Gerry Byrne

[Seal Hunt, May 5th, 2009]

Mr. Chair, the member has given the House great counsel here tonight. I respect what he has to say and I respect the fact that he has made a huge contribution within the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans.

He gives us an opportunity and leeway. I attempted tonight to ask the government, if in the context of the European Union free trade talks, in the context of the previous summit of the G20, was there an opportunity there for the government to really reinforce that message that this is an illegal trade action being conducted by the European Union, that these actions are contrary to the very summit and the very declaration that was signed by the G20 member states?

Could the hon. member, my colleague from Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, simply comment on what tools the government use today to reinforce this message that the European Union is currently engaged in an illegal trade activity, a ban which is contrary to the WTO, the World Trade Organization, and that it is showing a certain degree of political immaturity by doing that at a time when the entire world is calling out to its leaderships asking: “Don't impose false trade barriers or bans in the wake of this global economic recession”?

The European Union at this time is not showing political maturity by raising an illegal trade action related to Canadian seal products. It is showing the contrary. Would the hon. member comment on that or maybe suggest what further the government can do to make that position perfectly clear to the European Union?

[Seal Hunt, May 5th, 2009]

Mr. Chair, there is no partisanship here. It was a statement by the Fur Institute of Canada and the Canadian Sealers Association. On the Fishermen's Broadcast in Newfoundland and Labrador today, they said that they were contacted by European parliamentarians about this issue in a general discussion. The European Union parliamentarians asked the Fur Institute of Canada and the Canadian Sealers Association where there Canadian government was. They said that it was non-existent on this issue, that it did not engage with them at all. That was made public on the Fishermen's Broadcast in Newfoundland and Labrador this afternoon.

Could my colleague, the member for Labrador, tell me if that was a partisan rant by the Fur Institute of Canada and the Canadian Sealers Association?

[Seal Hunt, May 5th, 2009]

Mr. Chair, this has to be highlighted at the highest level. What an opportunity for the Conservative government to use the high level meetings that are being conducted personally by the Prime Minister to make a statement to the European Union.

Just weeks ago, members of the G20 nations stood, supposedly in solidarity with each other, and condemned any actions that would prevent free trade and condemned any actions that would impose trade barriers. Every member of the G20, Prime Minister Gordon Brown on one side, President Sarkozy on the other, stood and said, “We would never do that”. What an opportunity lost. The Prime Minister had an opportunity to show leadership on the issue. He did not even raise the issue. Now today we are engaged in free trade talks while there is an illegal trade action currently under way by the European Union. Where is the leadership?

[Seal Hunt, May 5th, 2009]

Mr. Chair, in terms of the suggested taxation issue that the minister raised on the floor of the House of Commons in the middle of an important debate on the future of the seal fishery, I would ask the minister in return, why did her government and her party promise during the election campaign to eliminate the excise tax, or at least cut it in half, on diesel fuel, but yet she stands for supporting it and maintaining it? The Conservatives have indeed denounced that particular platform in their policy.

I hope tonight's debate does not devolve into the nonsense we have heard so often from the party opposite. I hope this is a high profile, high spirited and highly intellectual debate where we actually discuss the issues and come up with solutions to the problem.

In the context of the seal hunt and northerners, is she concerned that the minister said on Tom Clark's program that this proposed seal ban will negatively affect aboriginal populations in the north? The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans said that it should have a clouding, poisonous impact on the Canada-E.U. trade negotiations which will occur tomorrow, but the minister herself still agrees that those negotiations should continue. How does that make the hon. member and the minister feel?

[Seal Hunt, May 5th, 2009]

Mr. Chair, I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Labrador.

I thank the House for the opportunity to speak to an issue of vital importance to the people of not only Newfoundland and Labrador, but to the people of Quebec, the Gaspé and Magdalen area, the people of P.E.I., New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, the people north to the Arctic and those who appreciate the fact that this country is built on natural resources.

Several members from my caucus enthusiastically embrace this debate tonight. I want to pay a special acknowledgement to the leadership of the Liberal Party of Canada and my whip, the hon. member for Cape Breton—Canso, who brought this to the floor of the House of Commons and to the Speaker's attention this morning and who was able to get this debate that we are engaged in tonight.

This issue is of vital importance to so many families, fishermen and aboriginal peoples throughout this entire country. It is absolutely essential that the House engage in this debate at this critical moment.

There is no doubt that we are definitely in a very low point in the history of the sealing fishery, but it is a place, unfortunately, we have been before and rebounded. I will put this in perspective.

In 2005, after many years of building up this industry and growing it not only in terms of the product, but in the markets for the product itself, 349,000 animals were successfully harvested and marketed. The total value of this industry in 2005 was $70 million. We were not talking at that time about the European Union banning Canadian seal products. The European Union was coming to us to expand the trade in seal products. Protesters were few and far between on the ice floes. Quite frankly, this was an industry that was growing.

Today, in 2009, three short years later, the circumstances are extremely different. We will barely harvest and market 100,000 animals this year. The price of those animals has gone from a 2005 high of $106 per pelt to, in three short years, $10 a pelt. The value of the industry now is just about $2 million to $3 million, down from $70 million.

The industry now is contending with the European Union ban. The European Union was talking about expanding seal products three short years ago and now it is banning it outright. Celebrity protesters now outnumber sealers on the ice floes probably two to one. That is where the industry has gone. We have been here before, however.

In the mid-1980s, the government of that day, under Mr. Mulroney and several fisheries ministers, decided to ban the white coat hunt but did not put in place any mechanism to rebuild the industry. They left it to its own devices. The industry was on its back. Market prices were even lower than what they are today, about $5 a pelt. The value of the entire industry was about $1 million and the trade in these products was virtually non-existent.

What a change between the mid-1980s and 2005. How did we get back there again? How did we get back to being an industry in trouble? What we will find is that somebody did not do the work.

It is up to us as parliamentarians to continue to engage the government of the day. We will rebuild this industry. This is a natural, viable, fully sustainable, ecologically supported, ethical and humane industry.

At a time when the world is reaching out for natural food products, for natural products for clothing, for materials and for medicines, this is an industry whose time should be coming, not declining. However, we have this very punitive, very unwarranted ban by the European Union that is based and vested in false information. How do we combat that? We combat it through sincerity, through logic and through fact. We beat back the tides of those who suggest that this is an inhumane industry.

I will take note to the point that while the European Union had no trouble passing this particular motion and subsequent legislation, it put in exemptions for itself. All of those who support this ban or the concept should hear me clearly: they also support 35,000 grey seals being culled in Sweden, not for any commercial purpose, not for any purpose for humanity, not for any purpose other than to dump them at sea, because the European Union built into its platform, that it is all right to cull seals if it suits what it calls an ecological purpose.

People should hear this as well: whoever supports the motion, supports the Government of Canada conducting a cull of the seal herd. The minister herself, today on Tom Clark's program, alluded to the fact that a Canadian government instituted cull may very well be on the horizon. Quite frankly, that is not acceptable.

For a planet starving for protein, for a planet looking for natural food products sustainably harvested, humanely harvested and delivered to the world in a fashion used by the seal fishery, why conduct this ban?

We could get into a to and fro as to who could do what and who should do what, but the evidence does speak for itself. We had a very successful seal harvest that was embraced by the European Union up until 2006. It is now in decline. We as parliamentarians have a responsibility now to work together to make sure that this harvest continues for generations to come. My party, the Liberal Party of Canada, is absolutely committed to that point.

[Airline Industry, May 5th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, Liberals led the call for an airline passenger bill of rights. The House unanimously approved, 259 to 0, my motion calling on the government to bring forward this consumer protection legislation.

I will point out that both the current and the former ministers of transport voted in favour of this resolution. However, now, one year later, even the airlines cannot hide the fact that the government has done absolutely nothing on consumer protection in this industry.

Will the government ever bring forward meaningful, enforceable consumer protection provisions for airline passengers? If the Conservatives will not, we will.

[Employment Insurance, April 30th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I gave the Minister of Human Resources Development advance notice of my question.

After the parents of Trooper Kyle Ricketts was denied income benefits if they went to the side of their critically injured son, injured in Afghanistan serving with the Royal Canadian Dragoons, the minister's spokesperson announced that the Ricketts case had been resolved and they would get their benefits. She also said she would ensure there were legislative changes to prevent this from ever happening again.

The minister failed on the first count. Benefits were not only denied to this soldier's parents, but they will have to pay the money back. Her promise to the parents of a critically injured soldier was a deception. Was her promise to change the EI act a deception as well?

[Petitions, April 28th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I have the duty and the pleasure to table in the House this morning a petition on behalf of constituents and people from Newfoundland and Labrador, especially the northeast coast of the province, who call on the government to bring forward a program for income support due to significant ice conditions along the northeast coast of Newfoundland, the northern tip of Newfoundland, as well the area of Labrador.

The petitioners ask the government to act quickly but, as well, to put in place a more permanent mechanism to help these families and these people who face such significant and serious economic consequences as a result of the inability to earn a livelihood from the fishing industry as a result of these serious ice conditions. It is through no fault of their own but through the natural environment that these circumstances occur.

The petitioners do note that the government has enacted other mechanisms to provide relief to other workers in other sectors and they call upon the government to do so in this particular case.

Several petitions have been received by my office but, unfortunately, some could not be certified by the Clerk of Petitions due to the fact that they did not meet the required form. However, I do have one here that does indeed meet the required form and I ask the government to act very quickly.

The government has already indicated that it would be bringing forward an ice compensation program. We ask the government to put in place the requirements within the context of this particular petition and that it do so very quickly.

[Atlantic Lobster Fishery, April 24th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to stand and support the motion put forward by my colleague and friend, the hon. member for Cardigan in Prince Edward Island. I also want to salute him and his efforts on behalf of his constituents and Atlantic lobster fishermen throughout the region, who face very difficult times.

The member for Cardigan has shown real leadership, insight and dedication to what is best for them. Members of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans have been engaged in a study on the circumstance, future and viability of the Atlantic lobster fishery. We have become starkly aware of the incredibly difficult circumstances that fishermen from this region of Canada face, throughout Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Quebec and Prince Edward Island.

It is gravely serious. Market conditions are at an all time low. Price has declined dramatically and at an incredible rate. The market has basically collapsed within the last 12 to 24 month period. Prices are now at an all time low of nearly 50% of their historic highs. In addition, resource concerns are very clear in certain lobster fishing areas. Those concerns cause quite a lot of anxiety about whether this is a fully sustainable fishery into the long term in those individual lobster fishing areas because of recruitment issues.

The member for Cardigan has shown leadership on this issue and brought it forward to the floor of the House of Commons. The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans also represents a constituency from Prince Edward Island, yet we have seen nothing from the minister to protect that vital industry, an industry that supports her island economy. We hope the House can guide the minister further through passing this resolution, giving her some strength while she sits at the cabinet table and implores upon her colleagues to successfully get a lobster licence retirement program and get it fully funded.

The member for Cardigan had it perfectly correct. He was absolutely right. Many solutions can be used to assist the fishermen. However, the one thing we have seen very clearly is that without an organized reduction in lobster fishing capacity, one that results in not a transfer of that capacity but permanent reduction or elimination of that capacity, the serious problems that certain lobster fishing areas face will not be solved.

Those of us who paid close attention to the evidence, discussion, words, wisdom and experience of the lobster fishermen understood that a lobster licence retirement program might not be necessary in certain lobster fishing areas. However, it is necessary for those areas that face a serious over-capacity challenge to meet the needs of a fully sustainable future fishery for generations to come. Without that sustainability, we do not build the sound foundations of a reliable industry.

Many challenges are occurring in this industry, markets being one of the most predominant right now. As I said earlier, the price now paid to the land values is almost 50% below historic highs of what fishermen were paid in many areas. That will change if the government concentrates on the necessary tools and resources to generate new markets and pierce through those obstacles that market conditions for Atlantic Canadian and Quebec lobster currently present.

One thing that can change the resource prospects in terms of ecological and environmental sustainability over the long term is the reduction in capacity in specific fishing areas where it is required and a permanent reduction, a reduction that is conducted with the full support of lobster fishermen from that area. They need an opportunity, and some are looking for an opportunity, to exit the fishery and to do so with dignity and respect and to provide for a livelihood for those who remain. That is a critical point. Those who remain will be able to continue on in this industry and maintain reasonable livelihoods for their families. That does not look like a prospect that can be sustained into the future under the current conditions.

Those are the efforts of the member for Cardigan. I wish he were the minister because he would introduce some sound judgment and good policies into the fishery. However, that is the judgment of the member for Cardigan, Prince Edward Island and that judgment is shared by so many of his colleagues and those in the industry. We hope it is shared by colleagues from across the way as well, and that we, by passing this motion, continue our work within the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans on the Atlantic lobster study.

The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans hails from Prince Edward Island and is the minister responsible for the well-being of this industry. We are trying to give her some ammunition so she can go to her cabinet colleagues and the Prime Minister and get the tools required to get the job done. To date she has not done that.

We have had stimulus packages to respond to industries in peril in Canada. While we may debate the various aspects of those stimulus packages as they relate to those industries, we will leave to another time. However, when it comes to the $1 billion lobster fishery or the $4 billion fishery at large, not one penny has been invested to provide a stimulus and to provide a good solid foundation for a future fishery by the government, not one penny.

I could argue the point about how banks and the auto sector have been getting billions. This is not about pitting one against the other, which is so often the tactic of the government. This is simply to say that there is a necessity in many industry sectors. There is a necessity to apply Government of Canada resources to solve a critical problem in the Atlantic lobster fishery, which the government has not done. In fact, it is going even further in terms of its destructive path.

The member for Cardigan raised an issue about the Canadian Centre for Fisheries Innovations. In the course of our travels and in meeting with lobster fishermen, organizational heads, committee chairs and others, we heard time and time again a sorry story about how the Conservative government was shutting down a vital organization involved in the coordination of research, development and the implementation of new technology and innovation into the fisheries sector. It is doing it at a critical time when the industry needs it the most, and that is now.

The Canadian Centre for Fisheries Innovations, CCFI, has proven itself time and time again. Yet that track record of success is met with the back of the hand and a blind eye. Funding is being cut now and the organization may close, even though it enjoys the support of fishermen, fishermen's organizations and the fishing industry generally throughout all of Canada.

I implore the government to seek some wisdom before it shuts this institution down. I also implore the government to consider well the wisdom of the motion that has been put forward by the member for Cardigan, Prince Edward Island, someone who knows this industry probably better than anyone in this place. He understands not only where it has been, where it is today, but where it will go in the future. We need the motion passed and we need it acted upon immediately.

[Atlantic Lobster Fishery, April 24th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague, my friend and a friend to the fishing industry, who moved this motion. He is a member from Prince Edward Island. He understands the fishery. He understands what it needs in order to survive and prosper, but also to ensure the prosperity of the families that will support the fishery for many generations to come.

Everything the member has said this afternoon makes absolute perfect sense and is consistent with the evidence that has been brought forward to the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans. It was the member who brought forward this motion who actually got the committee, engaged us all, to study the lobster fishery in Atlantic Canada to provide the government with solid recommendations for its future. I certainly hope that the hon. member's motion is incorporated into the recommendations of that study.

I would ask my friend and colleague, is he confident, based on the views of fishermen that we have heard to date, that his motion can and should indeed be incorporated into our final recommendations regarding the Atlantic lobster study by the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans?