2009-05-05 - Seal Hunt Debate

Mr. Blaine Calkins (Wetaskiwin, CPC):  

Madam Chair, it is certainly a pleasure for me to stand today and express my opposition to the European legislation that would ban the placing on the market of seal products except under very restricted conditions. Those conditions would exclude the vast majority of Canadian seal products and will in all likelihood ensure the collapse of any potential market for such products.

I am astounded that some European parliamentarians believe that such a ban is justified. An examination of available evidence leads to the absolutely inescapable conclusion that the seal hunt is sustainable, it is humane, it is appropriately regulated, and it contributes very significantly to the local economies of dozens of small communities along our Atlantic coast and in northern Canada.

This legislation is not based on any scientific or legitimate legal foundation. No. It is based on misinformation and manipulation of public opinion. I do not believe and I do not think any other members of this honourable House believe that this is an appropriate use of legislative power.

We must be wary of single interest groups with unlimited funds who are prepared to use those funds to influence public policy to their own ends.

I am going to discuss the European proposed regulation providing the House and anyone who is watching this debate with some of the background to the proposal and some detail on the legislative process.

I will talk about three main issues that fuel the debate over sealing. I will explain why the arguments posed by the anti-sealing movement are so very and absolutely wrong.

For many years opponents of the seal hunt have sowed misinformation in the European imagination. They published inflammatory and misleading images accompanied by commentary criticizing the Canadian seal hunt and encouraging the audience to contribute generously to anti-sealing organizations. These images are broadcast far and wide by the friendly media. By friendly media I mean the media that is friendly to this cause.

This misinformation has led to the development of a body of public opinion in Europe which is decidedly anti-sealing.

A significant part of the anti-sealing campaign has been to bombard elected representatives with correspondence and petitions designed to persuade them that there is strong opposition toward the seal hunt. As a result, members of the European parliament requested the European commission to draft legislation to ban seal products.

The European commission requested the European food safety authority to investigate the issue of animal welfare. The European food safety authority acknowledged several difficulties in its report, notably on the reliance on some studies that are not scientifically rigorous, and lo and behold may contain some bias.

In its conclusions the report notes that seals can be and are killed rapidly and effectively without causing avoidable pain, distress, fear and other forms of suffering, but it raises a concern that it is not always the case.

To allay this concern the report suggests that seals should be killed using a three step process which involves striking, checking for irreversible unconsciousness or death, and bleeding to ensure death. This was the same process recommended by the independent veterinarians working group that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans was already implementing as early as 2007.

I am pleased to be able to say that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans has implemented the necessary changes to the marine mammal regulations and to license conditions governing the hunt to make the three step process mandatory for the Canadian seal hunt. That means that we have addressed the concerns of the European parliament.

Despite the obvious weakness of the arguments favouring the ban on seal products, the European commission tabled a proposal for a regulation concerning trade and seal products on July 23, 2008. The proposal includes mechanisms for the exemption of products of an Inuit hunt and for derogation of products of hunts that can be demonstrated to be conducted in a humane manner.

The legal basis for this proposal was drawn from a European Union treaty and relies upon the consideration of internal market harmonization and animal welfare concerns, driven by public perception of cruelty. The ban is already legislated by some member-states of the European Union. Over the past several months, the legislative proposal has been studied by committees of the European parliament and of the council of ministers. Many amendments were proposed. Some were rejected and some were accepted.

We do not, as of yet, have full and final details of the exact wording of the legislation. We have been given to understand that the text that has been agreed upon is one that permits the placing on the market of seal products resulting from hunts traditionally conducted by Inuit and other indigenous communities. Other products such as souvenirs and products from hunts that are conducted on a not-for-profit basis will also be permitted.

I am now going to discuss the three key premises to the opposition of the seal hunt: that it is not sustainable, that it is only of small economic value for Canadians, and that it is inhumane. All of these premises are patently false. The truth of the matter is that a large and healthy population of harp seals lives along Canada's Atlantic coastline. The population of harp seals has risen dramatically in recent decades, from 2 million in the early 1970s to over 5.6 million seals today. In other words, the estimated number of harp seal has nearly tripled.

Quotas are set annually using a precautionary framework, an ecosystem approach, and peer-reviewed scientific advice. The seal populations that are currently hunted are in no way considered endangered or at risk. There is no reputable international scientific organization that has raised a single concern about the harp seal population in the northwest Atlantic. Not one. Clearly, the commercial hunt does not threaten the harp and hooded seal population in Canadian waters. There can be no doubt that Canada's commercial seal hunt is absolutely and unequivocally sustainable.

Second, opponents argue that sealers, processors and exporters derive little financial benefit from this work, so a ban would have little impact on them and the communities in which they live. That is rubbish. It is hard to imagine an argument that is more ignorant or harmful to the hard-working people in Canadian coastal communities. In Newfoundland and Labrador, for instance, approximately 2% of the labour force, some 5,000 to 6,000 people, derive their income from sealing. Sealing is an essential component of the local economies of many remote communities. These are places where jobs are few and far between and where men and women must take advantage of every available opportunity to provide for their families. For thousands of Canadians, the seal hunt accounts for more than a quarter of their annual income.

Seal products are not just limited to the skins or pelts. Our policy advocates the fullest possible use of the animal. The products such as meat, collagen and omega 3 are all derived from seals and marketed internationally. These are health food products. In addition, new and promising medical research has determined that harp seal heart valves are superior to those currently used in human heart valve transplants. It is thought that demand could be as high as 300,000 valves per year.

There can be no doubt that Canadians obtain economic benefits from using our natural resources. I think we can all agree that the perceived cruelty of the seal hunt is the greatest obstacle to overcome. I think we can also agree that witnessing the death of any animal is not a pleasant experience. However, no third party observers and no television cameras are permitted in a slaughterhouse. Nobody sees what happens in there, but the whole world sees what happens on the ice floes in the Gulf of St. Lawrence.

Canadians care about the welfare of animals. Canada is committed to setting humane standards for animal welfare. With regard to sealing, Canada has been very active in setting standards and rules for humane killing methods. The management and methods of the commercial seal hunt are based on peer-reviewed science and advice from veterinarians to guarantee that seals are killed and skinned in a humane way. Canada seeks out the best scientific information on humane killing methods and requirements have been continuously updated based on this information.

There can be no doubt that Canada spares no effort to ensure that the seal hunt is conducted humanely.

Mr. Scott Andrews (Avalon, Lib.):  

Madam Chair, I am truly impressed by the member. He serves on the fisheries committee with us and he sometimes continues to amaze me with his thoughtfulness and insight into these matters. I want to congratulate him on his presentation tonight.

I will stick to a couple of technical questions for him. He can converse with the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, who is sitting next to him. He referred to the propaganda debate going on in Europe, and I have two questions.

First, a lot of advertising is done in the weeks leading up to this EU vote. How much advertising did the Department of Fisheries and Oceans do, leading up to this vote? How much paper advertising besides the press releases and the spin? How many actual dollars were put on the table to try to change the minds and hearts of those parliamentarians and the public at large?

Second, did the Department of Fisheries and Oceans pass on those words of the member in the form of an information package on our sealing industry? Were the 600 members of the EU sent an information package on our sealing industry, highlighting the facts of which the member just spoke?

Mr. Blaine Calkins:  

Madam Chair, I think the question really is this. What has this government done to defend the interests of sealers? One of the first things we did was to appoint Loyola Sullivan our fisheries ambassador almost immediately when we took office in 2006.

I will say a word or two about our fisheries ambassador. He has been a tireless advocate, working on behalf of not only the fishing industry, but particularly, sealers, in his work at the European Union. He has come before our fisheries committee numerous times. Every time the committee has requested the fisheries ambassador to come to the committee and report, the committee has been virtually unanimous in its approval of the hard work he has done.

Furthermore, we have sent the past chair, Mr. Fabian Manning, along with other members of Canadian delegations, over there to work and advocate on behalf of sealers in Canada at the European Union.

We have done an absolutely incredible job in standing up for the rights of sealers in Canada.

I guess my question back to the hon. member is this. How much correspondence has Senator Mac Harb sent to the European Union, advocating the other way?

Mr. Raynald Blais (Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, BQ): 

Madam Chair, I, too, appreciated the member's speech. I have come to know him better through our work together in committee. I appreciate his cooperative approach and his hard work.

I would like him to comment on measures the Canadian government should take. I said, “the Canadian government”, but I think that it should work with Quebec and the other provinces. What should governments do in the short, medium and long terms to address this situation?

Mr. Blaine Calkins:  

Madam Chair, my colleague knows full well the process at the European Union. Now there is a 60-day waiting period. At the end of the 60-day waiting period, we have to wait and see what approach it will take. At that point, I believe the minister has already indicated that if things should go badly and negatively, we will proceed down the path of a WTO challenge. That is the most effective and rapid way we can approach solving this situation.

People ask why a member of Parliament from Alberta, who sits on the fisheries committee, would be so passionate about this issue. Coming from a farming background, I know full well the benefit of looking after and caring for animals in a way that is humane and that is sustainable. A farmer's livelihood depends on it no differently than a fisherman's life depends on it.

When we have an advocacy group basically advocating its issue, using false and misleading information and under false and misleading pretenses raising funds to advocate on a single issue, setting a precedent whereby the European Union can unilaterally decide if Canada can or cannot export products into the European market when they are obtained in a humane and sustainable fashion, what threat does that pose for farmers on the Prairies? That is a very alarming question. That is why this government will stand firm in its resolve and use every mechanism possible to ensure we defend the rights of all Canadians to use our natural resources in a way that is sustainable and humane and that protects Canada's interests.

Mr. Scott Simms (Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, Lib.):  

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?

Mr. Blaine Calkins:  

Madam Chair, I appreciate the hon. member's attack on a fellow Newfoundlander. The reality is Loyola Sullivan has done a magnificent job. He has done an absolutely wonderful job representing our interests. These problems squarely rest on the misinformation campaign out there by advocacy groups that simply want to see their one issue resolved. Let us make no mistake about it. This is an issue for which they raise millions and millions of dollars and pay themselves handsomely compared to what a sealer gets. This is a very frustrating thing.

This is not in the hands of the ambassador. He does not have a vote at the European parliament. He has been over there working as tireless advocate. When he has appeared before the fisheries committee, as I stated earlier, he has presented himself and Canada's case very well. He defended his actions before the fisheries committee on several occasions for which the entire committee was virtually unanimous in its consent.

What is very frustrating is the fact that it would be nice if all parliamentarians, not only from the House of Commons, but also from the Senate, could get together and be a unanimous voice on behalf of Canadians. I do not know what the Liberal policy is on taxation. I do not know what the Liberal policy is on the seal hunt. Members say one thing and they come here and do another.

For example, look at the gun registry. Those members tell their constituents one thing. Then they come here from rural Canada and they say that they will defend their interests on the gun registry, but vote against it. They say that they will defend their interests on the seal harvest and they come here and defend it.

Mr. Jack Harris (St. John's East, NDP): 

Madam Chair, I listened with interest to the member for Wetaskiwin when he talked about the activity in the WTO. I speak with experience as a lawyer. It seems to me that going to the WTO is like going to court. We know they do not have a very strong legal position, so we go to court. Meanwhile, we are sitting down and negotiating with these very same people. Why would we say that we do not need to negotiate because we will go to court. Once we say that we will to a court, like the WTO, the people who they negotiate with will say that they do not need to talk about this because we have said that we will resolve it, so it is off the table. That seems to be a very backward step.

The member dealt with the issue of somebody being offside in the Senate. The Senate is the other place and it does what it does. The European parliament seemed to be very effective in passing resolutions with 50 people offside. It had a very effective resolution 500 to 50, or something like that. Why is unanimity such a big deal as it seems to effectively pass resolutions?

We need a government to be at the main table, act decisively and defend the interests of Canada where it counts.

Mr. Blaine Calkins:  

I speak from the position, Madam Chair, of a party that at least understands what it is like to govern the country and knows what it is like to speak from a unanimous voice. The Liberal Party should understand, as the Conservative Party does, that the responsibilities of governing are much different than the responsibilities of sitting in opposition.

When it comes to the WTO, why would we sit down in negotiations to try to resolve this issue when the law is already there? There is a mechanism in place at the WTO. Why do we not engage and use the process already in place? The hon. member suggests that we negotiate a process and then try to get a solution to the negotiated process. The process is already in place. Why not start with that one?