Randy Kamp

[Employment Insurance, May 8th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, in fact, our government has done a lot of things for the fishing industry. Even today, the fisheries minister is there on the ground. Her deputy minister was out there yesterday and is still out there. They are working together with provinces and organizations to develop a plan to combine with the economic action plan to provide increased access to credit. As well, we have assisted with marketing and all of those issues.

We understand it is a difficult issue and we are working on it.

[Seal Hunt, May 5th, 2009]

Mr. Chair, in terms of assisting sealers, the point would have to be made whether the difficulties they are experiencing now have something to do with the ban or not. That is really what we are talking about here tonight.

I think largely what they are experiencing this year is some difficult ice conditions. The ice conditions this year though are not as difficult as they were in 2007 when we did put in place a form of ice compensation.

The two ministers involved in this issue would have to consider whether there are the same conditions that would require that. I think they would be willing to at least consider it.

[Seal Hunt, May 5th, 2009]

Mr. Chair, I know it is late. Maybe that explains the fact that I did not understand much of what he was getting at there. I do not think I made any commitment in response to the question from my colleague from the NDP about what he was talking about there.

If the member wants to bring forward a motion, well, let him bring it forward and we will see what it says. If his motion is one where he wants to fire the opening salvo in a trade war with the European Union, then we on this side of the House at least, because we are responsible for the government and not just for opposition, will take that very seriously, of course.

[Seal Hunt, May 5th, 2009]

Mr. Chair, my colleague has raised some good points, particularly with respect to Ambassador Sullivan. On one of the trips that I was on, I had the opportunity to travel with him. He had not been in the job very long at that time. I think everyone who knows him knows that he has an incredible ability to assimilate facts and he communicates so well. I saw him do that in a very impressive way, I have to say.

In fact, at the subsequent meeting the next year, I was there with the former minister, Loyola Hearn. We found that at least the fisheries ministers from the countries in the North Atlantic were onside largely, apart from the EU, on this issue because of the work that had been done by our officials, our ministers and Ambassador Sullivan.

The member has raised a good point in that any attempt to say that lower pelt prices since 2006 have anything to do with our representation I think is quite patently false.

I think we said enough about the member in the Senate. I think it disappoints all of us—

[Seal Hunt, May 5th, 2009]

Mr. Chair, perhaps I am naive, but I agree with the member. We do need a common front on this and I think we do have that, at least in this House. We need to move forward, collaborating and co-operating, each of the parties, as best we can. As a government, we are open to advice on how the other parties think we can move this forward in a particular way. I think we are open to that. That is what concerned us so much earlier, just weeks ago really, when there appeared to be a lack of solidarity coming out of the Canadian Parliament on this issue. It concerned me and I think it should have concerned all of us.

[Seal Hunt, May 5th, 2009]

Mr. Chair, I find it a bit ironic that we are talking about a united front when I have not, even tonight through all of these hours, heard a clear condemnation of the actions of one of their own colleagues in the Liberal caucus.

Let me say that the action that has been taken by the European Parliament is a legal action, it is a legislative action. We believe it to be illegal. However, because it is a matter of legislation and law, it will very likely require a legal solution. That is why the WTO exists and we intend to take that action.

[Seal Hunt, May 5th, 2009]

Madam Chair, I appreciate the opportunity to participate in this debate. It is an important issue.

We are here to discuss the impact on Canadians of today's vote by the European parliament to move toward a ban on seal products.

We have occasionally expressed, in these almost four hours, some frustration with one another, but I think our frustration is primarily motivated by the European parliament. I think everyone in the House believes, because I have heard nothing to lead me to think otherwise, that there is no justification for a ban on seal products derived from a humanely conducted hunt such as Canada's seal hunt.

We have made this point on this side that strong representations have been made over the last two years to inform the European debate on this issue. I myself led a delegation to the North Atlantic Fisheries Ministers Conference, in Greenland, and we brought this issue up. We had another North Atlantic Fisheries Ministers Conference that I was part of, in Malta, where again we brought this issue up, particularly with the European Union.

As my colleague, the member for Wetaskiwin, has said so eloquently, our Ambassador for Fisheries Conservation, Mr. Loyola Sullivan, has worked very hard on this issue. I am sure he would be willing to provide any member of the House with a long list of his activities on this particular file.

That is why it is so frustrating, having worked so hard on this issue, to find the European parliament still moving in this direction. In all these representations we have made, the Government of Canada has provided objective evidence that the Canadian seal hunt is humane, sustainable and well managed. We have said that over and over again. We do not just say the words; we provide the evidence for that.

In fact, some members of the House would have been part of that meeting we had, as part of the fisheries committee, with European parliamentarians. We went over these issues with them again and again.

Unfortunately decision-makers in the European Union appear to have ignored this good information, and they have instead relied upon misinformation disseminated through animal rights groups and others.

I think we all agree that this kind of misinformation that has been disseminated by these radical animal rights organizations really is deplorable. Not only to they torque the facts in their favour, they rely on outlandish allegations against the good people who make their living in this industry.

Take, for example, this quote, which can be found on an anti-sealing website. It states:

This is the third day of the annual Canadian blood fest. Already several thousand baby seals have been brutally snuffed...”

This is the kind of thing we find on these websites and in their fundraising materials. I think we would all agree that this is a gross example of the misleading stories that these radical activists make up.

We all know it is illegal to kill baby seals, otherwise known as white coats in Canada, and yet these groups continue to propagate the myth that this is going on. As a matter of fact, this has not been part of the industry in Canada for more than 20 years.

The reality is that because of the measures taken in Europe today, Canadians will suffer, specifically our Inuit people. The Europeans believe that this measure will have no impact on the lives of the Inuit, as it includes a limited exemption for trade in Inuit-harvested seal products. However, they clearly have not listened to the Inuit, who have said that an exemption for them would do nothing to protect their market access.

The very existence of a market for seal products depends on the availability of a critical mass of these products, which we would not have if this ban were to go through. We only have to look at the devastation that the 1983 EU seal import ban brought to Inuit communities as clear evidence of the utter futility of such token exemptions.

While leading a delegation to the Czech Republic, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans asked representatives from the Government of Nunavut to make presentations to EU officials. In those presentations, it was made clear to EU officials that an exemption for the Inuit is an insult and would be worthless. However, today we find ourselves in that very situation, potentially no market in Europe and an exemption for the Inuit.

I think we would also agree that this has not been an informed debate. In fact, it has not been a real debate on the issues at all. There has been no rebuttal of the evidence submitted by Canada and others. Rather, there has been a constant stream of misinformation.

We want to remind the European community, by way of this debate, of what Canada's seal hunt is. It is a hunt that is culturally important for many coastal Canadians. It is a hunt that is well managed and humane, and it is a hunt that is carried out on seal populations that are abundant and in no way endangered.

The sale of products from Canada's sustainable and humane seal hunt provides much needed benefits for economically depressed fishing communities with few economic alternatives. The current harp seal harvest is conducted as an economically sustainable activity. It can make an important contribution to the annual income of people living in rural coastal communities, which also favours support for the traditional family and social ties and reduces out-migration to large urban centres.

In communities with few economic opportunities, this income is vital. The seal hunt can provide direct employment for over 6,000 people on a part-time basis per year. There are also many secondary economic benefits derived from the seal industry. While the seal hunt contributed approximately $30 million to harvesters' income in 2006, for example, it also contributed approximately $55 million to the Newfoundland and Labrador economy.

One question that has been asked in Europe is why the seal hunters do not move from rural communities to earn a new livelihood. To me, this is a stupid question. With due respect, why should our sealers give up their way of life any more than someone from Europe in a similar situation would? I am sure that if we were asking their parliamentarians to have their people move and do something else, they would find that as insulting as we do.

Our answer is that Canada does not believe that people who depend on a legal, sustainable and renewable, resource-based activity should be expected to move to find jobs in other locations. It is as clear as that. The coastal Newfoundland and Labrador communities have depended on seals for hundreds of years, and the inshore seal fishery has long generated income that enabled fishermen to feed their families until the summer fisheries began.

The seal harvest provides valuable income at a time of the year when income opportunities are few in those remote communities. People are able to remain in their communities to raise their families, as they have done for hundreds of years. In this way, the seal harvest supports sustainable communities, and that should be important to all of us, as Canadian parliamentarians. Banning seal products and forcing people to move is an unfair intrusion into the lives of people who work hard at a legitimate and well-managed activity.

We have also heard tonight that for the Inuit of Nunavut, living from the land and the sea in their settlement areas is integral to their culture and their traditional and current way of life. This is recognized in the land claims agreements. Harvesting and other rights set out in these agreements are protected by Canada's Constitution. This is a very important issue for them. Let us be very clear in the House and to those who are watching, fellow Canadians, but also Europeans, this ban will have devastating effects on aboriginal and arctic populations.

The Minister of Foreign Affairs made this point quite clearly at the recent meeting of the Arctic Council, where the European Union's request for permanent observer status was refused. In fact Canada supported that refusal, because the EU actions that were anticipated on the seal trade ban have not demonstrated an understanding or appreciation for the Inuit way of life. Of course, we agree with that.

It is critical that this Parliament stands united against those who wish to eliminate the Canadian seal hunt, whether it be European parliamentarians or a senator in the other place. We need to remain united on this front, and we will continue to do so.

In closing, I wish to reaffirm the Conservative government's support of the sealers and their families. We will stand with them in defending the sealing industry against attacks from Europe and even from within our own Parliament.

[Seal Hunt, May 5th, 2009]

Madam Chair, I thank my colleague for his intervention. I think he covered the issues quite well. I have enjoyed working with him on the fisheries committee, as well.

I think on this issue the committee is resolute and until very recently, I think all of Canada's Parliament has been united on this issue. So it concerned me, and I wondered if it concerned him, when more recently a Liberal senator claimed to be doing the work of the European parliament.

At a time like this, more than ever, I think we need solidarity. I think it is not partisan to want solidarity on this issue. It is not partisan to expect parties that claim to support the seal hunt to ensure that their members exhibit that solidarity as well. Today, when I heard that same senator say on CTV that he was happy with this outcome and disappointed with the Minister of International Trade indication that he wanted to take this to the WTO, I just wondered what the members of the Bloc, and this member in particular, thought of these comments.

[Seal Hunt, May 5th, 2009]

Mr. Chair, I appreciate the support of my colleague and his party on this issue.

The member made some comments about the involvement of the WTO, and that might well be the direction we are heading in. I think he is advocating taking tougher action than that, maybe even to the point of triggering a trade war. I am not sure if he is suggesting that.

Let me ask the hon. member something in a different way. Parliamentarians in the EU made this decision today. I suppose the parliamentarians, like us, respond to their constituents in terms of the decisions they make. They would certainly take into account what they hear from their constituents on issues, and probably on this issue as well.

For us to have long-term success on this issue, we need to be involved in changing the hearts and minds of Europeans, not just the European parliamentarians who are getting feedback from their constituents.

I wonder if the hon. member has any advice for the government on how we could be effective in that way?

[Atlantic Lobster Fishery, April 24th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to this motion moved by the member for Cardigan. As I said a little earlier, I appreciate the interest he has in all fisheries issues. I know he stands up for the people of Prince Edward Island when he addresses these fisheries issues, perhaps only superceded by my colleague, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, who also hails from Prince Edward Island.

The motion reads as follows:

That, in the opinion of the House, the government should implement a program to reduce the effort on the Atlantic Lobster Fishery to ensure a viable industry for future generations with a lobster license retirement plan, and provide adequate funding to remove a number of lobster fleets from the water by cancelling licenses.

Let me say at the outset that I do applaud his intentions, because having a viable, sustainable fishery, whether it be for lobster, crab, or Pacific salmon, is our government's highest priority. We are keenly aware of the real challenges that face this sector as a result of the global economic downturn.

The question before us as parliamentarians is, is the solution proposed by the member for Cardigan the right one? In fact, all responsible parliamentarians should be asking themselves that question with every piece of legislation, whether it be private members' bills or others that we see. It is our obligation, in fact, to ask ourselves whether there might be some unintended consequences from what is before us.

We need to ask ourselves, does what the member is proposing call for a course of action that could perhaps be counterproductive to the larger goals of the lobster industry or even to the country as a whole?

We need to ask ourselves, could it derail the progress that continues to be made in modernizing the lobster industry in this country?

These are legitimate questions that we will be asking. In fact, these are questions we are also addressing in the standing committee.

There is much about this motion that we have no difficulty with at all. It says, “That, in the opinion of the House, the government should implement a program to reduce the effort on the Atlantic Lobster Fishery”.

We think that is part of the solution. Many of the witnesses we heard on our recent travels said this as well.

It talks about ensuring a viable industry for future generations. That is what we want to do. The question is how we get there and what is the best way to get there.

Clearly the biggest problem facing the lobster industry at the moment is that demand and prices are quite low. In the wake of last fall's economic downturn, the bottom fell out of the international market for Canadian lobster. People are buying less lobster around the world, and in the United States, one of our main markets.

In fact, this spring, lobster season looks especially difficult because many processors have substantial inventories, mostly frozen lobster, known as popsicle packs, leftover from last year's harvest.

So not only is the demand falling on the one hand, but the supply is relatively high. Of course, that creates a problem in the market, and the price is quite low.

Let me assure the House that the government is working with the provinces to boost lobster marketing efforts. Perhaps I will get to refer to this later on, as we come back to this in the weeks ahead.

Clearly, in the short and medium term, lack of demand and low prices threaten the viability of many businesses in the lobster industry. Harvesters who rely on borrowed money to finance their operations are particularly vulnerable. They either need to repay their debts or need more access to capital to maintain and invest in their enterprises.

These are some of the things that our government has been working on. Clearly, the lobster industry faces a multitude of complex and interrelated problems, and there is no magic bullet solution. As we get to speak about this later, we will outline what our government is doing to address these challenges.