Photo: Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff gives a thumbs up while eating a seal meat appetizer on Wednesday. By Chris Wattie / Reuters.

If there’s one thing that’s united many Canadians from all political stripes, it’s fighting back against the self-righteous, ignorant animal rights activists passing themselves off as the European Union. Practically all of Canada’s political establishment has spoken out for the rights of Canadian hunters to continue their long tradition of culling seals along the Gulf of St.Lawrence.

That season is almost upon us again, beginning in late March and the first or second week of April off Newfoundland. Canada’s largest export market for seal pelts has been Norway, but has also traded with Germany, Greenland, and China. As the pelts have lost their value due to negative animal rights campaigns, seal meat has begun to pick up as a strong market in Asia.

Prior to the 2009 European Union ban on Canadian seal products, total Canadian seal product exports were valued at $18 million Canadian.

On Wednesday, MPs and senators of all political parties joined for a luncheon in the House of Commons featuring seal. It is the first time that seal was featured on the menu in the 100 year history of Parliament Hill.

While the menu was meant as a means of promoting seal meat, it was also a slap to the face of the European ban. Inuit Canadians were recently snubbed at a G7 Finance Ministers summit in Nunavut when they featured a luncheon that was boycotted by the Europeans. Nunavut has since responded by threatening to ban European alcohol.

Michael Ignatieff has spoken out against the European ban before to the British media. In May of 2009 he told the Telegraph that the ban was misguided.

“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, which is an economic mainstay of some of the poorest communities in Canada,” he said.

“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, this is very important.”

Unfortunately for Mr.Ignatieff, not everybody is playing ball. Liberal MP Mac Harb is taking his one-man fight to Parliament Hill in an attempt to pass a private member’s bill to ban the commercial seal hunt in Canada. Siding with the Humane Society International and a climate scientist, Mr.Harb warned that the seal hunt should also be cancelled because global warming has melted the sea ice off of the east coast of Canada.

Conservative Minister for Fisheries Gail Shea has urged Michael Ignatieff to reign in Mr.Harb.

“It is very unfortunate that the Liberal leader is allowing a member of his caucus to attack the seal hunt at a time when all Canadians should be united behind our sealers and behind our northern and coastal communities,” Ms. Shea said in the House of Commons on Monday. “I would also encourage the Liberals to take a clear stand on this issue. If they support Canadian coastal communities, then please stand up for them.”

But the seal ban has probably already done irreparable damage to the industry. Canadian seal exports were worth $9.7 million last year, nearly half the value of $18 million from 2006. This is bad news for the industry, particularly the Inuit, who have been hoping that seal meat exports would create a financial boom for Northern communities.

As everyone knows by now, former Conservative MP Rahim Jaffer pleaded guilty to careless driving this morning and was given a rather tiny fine of $500. The former Edmonton MP was charged in September with possession of cocaine and driving under the influence after being stopped for driving 93 km/h in a 50 zone.

But the cocaine and drunk driving charges were withdrawn before the charges were ever brought to court. According to the prosecution, there was no reasonable possibility of conviction on the serious charges, citing “significant legal issues” impeding the case.

Whatever that means. I mean, if you can’t nail a guy caught red-handed with coke while driving drunk and speeding, then there’s not much point to the legal system, is there?

But as for blaming the judge, or accusing him of being a Tory, which is exactly what journalist David Akin does, it seems a little misguided. Since the coke and drunk driving charges were tossed out, the charge was reduced to “careless driving”. Not exactly your crime of the century here.

When put in context of driving drunk with cocaine in the car and speeding, it sounds bad. But Judge Doug Maund was forced to look at the facts before him, not the cocaine or the alcohol, and certainly not Helena Guergis’s airport meltdown in Prince Edward Island, which I’m sure is contributing to some of the public backlash in the ruling. And the facts were that this was a first-time offender with a record of public service and no criminal background.

As for Rahim Jaffer, he only addressed the careless driving conviction outside of the court.

“I should have been more careful. I’m sorry. I know this is a serious matter,” he said. “Once again I apologize for that and I take full responsibility for my careless driving.”

It would have been better if he hadn’t spoken at all. Nobody really cares that he was caught speeding. We’ve all been there. No, the press was there to get an apology for taking cocaine and driving drunk. But since he got those charges tossed, the best thing to say would have been “no comment”. Saying “I should have been more careful” almost implies he should have taken the back roads during his drunk coked up joy ride.

The Liberal Party, fully trying to make the poor choices of Mr.Jaffer’s private life a public embarrassment to the Conservative Party, saw fit that Winnipeg MP Anita Neville, rather inappropriately, got up in the House of Commons today and said the following:

“Mr. Speaker, members of the government are always quick to comment on any court judgment that does not align with their ‘get tough on crime’ rhetoric. They always say, ‘You do the crime, you do the time’. What then is the government’s comment on a dangerous driver, in possession of illicit drugs who gets off with no record and a $500 slap on the wrist?”

Naturally, the floor went into an uproar as the Conservatives called shame on the Liberal Member. After quite some time, the Speaker, Peter Milliken, restored order. Minister of Justice Rob Nicholson, responding to the charge, seemed genuinely surprised by the smear. He began to answer, but the murmurs continued to drown him out.

“I almost do not know where to begin to comment on such an irresponsible question, Mr. Speaker. The government initiated the Director of Public Prosecutions for the very reason to make sure there would never be any political interference of any prosecution in this country. That should have the support of the hon. member, and she should get up, withdraw and apologize for that comment.”

Anita Neville was given a choice to apologize, though I don’t think anyone expected she would, as the House of Commons continued to rumble with the sounds of backbenchers yelling at one another from across the great hall.

“Mr. Speaker, what a hypocritical answer this minister gives. The government tries to pass the buck and the Conservatives are conspicuously silent, only when the law is being flouted by one of their own. Even the judge thought this was a ‘break’. Why the double standard? Nothing stopped them from commenting before. Does the government really believe that the punishment fits the crime?”

The return jab, being more predictable this time, elicited a lesser response of outrage. With the Minister of Justice being more composed, he returned the volley and repeated his demand for an apology from the Winnipeg Member for Parliament.

“Mr. Speaker, that is about as low as one can go, in my opinion. This hon. member is talking about a provincial prosecution in front of a provincial judge within the appeal period, and she is asking us to comment. That is completely irresponsible and she should apologize to this House.”

In the hours succeeding this answer, some people have inferred that Mr.Nicholson was taking a shot at the Liberal McGuinty government by pointing out, quite correctly, that the Jaffer case was a provincial matter before the Ontario courts.

Whatever the case, it is amazing how much animus has been drawn from all sides over the actions of a private individual no longer working with the federal Conservative government. And while we may all find his lenient sentencing distasteful, it is even more unbecoming that the Liberal Party tried to use this issue to smear the Conservative government in Question Period today.