Proposition 51K2412

Projet de loi relatif à l'interdiction de fabriquer et de commercialiser des produits dérivés de phoques.

General information ¶

Submitted by

PS | SP MR Open Vld Vooruit Purple Ⅰ

Submission date

April 10, 2006

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

protection of animals animal skin import animal welfare seal

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

CD&V Vooruit Ecolo LE PS | SP Open Vld N-VA MR VB

Contact form ¶

Do you have a question or request regarding this proposition? Select the most appropriate option for your request and I will get back to you shortly.

Discussion ¶

Jan. 25, 2007 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, colleagues, the Committee on Business discussed the draft law on the prohibition of the manufacture and commercialization of products derived from seals, at the meetings of 9, 24 and 31 May 2006 and 10 January 2007.

The discussions were not always easy, as the Committee for Business received a request from the Canadian and Norwegian embassies to be heard about their objections to the draft. The request showed certain aspects of contract law, as Canada, in the context of the procedure for the TBT, i.e. the World Trade Organization committee, had identified a number of objections against the Belgian draft law and thus indeed had the right to be heard by the Belgian authorities.

The Committee on Business, followed by the Conference of Presidents, concluded that it was not the legislative power to hear Canada in these matters, but that it was indeed the executive power to negotiate and consult with other countries within the framework of the contractual obligations. Consequently, by letter of 19 June 2006, the Speaker of the Chamber requested the Minister of Economy to continue the negotiations at the WHO level and the discussions in the committee were suspended. On 10 January 2007, the discussions were resumed after Belgium had fulfilled its obligations under international law and the Minister had presented a report on this in the committee.

We did not go on ice overnight. We have heard different people from the most diverse points of view. Of course, we have heard, among others, Michel Vandenbosch of GAIA, who gave us a facts relay of the seagull hunt in Canada in March 2004. I myself and colleague Jean-Marie Dedecker from the Senate were present on the invitation of the international organization IFAW, to participate in the seahorse slaughter. Mr Vandenbosch gave an extensive explanation of what he believed was exactly necessary to end this abomination.

The same was done by Mr. John Norman Gripper, an independent expert and appointed by IFAW to form, together with five other veterinarians, an independent team of observers in the Canadian commercial seagull hunt. The veterinarians came from different countries and had different professional experiences and areas of interest. There was a Canadian veterinarian involved, Alan Longair. There was a veterinary manager involved with the Norfolk Wildlife Hospital in the United Kingdom, namely Ian Robinson. Another member, namely Rosemary Burdon, works for the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals in Massachusetts in the United States.

Finally, Debbie Ruehlmann, a neurologist at Angell Memorial Animal Hospital in Boston, United States, was also part of that observation team led by Dr. Normam Gripper. The latter gave us an extensive explanation in connection with the conclusions of this independent veterinary team following their visit to the seagull hunt. The conclusion was clear. The independent veterinary team unanimously concluded that the seagull hunt has resulted in significant and unacceptable animal suffering.

The third speaker in the hearings was Mr Diederik Vandervennet of the Belgian Bontfederation. Mr. Vandervennet also gave us an extensive explanation regarding the present draft and the resolution submitted on the same draft. He defended the claims of the fur industry and explained to the committee that some of the arguments used by animal rights organizations, according to the fur dealers, are not correct. He tried to refute the various arguments of animal rights organizations one by one. He gave a very comprehensive explanation for which, for the rest, I refer to the written report in which you can find all the comments in detail.

Finally, we heard Mr Rob Renaerts from the OIVO, Research and Information Centre of Consumer Organizations. He said that they could be satisfied with the present design. From the consumer point of view, this was definitely a step forward.

Last but not least, David Lavigne was speaking to the International Fund for Animal Welfare. He expressed his position from the organization. He again gave some facts and figures about animal hunting. In addition, he gave explanations in a survey they had conducted as an organization in Canada about whether or not to support seagull hunting. 76% of Canadians are in favour of a ban on killing young seals. 78% believe that killing seagulls is cruel by definition.

I also refer to the written report for the more extensive explanation.

Until then, a few concerns from the people we saw during the hearings. We have had an extensive discussion on this. I must say that there were not so many members present at the discussion. Mr Mark Verhaegen of CD&V, me and Mrs Gerkens of Ecolo spoke. We had the opportunity to question the experts on the subject.

As I said at the beginning, after the hearings, we had to halt the work because the consultation procedure with Canada was still underway.

We were not able to resume the work in the committee until January because, unfortunately, all that international consultation took ⁇ much time and energy, the minister can talk about it. In the end, we reached the good result.

We were able to continue the discussion in January of this year with the presentation of the Minister. He told about all the suffering he had to go through. There were the meetings where Canada and Norway were able to express their positions and where representatives of the European Commission were also present, since it is the European Commission, which represents Belgium in the World Trade Organization. The Netherlands was also there, as the Dutch parliament is also considering implementing a ban on seagull products.

After a first consultation meeting with Canada, Norway and the European Commission, several follow-up meetings were held, all of which went in the same direction. There has been extensive exchange of opinions on this. Everyone had the opportunity to present their arguments.

An important exception, which we have also bowed to, is the exception for the Inuit. As you know, for the Inuit, seagull hunting is an important tradition, but also necessary for the local economy. Hunting by the Inuit, which represents about 3% of the total, is therefore explicitly permitted by the design. This was explained by the Minister.

The Minister decided that by hearing Canada and Norway Belgium has indeed fulfilled its international obligations and that the draft as such can be re-submitted to the Chamber unchanged.

During the discussion, colleague Verhaegen spoke about his feelings of disgust when seeing the images of the horrible sea dog hunt. However, he was also pleased that Canada and Norway were heard. He pointed out that Greenland had also filed a complaint and that Namibia had also expressed its concerns about the draft. He also asked the Minister for an explanation.

I myself took the word. However, I do not want to go deeper into this. This will be discussed later in my own speech on the subject.

Mr Lano also spoke in the committee. He asked how it went on with the design and with the resolution and what the intention is.

Eventually, the committee closed its work. The Minister responded closely to all questions, both concerning Canada, Norway, Greenland and Namibia.

The committee finally voted. Articles 1 to 9 were adopted unanimously. The entire draft was unchanged and unanimously adopted.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, Ladies and Gentlemen, the Committee on Economic Affairs examined this proposal very carefully at its meetings of 9, 24 and 31 May 2006 and 10 January 2007. During these, the auditions were conducted with images to support and disseminate a documentary.

The fox hunt, as practiced in some countries, is a cruel practice for animals and causes great emotion in the public opinion around the world. In fact, from various NGO reports it is apparent that even the basic rules of animal welfare are regularly violated by hunters as evidenced by the emails that are sent to us.

In order to protect the fox populations, Europe intervened by adopting a directive in 1983. The Canadian government also took measures for this purpose, but in 2003, Canada once again authorized the practice consisting, in the first place, of turning the phoques with the help of a "hakapik", and then, killing them with this same weapon before starting the phase of displacement during which the animal still surprises.

Canada and Norway justify these practices by the fact that fox hunting is a tradition that is part of the local economy and that it is well structured, in particular by a high training of hunters.

However, many testimonies and images show that the hunters do not care much about how they proceed, thus leaving an inhumane spectacle with a bitter taste. I think I know that Mrs. De Meyer had the opportunity to attend this “famous” show.

The bill clearly expresses Belgium’s willingness to signal to Canada, but also to other countries that permit the hunting of phoques, that such practices that do not respect animals can not be admitted in our country in the name of public morality.

This project thus responds to the expectation of various organisations aiming at the protection of said animals, but also to a strong demand from the Belgian population which, according to various polls conducted in particular by the IFAW, would like to put an end to this process and the resulting commercialization.

By introducing the prohibition provided for in this project, Belgium serves as an example for other countries.

The PS is ⁇ sensitive to this issue. A proposal for a resolution on this subject was submitted in April 2004. We can therefore only fully support this “human” project and welcome that it has been adopted unanimously in the committee. My group had already acted in this direction with regard to the unacceptable exploitation of dog and cat skins.

Finally, the PS group would like to highlight the fact that this debate, like any debate on animal welfare, is above all a debate of political order insofar as it targets the values and objectives that a society gives itself as a line of conduct rather than a debate of scientific or factual order as some would still let it be understood.

Thank you for the attention you have given me.

Mr. Speaker, let there be no doubt: CD&V is opposed to all possible excesses with regard to animals and young animals. The horrible images that were shown also brought our disgust. This was also stated in the report of Mrs. De Meyer.

By the way, when I signed the resolution in early 2004, those images of the Canadian pachis also played in my head.

He is actually talking about the hunting of two species of sea dogs: the sedelrob and the klapmuts. I have two questions to the Minister.

Mr. Minister, why is the proposed draft intended to hunt the thirty-two species of seagull in the English name, “the seals”, or the eighteen species in the Dutch name, simply “seagulls”, or in French, “les phoques”, but not only the two species of seagull that I mentioned, as happened in the Netherlands, for example? The Netherlands targets two species and thus clearly responds to the situation on the Canadian packish. So I still sit down with the question of why the Netherlands has two species and we aim for all species. Wouldn’t it be logical to adjust the bill so that there are only those two species, with the intention of hitting Canada – because that’s what it’s about? We want to avoid a step up or some kind of domino effect into a general ban without we being able to estimate the human side of the matter and the economic consequences for a number of countries.

I would also like to know why this total ban has to come so suddenly, while that case is still pending in Europe.

I will leave the Minister to answer at the end of the general discussion.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, Colleagues, in 2004 I had the sad privilege of participating in the seagull slaughter in Canada, at the invitation of IFAW and GAIA. The situation was really dierontering. I have rarely seen such a demonstration of the violence of the human race, in a challenging and provocative way. My colleague spoke of "murder in the maternity clinic". It was really nothing less than that.

Already in the 1980s, Europe banned the hunting of whitecoats and bluebacks, the babyzadelrobben and the babyklapmutsen, but the most cynical of all is that the slaughters now simply wait a little longer until the baby seagulls are a little older, to then rücksichtlessly knock them down into a completely defenseless state.

My colleague from the Senate and myself came back with horrible images. Those images did not lose their effect and the government pledged unanimously, across the Party borders, to impose an import and trade ban. Finally, it took until 2006 before we got a bill in the House. It has had a lot of feet in the earth because of the rather complicated matter of international trade.

We started the discussion in May last year and organized hearings with IFAW, with independent scientists, with the Bont Federation, with the consumer organisations and with GAIA. Canada indeed requested to be heard within the framework of the World Trade Organization, but it is still the role of the executive to do so. The Minister held the discussions.

Canada’s objections are based on the so-called economic importance, but it must be said that the economic importance can be taken with a grain of salt. In fact, this is a purely internal political interest. It is only about voting in favour of the inhabitants of Newfoundland. In 1995, the Canadian Minister of Fisheries, then from Newfoundland, drastically increased the quota for seagull fishing and introduced subsidies for fur hunters. Within ten years, the original catch of about 60,000 seals was increased to more than 300,000 seals per year. Despite these high figures, the industry still accounts for only 0.5 percent of the total GDP of Newfoundland, which carries out 90 percent of seagull hunting.

During the hearing, it was clear that the internationally recognised expert dr. Gripper found that the hunting continued unimpaired without following the recommendations of the international scientific team from 2001. They argued that the hunting led to significant and unacceptable animal suffering. The argument that it is not bad that in a few years, more than a million seals are slaughtered because there are enough is a very short-sighted attitude. It was therefore the scientist David Lavigne who warned us of this irresponsible way of dealing with marine life. Let me remind my colleagues of Al Gore. The further weakening of the ice that is inevitable and is now ongoing will also affect the seagull population that absolutely needs stable ice to throw puppies on the ice. It is an inconvenient truth, even for the fur federation.

As a Belgian government, we would like to take this into account. Fortunately, the seagulls are not yet among the endangered species. However, it can occur quickly. Moreover, this is actually not even the reason why we are against that horrible seagull hunt. We are talking about the inhumanity of hunting. There are two principles that are opposed to each other. On the one hand, it is about the pure economic principle, with a product that can be harvested annually. This is cynically said. On the other hand, however, the ethical principle is that there is a mass murder of living beings. We think it’s about that, a mass murder for obtaining a meaningless product, namely fur, for which there are perfect artificial substitutes. Therefore, it is not necessary to kill defenseless animals.

This project has the broad support of the Belgian population. I refer to the IFAW survey in May 2006 which showed that almost 80% of the Belgian population is behind such an import ban. I also refer to a number of citizens’ initiatives, including the Citizens’ Initiative “Stop the Seagull Hunt” which has gathered a lot of signatures against this horrible hunt. Of course, I also refer to the efforts of GAIA in this regard. Belgium can no longer be complicit. According to the European figure, imports to Belgium amounted to more than half a million euros in 2003. According to insiders, this trade figure has quadrupled in the last four years. One can now perfectly buy a warm coat without having to kill these beautiful animals. With this import and trade ban, we in Belgium are taking an important step in the fight against meaningless violence against animals.

Thank you, Mrs De Meyer. I have given the floor to everyone who asked for the floor in the general discussion. Mr. Minister, your answer?

I can answer relatively briefly on this issue. I am pleased that we are at the end of a trilogy of measures taken in favor of animal welfare. A few weeks ago, we approved the bill that opposes the trade in dog and cat bone. There has been a regulation for this. Today we are adding to it the marshmallow.

This work was made possible by the fact that it was a group work, engaged by the government. In fact, I have had his full support and, in particular, that of two ministers, Mr. Demotte and Mrs. Van den Bossche, which allowed us to accomplish within a relatively short time.

It has also been a teamwork with Parliament, both House and Senate. Beyond party boundaries, there has been full support for the bill. There has also been teamwork between the government, the Parliament and a number of stakeholders specifically concerned with animal welfare, specifically with the international organization IFAW and GAIA.

I also immediately address questions that are not new. They were also put by colleague Verhaegen following the treatment of the bill. Why do we take the thirty-two species and not, as our Dutch colleagues have done, limit ourselves to the two main species that are the subject of the hunt? This is not a question of endangered species. None of the thirty-two can say that there could be a serious problem in the very foreseeable time.

It is the hunting method that raises a lot of questions. The sinking down and living flogging of the animals in conditions that are difficult or uncontrollable because one excludes control, and the scale in which things take place, are ⁇ difficult for us to handle.

That is why the government has decided to introduce a bill, for which we are asking for approval. In fact, it is quite part of the axis of decisions taken in other European countries. I think of Greece, Italy, France and Denmark. We have followed this process, which includes many steps, including obligations to be fulfilled at WTO level. We have now reached the end of this procedure and I would be very pleased to see this bill passed just recently.