Scott Simms

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

Madam Speaker, the member raises a very good point.

I will illustrate it with a quick story. We had a meeting in Ottawa with members of the European parliament. At the time, I said that to absolutely negate the seal hunt that takes place on the east cost of the country is wrong.

This is really important to Newfoundland and Labrador, Quebec's east coast, and the Magdalen Islands.

I asked him whether he felt that tradition played into this, our tradition of a commercial seal harvest on the east coast. He said that he would not argue about traditions in the European Union because there were a lot of traditions that it was trying to get rid of. I told him to wait a minute. I said that the European Union had made an exemption for the Inuit based on tradition alone.

We understand what the European Union is saying about Inuit traditions and, absolutely, that should be enshrined in this as an exemption. However, what about our exemption as well? The hypocrisy runs so deep. I thank my hon. colleague for pointing that out because it is a very valid point of just how twisted this European political argument has become.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank the House for giving me the opportunity to speak today. I would also like to thank my colleague from Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte for sharing his time with me. I look forward to all the questions and comments from my colleagues in the House as we stand united on this issue.

One of the topics my colleague brought up was the history of the seal harvest and how it dates back centuries ago.

The genesis of the animal rights protest groups several decades ago was the IFAW, the International Fund for Animal Welfare. A lot of these protest groups are situated in Great Britain. I find it somewhat ironic that many centuries ago one of the main reasons for harvesting seals was to get the oil from the carcass to light the street lamps of London. More of these details can be found in a book called The Ice Hunters, by Dr. Shannon Ryan. Anyone who is interested in this topic should pick up a copy of this book. It provides great detail on the past.

Speaking of history and tradition, I received word today about a group in the town of Elliston that is hoping to have a seal hunters' museum in the northeast end of the town. That was a makeshift area for dealing with many people who died during the harvest.

When the harvest took place years ago, much larger boats were used. People would sign up to go out on these large schooners. We have heard countless tales of tragedy on the ice. There is one celebrated book called Death on the Ice, which talks about sealers who were stranded on the open water. They died, mostly due to exposure. The stories and traditions will continue.

We heard countless hours of debate in the House last week on this very same issue. We have come to the realization that seal hunting is a basic pillar of the history and tradition of the east coast of Newfoundland and Labrador in particular, but for other areas as well, such as Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine and Nunavut.

This started with the Council of Europe, in Strasbourg, France. A motion was delivered to its home nations banning the importation of seal products derived from the harvesting of seals. By doing so the council hoped to discontinue the harvest that takes place in Canada.

The odd part is that the wording in the motion dealt with Canada. Canada was being singled out. Right away, we could smell the politics in this, because the council did not seem to be picking on its own. There is evidence today that Russia still hunts white coat seals, which we abandoned in 1987. Norway also has a seal harvest. It has one for tourists as well. People can pay their money and harvest seals without any training whatsoever. Yet all this was seemingly absent from the debate that started in Europe.

There was miscommunication, or blatant misrepresentation in many cases, on the part of the animal rights group. It seemed that the politicians really wanted to go after Canada on this issue.

That brings us to the European Union, which has put forward something from the European Commission telling it how to deal with this issue. Some of my government colleagues have brought up the names of some organizations that brought this situation to the fore in Europe, such as EFSA, the European Food Safety Authority. It made some recommendations whereby seal products could be banned if they were harvested inhumanely, but evidence must be provided upon which the decision is made.

This was brought forward to members of the European Parliament, where the internal markets committee took over. Belgium and the Netherlands had already started their own ban. Something has also been tabled recently in Germany. They needed to have pan-European legislation regulating seal products for all 27 nations.

In this particular case, they put it to a vote in the House. But before that, they went to the committee. The internal markets committee, the rapporteur of this report, suggested that they do labelling and that they allow the importation of seal products that were harvested humanely. Lo and behold, there was one particular member of the European Parliament, from Denmark, who enlisted the support of 20 of the 27 committee members to overturn that exemption and have an outright ban, with one exception for a small hunt for the Inuit.

The lawyers then became involved in the European Union. The legal counsel of the internal markets committee told them that if they did this they would face a challenge. As my hon. colleague from the west coast of Newfoundland pointed out, it is illegal. They told him point blank that this was an illegal ban.

The member from Denmark stated in the committee, “No, it is not about trade or legalities. This is a moral issue, and this is a political issue”. Why is it a political issue? Because come early June, the members of the European Parliament have elections. The irony is that they accuse us of playing politics with it. Well, this is pure and simple politics.

My colleague pointed out what Rex Murphy said, which was a very valid point. If the onus is on us to say we should not be talking about this now because it might upset European trade talks, maybe that is a question they should have asked themselves. We are not the ones throwing this in jeopardy; they are.

Why is it always about Canada? I will go on record, right here, right now, and say that we have the most regulated, humane seal harvest, mammal harvest in the world. Yet, we are the target of the animal rights groups, always.

That is the issue we come down to. That is why we have to make a point of saying that enough is enough and now we will turn the light around. We should say to the European Union, “So, exactly what do you harvest? What about those wolves that you cull? What about the fact that you harvest over 30,000 grey seals in Sweden?” What about the fact that there are so many of what they call “nuisance species” around the world that they cull for the sake of getting rid of them? If they kill wolves because there are too many wolves and it upsets the population, what do they do with the wolf when it dies? What happens to that carcass?

Nobody asks these questions. If we went to Barcelona and watched a bull fight, chances are that bull will die at the end of that particular event. What happens to that bull? Has anybody asked?

Where is Paul McCartney asking about this? Where is Brigitte Bardot? I do not see Brigitte Bardot showing up in the middle of a bull ring, maybe because she is smart, but she does not appear. Yet time and time again she returns to the ice floe.

Why is this place a target? It is time for us to take the spotlight, take the target, and shine it there. They told me that sometimes that argument does not work, but what is working? I implore all members of the House to look at this issue and refocus.

Biodiversity is addressed in the United Nations, and it is something we adhere to as part of the seal harvest. For instance, clause 3 of the United Nations convention on biological diversity recognizes that “sovereign right of states to exploit their own resources in accordance with their environmental policies”.

That is the United Nations. The United Nations will say yes to this because we have adhered to all the principles by which a sustainable harvest can be maintained. Yet we find ourselves on the defensive.

Let us broaden this argument. Let us say to the world that it should harvest animals for the sake of biodiversity. Let us set the rules straight. If they do not want to harvest animals, then there is no argument here. But they do, and there is an argument. We are being singled out.

I want to thank the members of this House for allowing me to speak. I want to thank the government side as well as the opposition, who are united in this particular cause.

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

Madam Speaker, his last comment was “during an interview”. That is a very good way to end, because I can pick up on that.

On May 9, The Daily Telegraph, one of the largest papers in Great Britain, had an interview with the Leader of the Opposition. In this article, the leader of the Liberal Party said:

We look at the culling of deer in Scotland and wolves in Europe by farmers and find it very frustrating to see this reaction to a carefully regulated and managed cull here...“Europe’s inability or refusal to see the seal cull for what is smacks of hypocrisy and misunderstanding. “Paul McCartney, I love your music--but leave the seals to the people who know them. This is not marginal to us...

To me, that does not sound like not saying anything. This is one of the largest publications in Great Britain. Would he like to retract his statement about not saying anything, or would the hon. member from St. John agree with the leader of the Liberal Party of Canada in his assessment of just how well managed our hunt is?

[AbitibiBowater, May 8th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the AbitibiBowater mill in Grand Falls—Windsor, Newfoundland is now shut. Over 1,000 people have been affected. The Quebec courts ruled yesterday the company was allowed to suspend top-up payments to its pension program and laid-off workers are still without their severance payments.

In all of this, the Conservative government has been completely utterly absent from the issue. There has been barely a word or even a gesture of compassion, and this is what it calls standing up for Canadians.

Have the Conservatives ever talked to the Grand Falls--Windsor town about this specific issue?

[Seal Hunt, May 5th, 2009]

Mr. Chair, the point was brought up earlier. First of all, about the world prices, just a second here, this is about a ban, this is a trade issue. Let us stick with that for just a moment.

I want to speak to the comment made by the member for South Shore—St. Margaret's earlier about how a precedent has been set by other countries and their hunts and it was highly irregular. I would like to point out that a year and a half ago I brought forward a motion in this House that banned deer and boar products from Germany because it is an unregulated hunt. The parliamentary secretary stood up and said it was a wrong idea. He said “That is wrong. We should not do that”. He just agreed with the member here on similar actions.

If I were to bring forward a motion in this House to ban products from Europe that were harvested inhumanely, irresponsibly, would he support it?

And by the way, since I am at it, in talking about wayward senators, how does he feel about what Mike Duffy did a while ago? Perhaps he should be kicked out as well.

[Seal Hunt, May 5th, 2009]

Madam Chair, that is a very eloquent point. The point is in this derogation the EU looked after its backyard as well.

With regard to Rebecca Aldworth, what is next for these people? Where do they go next? The fact is Russia has banned the seal hunt, yet we still have no idea whether it will import them. It is absolutely hypocrisy at the highest level.

In this situation, it received its derogation, as my hon. colleague pointed out. The derogation involves the culling and the slaughter of seals for the sake of protecting its own stocks, some of which, and this is a very valid point, could be in our own waters. It is an absolutely ridiculous way to push this thing through. It was completely and utterly out of self-interest politically, particularly this derogation.

Where is the derogation for people who maintain this population? We went from two million to six million seals in a very short period of time. With the absence of a hunt, we may be approaching nine million or ten million. Therefore, the situation that the Europeans have caused is highly hypocritical.

[Seal Hunt, May 5th, 2009]

Madam Chair, I want to congratulate my colleague. He and I have worked for a few years on this issue. He has been a passionate advocate as well.

He just encapsulated the story and the tradition. Here is the ultimate irony of this. There is an exemption for Inuit, with which we agree, for ceremonial purposes, but the Inuit have even said that if we get rid of the commercial hunt, what is the point of them doing this.

What about our traditions in all of this? When I spoke in Europe with my colleague from the Bloc Québécois, we put this forward. This is our tradition, too. When I told the European parliamentarians that this was our tradition, one of them said to me, which was very interesting, that they did not use traditions over there because we were trying to get rid of a lot of them. I asked why they had these derogations for certain places in Europe that had to do the culls, but not for us. Our story is not being told.

That is the story the member of Parliament for Sackville—Eastern Shore brought up. The issue is that this is a sustainable hunt. If we have to turn around and cull these animals, slaughter them because they are a nuisance, that is the biggest shame of all, to cull like they do.

[Seal Hunt, May 5th, 2009]

Madam Chair, it is an honour to speak here, not just in the case of this particular ban, and not just because of the atrocious action being taken by politicians in the European Parliament, which I will get to in a moment.

We stand here for the memories and the traditions of people like Jack Troke of Twillingate, of people like Mark Small, who lives in my colleague's riding of Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, and of people who tragically lost their lives many years ago, the story of which was told in a novel called Death on the Ice. These are the people for whom we stand here today, to make sure that we fight for what they believe in and the traditions and rights of their ancestors. Their story has to be told and we have to defend it. It is our responsibility and it is our right, and we must exercise it to the greatest of our abilities.

I want to add some context to this debate. When it first started, the European Commission had put out some derogations or exemptions, as they called them. The original European ban started in member states. It started in the Netherlands and followed through to Belgium. I made interventions with many of my colleagues sitting in the House. We told them about the slippery slope they were creating by doing this.

Obviously, some people in the European Commission believed in what we were saying, because exemptions were put on for commercial harvests done responsibly and done through government regulations to the point where it was a responsible hunt. The exemptions were in place for them.

Here is what happened. They turned this issue over to the internal market committee, and the 27 members of that committee looked at it and said they were definitely going to play politics with this issue. They overturned the exemptions, and it is now a complete ban.

When that was done, the rapporteur of the report from the United Kingdom said that if these exemptions were put in, trade sanctions would be avoided.

Lo and behold, a member of the European Parliament from Denmark said this was not about legalities. The committee's own legal counsel told them it would be wrong for them to do this, but the member from Denmark stood and said this was about politics alone.

Elections are going to be held in the European Union in June, and these members want a feather in their cap. As one of my colleagues pointed out earlier, less than 20% of the people get out and vote for European parliamentarians, so they need an issue to make themselves look good. Yet they accuse us of using this as a political scheme. This is their scheme.

They are doing this because they do not care about the traditions. They do not care about the people who died on the ice. They just want to keep their jobs. They want to keep security for themselves. Shame on them.

That is why all of us are standing in this House tonight, because if we do not, we will be disregarding history. There is too much at stake here.

This is not just for Newfoundland and Labrador. This is for Quebec's east coast, for the Gaspé, and for the Magdalen Islands too. This is critical for all Canadians.

We need to be vocal. We have to tell the Europeans that it is a slippery slope. They have an unregulated hunt in Germany for deer and boar. They kill over one million animals. It is not regulated. It is not fair. We have to tell the Europeans to look in their own backyard.

We need to tell their rural MPs, their people who live in the country, and their hunters that they have to be aware of this because they will get bit in the end. What is happening to us will happen to them. The dangerous precedent that they are going to bring forward to the European Union will cause problems for them.

Animal rights groups do not go after those people who stand in big stadiums and kill bulls for sport, not yet, but they will now, and good on them. They deserve to feel the wrath that we are feeling. We are being singled out here.

So I would suggest to the House that we take note of this situation and tell these people what they are doing, that they are setting a dangerous precedent. The Conservative government has to do the same thing.

[Seal Hunt, May 5th, 2009]

Madam Chair, I commend my hon. colleague, who is from Alberta and who originates from the farming world, on his interest in this issue. I have served with him on the fisheries committee.

I have two quick questions. He praised Loyola Sullivan, the conservation ambassador for the government. Before Loyola Sullivan came along, there were no bans in Europe. We had one in the Netherlands since then. We now have one in Belgium. We have one on the table in Germany. Now the internal markets committee has taken over and have put this ban in place, a complete ban, no derogations or exemptions as were originally set out. They were overturned.

Where did the ambassador go wrong and how can we correct that action in the future so it does not happen again?

[Seal Hunt, May 5th, 2009]

Madam Chair, I would like to ask my colleague from Nunavik a question. I do not know the exact name of his riding, but Nunavik is very important to all of Quebec, Newfoundland and Labrador, eastern Canada, the Inuit and to us as well.

My question deals with the situation that he pointed out about hypocrisy because it is a very good point. There is a small exemption for the Inuit usage, but yet the Inuit community is so dependent on the commercial markets created on the east coast of this country.

Yes, I accept that. It is very important for all of Canada and not just for the east coast.

My question is this. How will this ban affect the people of Nunavik and their nation after this ban is put into place, and how will it affect their limited access to commercial markets?