade ban by the European Union in the context of the current Canada-European Union free trade talks would be to poison the well and would not be helpful to our cause. As has been suggested by a very renowned and thoughtful commentator, why did the European Union do it, then? They are the ones engaged in this illegal trade action at the dawn of a new era in Canada-EU trade, yet they are the ones who decided to invoke an illegal trade ban at this particular point in time.

How can we as Canadians have confidence that these talks are occurring in a good faith environment when it is the European Union that has decided to poison the well? They chose to poison the well and embark upon an illegal trade activity at the very moment we were asking for more rules-based trade.

[Committees of the House, May 11th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I am of the belief that using nude photos of women, who were paid to do so, for the exploitation of a commercial campaign is to treat women as objects. It is a form of violence against women, yet that is exactly what we have found with, for example, LUSH Cosmetics.

The hon. member mentioned the campaign used by LUSH Cosmetics. A paid staff member of the company was asked to paint herself in red paint and lie nude on a Canadian flag. LUSH Cosmetics entered into a very large scale commercial campaign to sell a particular brand of soap at that point in time.

It is my opinion that using paid, nude female models to do this is exploitation. It is treating them as objects and treating women as objects is a form of violence.

Would the hon. member agree with my assessment?

[Committees of the House, May 11th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, the World Wildlife Fund released a report about a week ago indicating that bycatch fisheries on the nose and tail of the Grand Banks were at an unregulated and disproportionate level compared to actual targeted species. In fact, it said that the European Union was the biggest culprit in this regard. Bycatch fisheries are destroying stocks as an overt way to actually target certain species, which is actually a directed fishery. Could the member comment on whether the European Union activity is in keeping with sustainable fish harvesting practices?

[Committees of the House, May 11th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, we hear the solidarity of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans respecting oceans and sustainability and understanding that is the key to be able to create wealth and income in the future.

I want to piggyback on the question of my colleague from Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca. The government indicates that there are seven million harp seals and this population is growing. It appears that Canada is doing its part. We do not participate in a whaling program, such as whaling harvests, as do certain European countries or Japan. We certainly do not condone preying upon endangered species as the European community often does. We certainly do not condone or support harvesting 35,000 grey seals for the purpose of a cull.

We also do not condone sending rogue fleets from Europe over to Somalia to prey upon the lawlessness of irresponsible fishing by certain European fleets off the coast of Africa. It seems to be very significantly damaging not only to the fish stocks but to Europe's reputation to be a steward of the oceans.

Would the member be able to comment on that?

[Committees of the House, May 11th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I would truly like to thank my colleague from Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine for his leadership and input and involvement in this particular issue. Coming from a sealing riding himself, he understands the task we all face. He also understands many of the solutions.

Categorically, the answer is yes. We need to triple the efforts to get the correct message out. We need to counter the negative, incorrect, factually misleading messages that have been put forward by certain animal rights activists in their quest for dollars from people who accept the misinformation. I am sure those people can indeed accept the truth once it is offered to them.

We need to do more, but we certainly have a wonderful opportunity ahead of us, if we use it correctly. If the European Union genuinely wants to engage in more free, legal, rules-based trade with Canada, they can start immediately. They can be told by our government that the trade ban on Canadian seal products is deemed by every international trade expert to be illegal. It is contrary to the G20 summit declaration, contrary to the best interests of the world economy, and it must not be allowed to continue. That could happen now.

[Committees of the House, May 11th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, one thing that could show a sign of hope and good faith to the sealers from the northeast coast of Newfoundland and Labrador to the northern peninsulas of Labrador is to make good on a promise.

Fishermen face severe circumstances, such as a lack of employment and a lack of income due to the ice conditions found on those shores. Almost all of them are sealers. The Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development promised that she would provide adequate and appropriate compensation, income support to those fishermen. That would be a great place to start.

However, another great place to start would be at the European Union. We need to say loudly and forcefully in the midst of the Canada-EU free trade talks that beginning these talks in the wake of an illegal trade ban by the European Union does not serve the cause of collaboration and bilateralism very well. Our Prime Minister needs to say that.

[Committees of the House, May 11th, 2009]

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

My remarks are reflected very well and very strongly by all members, especially Liberal members from Newfoundland and Labrador, including the members for St. John's South—Mount Pearl, Avalon, Random—Burin—St. George's as well as Labrador. My colleague from Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor will be offering his perspectives.

Obviously there can be certain confusion around this issue. The seal hunt was first prosecuted by Europeans. The seal hunt provided the oil for industry of Europe. It not only provided the entire capacity for the streets of London to be lit at night, but it created millions and millions of dollars, pounds, marks or whatever European currency in wealth. The seal hunt was created by Europeans and had its foundations, but the seal hunt that we know was prosecuted well before that by first nations, by our aboriginal peoples, for food, social and ceremonial purposes and for the necessities of life. This industry is founded in sustainability. It has also provided untold wealth for the Europeans who first exploited it, those who now judge it.

There can understandably be some confusion in the European position. The fact is the position taken by the European Parliament, and Canadians and European parliamentarians need to understand this, provides an exemption for a continuing ongoing cull of seals for no food, social or ceremonial purpose and for no commercial purpose whatsoever within Europe.

In Sweden, for example, 35,000 grey seals will be culled because of their impact on some other aspect of the local ecosystem. They will be culled and thrown into the ocean, not used for food, for commerce or any particular purpose other than the strict purpose of a cull. The European Parliament has fully endorsed that position.

One can understand that there is certain confusion coming out of Europe, when we consider the fact that 70 million rabbits will be hung up by the back legs in France. While they are still very much alive, their throats will be slit and they will be bled out.

Other practices in the Faroe Islands, where it is a rite of passage to manhood for young men to slaughter countless numbers of whales, is fully sanctioned and condoned by the European Union.

One can understand the frustration that wells in the heart of anyone who comes from a sealing community or whose family depends on a sealing income to put food on the table and to make ends meet.

We need to get down to what the seal hunt truly is. It is a fully sustainable harvest, conducted humanely, not judged by the MP for Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, but judged so by an international committee on veterinarian scientists.

In terms of the sustainability of this industry, the World Wildlife Fund, the WWF, on its website says that at a population in excess of 5.5 million harp seals, at which the population currently stands, there are no sustainability issues that it questions.

For those who deem an income from this activity, it allows them an opportunity to create wealth and food and to market a product at no consequence. There is no pollution that comes from this industry. It is done in complete balance with the ecosystem. It produces a fully sustainable, natural product. This is a good industry, but those who promote against it are mis-intentioned.

Even Paul Watson, head of the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society, in an interview not too long ago, criticized the IFAW. He criticized Greenpeace. He said that it went after this issue as if it were an environmental issue. He said, in no uncertain terms, that this had nothing to do with the environment, that this was not about the colour green of the environment, it was about the colour green of money.

Paul Watson is acknowledging that this has nothing to do with the environment, that this is not an argument of merit, this is an argument about making money for organizations that promote against it. He criticized the International Fund for Animal Welfare. He criticized Greenpeace. He asked why it doing this, why it was misplacing so much emphasis and energy on communicating something which is not an environmental issue. He said, in answer to his own question, “It's because they are making millions of dollars off of it”, and he criticized that. He said real issues facing the environment, like the situation of turtles off the coast of Mexico or endangered fish stocks in other parts of the world, would lose attention because of the efforts, the activities and the false propaganda put forward by the International Fund for Animal Welfare, the Greenpeace society and others at that time.

Guess who is one of the leading forefronts of that misinformation that he, himself, acknowledged? Paul Watson. I guess the money is just a little too tempting.

One can understand what the frustrations are and where they are sourced. The Europeans themselves do not believe in what they are doing. The European Union has been very misguided. It has shown an immaturity by not listening to the facts. It is a young, fledgling democracy.

One has to communicate that very deliberately to the European Union, because it did not listen to the international veterinary scientists who formed a committee, who studied this issue and who came to the conclusion that the Canadian harp seal harvest was very much a sustainable harvest. It did not listen to organizations like the World Wildlife Fund, which said that this was a very sustainable harvest. It did not listen to the organizations that have a true stake in this.

I do not know what the European parliamentarians listened to, but they certainly did not listen to the truth. They listened to something else and that is very disturbing, especially as we enter a very sensitive and important time for Canadian interests in Europe.

The Prime Minister was recently in Prague, where he announced that we would formally engage in a fleshing out the Canada-European free trade agreement. The Prime Minister said that while the seal hunt was important to him, it was not worth jeopardizing or poisoning the Canada-EU talks.

A very well-read and well-reasoned commentator, Rex Murphy, recently said this about the Prime Minister's comments. He said that if the seal hunt was not worth jeopardizing Canada-EU trade for Canada, why was it worth jeopardizing Canada-EU trade for the European Union? If the European Union was prepared to engage in illegal trade activity at the very dawn of potential Canada-EU free trade talks, how valuable does it see the Canadian trading relationship? That is exactly what it should have done.

The Prime Minister should have communicated that to his European colleagues, not only on that occasion but on the occasion of the G20 summit. The G20 met in Europe not too long ago, on April 1 and 2. The purpose of the G20 summit was to ensure that G20 member states did not engage in any trade activity or practice that could jeopardize lawful trading activity. If they invoked illegal trade bans or trade barriers, it could cause the world to cascade into further recession if not depression.

While our Prime Minister was attending that G20 summit just weeks ago with his European colleagues, the Chancellor of Germany, the Prime Minister of Great Britain, the President of France, the ink was drying on the draft EU legislation that would basically create an illegal trade activity.

Action must be taken. Every tool must be used by the government to combat this illegal ban. The government needs to do more, and we will continue to press the government to do so.