44th Parl. 1st Sess.
May 9, 2024 10:00AM
Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to this bill tonight. I will be fairly brief.
The work we have to do here, as elected representatives of the people, is very serious. We have to do it rigorously. Unfortunately, these days, that rigour is not always there. We had a great example of that for a good part of the day. I will now get back to the bill.
Bill C‑355 deals with a sensitive issue, and we have asked a great many questions about it. I think we were right to ask those questions. In particular, we wondered why a bill dealing with an issue in a minister's mandate letter had to be a private member's bill. That did raise some questions. We wondered about the process. We also wondered whether it was not better to take action on the Health of Animals Act, on animal welfare. The Bloc Québécois has always been a champion of animal welfare. That is one of our fundamental values. We have always defended this principle.
We have before us a bill seeking to fully prohibit a specific practice. We questioned various witnesses. I somewhat agree with my colleagues who spoke about the testimonies. A good number of the many testimonies we heard were contradictory. At times like these, as parliamentarians, we must recognize that. We have to consider where it is coming from, weigh the pros and cons, look at the sources. It was very demanding work.
We wondered about the precedent this sets, and we asked ourselves whether this was the first step towards something else. My NDP colleague actually posed this question to the bill's sponsor. That is one of the questions that was addressed. We also wondered why the bill covered just one species. Why not prohibit this kind of practice for various species? That is a question we had tackle in a comprehensive, rigorous way.
A number of witnesses also expressed concerns, including people from the pilots' association, who were concerned about being forced to deal with more forms. I think that was resolved with the amendments we adopted. We have heard from so many groups.
We really focused on transportation. How are they being transported? Basically, the purpose of the bill is to put an end not to slaughter, but to air transportation. There were lots of questions about the terms and conditions of carriage. We were told that the conditions were not appropriate.
There was some interesting testimony, including from Canadian Veterinary Medical Association representatives, who shared scientific facts about livestock welfare and how they are transported. My Conservative Party colleague mentioned that the animals are transported several to a cage-like box. We looked at how this species functions. They are herd animals, a prey species, so it is reassuring for them to be with others.
As it was also mentioned earlier, we made comparisons with horses transported by air for different reasons. Many were transported to be in competitions, to be put up for sale, to be raised elsewhere, and so on. My goodness, it was quite an interesting study. It generated a lot of debate. The evidence shows that transportation has improved. I believe it was back in 2020 that transportation conditions were changed for the better.
In the end, one thing stood out. It was mentioned by the bill's sponsor: Horses have a status unlike that of any other animal in Canada and Quebec. Although they are used for food in Quebec, many people think of them more as a companion animal. There is a kind of overlap.
As elected members, our job in the House of Commons is to examine scientific facts, to assess the pros and cons, but also to consider the values of Canadians, where we stand as a society and, ultimately, to vote on this bill. That is our job, and that is what we did to the best of our ability.
666 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise to offer my thoughts on Bill C-355. I too am a member of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, and it has been my privilege to be a member of that committee now for six and a half years. It is a great committee, probably the best one in the House of Commons. Those on the committee treat each other with a lot of respect, even though we have differing opinions on many matters, but it is a committee that typically arrives at its decisions with consensus.
I congratulate the member for Kitchener—Conestoga. Not many private members' bills get to the stage where they are reported back to the House after making it through committee, so he has succeeded where many have failed, and I congratulate him on that.
I gave a more in-depth analysis of the bill, Bill C-355, during second reading in the House, so I do not want to spend too much time on it. Essentially, I would remind people watching this debate that this bill seeks to prohibit the export, by air, from Canada, of live horses for the purpose of being slaughtered or being fattened for slaughter. That is a very important point to underline in this. Certainly, from what I have heard in the debate today, there is a bit of hyperbole, thinking that this is going to be the end of the entire horse industry in Canada, which is simply not true. We have to look at the bill and read the wording of it. It is a very specific surgical instrument, which looks at one specific type of practice for one type of animal.
I am proud to be a member of a party that, since 2010, has introduced three private members' bills on this subject. I want to reference former member of Parliament Alex Atamanenko, who used to represent the riding of British Columbia Southern Interior. He introduced Bill C-544 in the 40th Parliament, Bill C-571 in the 41st Parliament, as well as Bill C-322. This is an issue that first came to light in Parliament in 2021 in the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food's mandate letter. The mandate letter directed the minister to deliver on a commitment to ban the export of live horses for slaughter. That took shape in the legislative form through Bill C-355.
Like the member for Kitchener—Conestoga, I have been involved in this conversation in other ways. I got to sponsor e-petition 4190 in the House of Commons that received over 36,000 signatures. I know that on this particular issue, as the agriculture critic, I have received well over 34,000 individual emails on this subject, many directly from my riding. This is a topic that galvanizes a lot of people in Canada, and they take a very real interest in this subject. Many people are happy to see this bill come forward.
I will talk a little about the committee work. When we look at the committee work we did for a private member's bill, I would argue that we did a pretty thorough job. This one private member's bill involved five meetings, 23 briefs were submitted, and there were 31 witnesses. I would say, given the length of this bill, we did our job. We heard from a wide range of people. Did everyone agree with the bill? No. That is impossible to find in a democracy. We have to balance out the differing points of view and try to find a way forward.
I did find, though, that the witness testimony helped inform the committee to make Bill C-355 a better bill. We did our job, and based on witness testimony, we made some amendments to it. We could compare the version of the bill we are debating now in the House to the version that was introduced at first reading. Based on some testimony, we removed the onerous declaration requirements that were spelled out in great detail. We certainly heard from some stakeholders that it was far too onerous, so we deleted that offending section, and the reception was quite positive. The committee did its job and listened to the witnesses, who gave helpful advice on which amendments to pass. It did, in fact, do that.
I want to spend a bit of time talking about two particular witnesses.
Racetracks of Canada sent us a written brief in support of this bill on March 18. I just want to quote from that brief. It states:
We consider the practice of exporting horses by air for slaughter to be abhorrent, and our industry has long taken extensive measures to ensure that horses exiting their time in horse racing find caring and quality ownership in Canada.
That comes from an industry that deals in horses, loves horses and is very much involved in animal agriculture. I think that really blows out of the water the Conservative narrative that this bill is attacking animal agriculture, when in fact we have witnesses involved in the horse industry who absolutely support this bill.
On April 9, Barbara Cartwright, the CEO of Humane Canada, said the following:
There are always varying types of animal welfare science. We do see that at the National Farm Animal Care Council. However, when you look at the testimony that focuses on the experience of the animals and not on the experience of the farmer or the agriculture business, you will see very clearly that the experience of the animal, which is what should be considered here, is a lot of tension, anxiety, fear and pain, all the way up to death.
I would implore Parliament to look at the horse, not the farmer.
I was very encouraged to have people like Ms. Cartwright, among others, come before our committee to give us their view on this bill.
Another person I wanted to mention is Captain Tim Perry from the Air Line Pilots Association. I asked him about a typical flight from Winnipeg to Japan. Let us just underline the fact that Japan is the key market for live horses. They are used for a delicacy that is served in Japanese restaurants. For the travel of live horses from Winnipeg to Japan, there are some variances, but one flight can burn anywhere from 50,000 to 70,000 kilograms of jet fuel. This is just to export live horses. That is an incredible amount of fossil fuels to be burned to export live animals that are eventually going to be slaughtered.
I want to underline the fact that this bill is not going to prevent horses from being raised in Canada for meat; it is not. It is black and white, period. Horsemeat is found on grocery shelves throughout Quebec. It is eaten in Canada. It is on the menus of high-end restaurants across Canada as well. More than 25,000 horses are slaughtered in Canada for food each year, and those products are exported mainly to Japan, France and the United States.
Far from this bill being the end of animal agriculture, I implore people to look at the facts, read the bill and look at the statistics of the industry. This bill is not going to end animal agriculture. It is going to stop a very niche practice of exporting live horses, which are going off to be slaughtered.
This is an incredibly popular measure. A survey from April 2024, just last month, said 78% of Albertans are in support of this measure, and when it comes to indigenous communities, 71% are in support.
Given that the House of Commons is the natural democratic outlet of the will of the people, I am pleased to stand with the majority of Canadians to see this bill pass through the House of Commons and make its way to the Senate.
1325 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/9/24 6:09:43 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, as always, it is an honour to be able to stand and debate important issues in this place, and specifically this issue. It has been interesting as I have listened to the discussion that has taken place today, followed the committee work and heard from many constituents.
It is important to understand the full context of the talking points related to what the sponsor of this bill and those who are supporting it say it is about, and then the reality and how those on the ground are affected.
Specifically, I would like to thank a number of constituents who have reached out to me and shared their deep concern about this bill and the chill that it has placed not only on the specifics around raising horses but across agricultural sectors, in how we are allowing activism and activist talking points to define government policy. It is regrettable that this is in fact the case, because I think that Canadians have every right to and should ask difficult questions about a whole host of issues surrounding animal husbandry, which is the raising of animals.
I come from ranch country. Many of my neighbours are ranchers, and I fully understand the work, the pain, the blood, sweat and tears that go into caring for livestock on the farm, on the ranch and at every step of the food supply chain.
When we allow activism to inform the conversation, it does not result in better public policy. In fact, it often has the opposite effect. We see that in a whole host of issues. It is an illustration of exactly how the Liberals, supported by their coalition partners, their confidence and supply partners in the NDP, are quick to listen to activists yet refuse to listen to those on the ground.
As I spoke with constituents, they talked about how their operations will be devastated by this. They do not know what to do with their herds of horses, not even at the conclusion of this bill passing, but with the uncertainty it has created. I have spoken to many involved with the transportation of these animals, and while there is a narrative that is being expressed by many who have come out in support of this bill, it is simply not factually accurate. It is fair to ask difficult questions and to demand accountability around the transportation of livestock, regardless of the context, whether that be horses by air transport, any other animal by air transport or various other mechanisms that transport livestock across the agricultural sector.
However, that is not what this bill has allowed to happen, which is why I find it fascinating that we have a long list of agriculture stakeholders who have shared how devastating of a message this will send to Canada's agriculture sector if it passes. It is not about protecting animals. It is about listening to a small cohort of voices that do not represent the facts.
I would also like to share how this bill will have a damaging effect on reconciliation. Some in this room may be asking what the deal with that is, but here are the facts: A significant portion or a significant number of the farms and ranches that raise horses are indigenous-owned. They were not consulted by that member, nor by the organizations that are pushing for this agenda.
What is effectively happening is that the process, and it is not even about the bill being passed, has sent a chill through the market and a chill to the customers. It has created uncertainty in the market, and anybody who understands basic economics knows that uncertainty in a market can have a devastating effect on the ability of that market to function properly.
There are indigenous ranches, reserves and those who have invested generations and have earned their livelihood off a sector that the member and the activist groups promoting these causes have ignored. It is fair to have a debate on policy, and we need to have that in this country, but what is disappointing is that it is not the voices of those who understand the sector that are being heard. It is a vocal few who seem bent on pursuing their ideological means at any cost, and the result is that many are going to suffer devastating consequences. Indigenous livelihoods are being taken away by the activism of the Liberals. Some of my constituents would have their livelihoods taken away by the activism of the Liberals.
My plea would be this. Let us look at the facts. As somebody who has been involved in agriculture my entire life, as somebody who has had animals on my family farm, I understand very clearly the care that one can have for animals. However, let us understand the consequences of a policy that does not take into account the facts.
When I heard the sponsor of the bill initially talk, there were many voices that were not acknowledged. When I have heard the debate take place, both at the committee and since, many voices in this conversation have not been acknowledged. When it comes to agriculture stakeholders, we are not talking about well-paid lobbyists that exist here in the nation's capital; we are talking about regular folks who work hard and volunteer for their industry organizations.
It is interesting, and it shows their absolute disdain, when members like the member from Kingston would suggest that somehow those Canadians' voices do not matter. The reality is this. Many of the organizations that have shared their concerns are doing so because they know the impact that bad public policy has on the livelihoods of those involved in this sector.
I urge all members of this place to look at the facts. Let us not make rash decisions based on a vocal group of activists who are unwilling to have reasonable conversations about agriculture in general and specifically related to the horse sector here in Canada. Let us make sure that we are informed by those facts, because if we do not, there are consequences. I cannot highlight this enough. I believe close to half of those involved in this sector are indigenous. That means that, effectively, that member and the Liberals would be stealing away their livelihoods because they listened to a vocal few, as opposed to the common sense of those who understand and know well what the reality on the ground is.
Now, when it comes to what the future of animal husbandry in Canada should be, we have, for many generations, demonstrated expertise that is looked the world over as being a pinnacle of what can be done to find the right balance, whether it comes to large-scale protein production across the spectrum, whether it be in oilseed and other grown proteins, or whether it be in milk, dairy and the feathered side of our sector. We have a lot to be proud of.
I will conclude with this. The bill before us attacks the agriculture industry, without question. If we start listening to these vocal few voices, it will have a devastating impact not only on those involved. Attacking the agriculture sector and saying, through the passing of a bill like this, that it cannot be trusted, which is what it is saying, will have the impact of increasing costs, decreasing trust and ultimately making it so that Canadians are unable to feed themselves through this amazing sector.
1250 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/9/24 6:19:49 p.m.
- Watch
I recognize the hon. member for Kitchener—Conestoga for his right of reply.
14 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/9/24 6:19:55 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, in closing, I want to thank my colleagues from all parties for getting together. I sit on the agriculture committee as well. We did this in a thoughtful process. We heard from everyone concerned. We responded to concerns.
This bill is very specific in its nature in that it focuses on exporting horses only, not domestic products for horses. Canadians sent us here to represent them and to work together. I believe this is an example of working together across party lines.
Over seven out of 10 Canadians want this practice to end. That is what we are doing together. I appreciate it. I look forward to the bill moving through the House and into the Senate. I thank everyone for their co-operation. It is a proud day.
131 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/9/24 6:20:44 p.m.
- Watch
The question is on the motion.
If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.
51 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/9/24 6:21:18 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would ask that the bill be carried on division.
12 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/9/24 6:21:23 p.m.
- Watch
Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
7 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/9/24 6:21:49 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I think that if you were to canvass the House, you would find unanimous consent to see the clock at 6:30 p.m.
26 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/9/24 6:21:53 p.m.
- Watch
Is it agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
7 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/9/24 6:22:13 p.m.
- Watch
moved:
That, in relation to Bill C-59, An Act to implement certain provisions of the fall economic statement tabled in Parliament on November 21, 2023 and certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 28, 2023, not more than five further hours shall be allotted to the consideration of the report stage and five hours shall be allotted to the consideration at the third reading stage of the bill; and
That, at the expiry of the five hours provided for the consideration at report stage and the five hours provided for the consideration at the third reading stage of the said bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this order, and, in turn, every question necessary for the disposal of the said stage of the bill then under consideration shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.
151 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/9/24 6:23:34 p.m.
- Watch
Pursuant to Standing Order 67.1, there will now be a 30-minute question period. I invite hon. members who wish to ask questions to rise or use the “raise hand” function so that the Chair can have some idea of the number of members who wish to participate in the question period.
Questions and comments, the hon. member for Bay of Quinte.
65 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/9/24 6:25:20 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise and talk about the budget. The fall economic statement seems like a long time ago.
Of course, when we talk to the hon. member, we are talking about housing and the fact that we are in a crisis right now. In my region, waterfront houses in Prince Edward County used to be $350,000. They are now selling for well over $2 million, but it goes down the road from that. Affordable rentals in our region were around $1,400 four to six years ago. That has doubled to $3,000. There are people in my region who cannot afford their rent.
I am going to go down a different path. CFB Trenton, in my riding, was promised housing in a budget two years ago. I know that the member for Kingston and the Islands loves this, because he loves to talk about housing and military bases. CFB Trenton was promised 50 homes two years ago. Until today, we have built zero homes on the base, no matter what was promised in past budgets.
My question for the housing minister is this: I know we need homes in general in the Quinte region, but when are we going to get homes on our bases that were promised in budgets two years ago?
220 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/9/24 6:26:34 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague led off by pointing out that the fall economic statement feels like a very long time ago, hence the need to move forward with time allocation to actually implement the measures included in the fall economic statement now that we are into the following spring. He mentioned the home ownership prices and the rental challenges a lot of families are having in his community. We know that these circumstances are very challenging in regions right across the entire country.
The reality is that, when we look at the plan the Conservatives are putting forward, they do not have a single measure that is designed to help actually build more homes. They want to raise taxes when it comes to the GST on apartment construction. They have no measures in their housing plan that are designed to help more people get into homes. The member talks about homes for members of the Canadian Armed Forces, and I would actually point him to the recent plan put forward by the Minister of National Defence, who has included specific, short-term budgeting opportunities to build more homes for the men and women who wear the uniform.
It is essential that we look at all the different opportunities to advance measures to build more homes. I am disappointed that the Conservative plan provides precisely zero.
226 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/9/24 6:27:38 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, Abbotsford, British Columbia, suffered devastating floods in 2021. I was informed by the Minister of Emergency Preparedness that some of the money from the disaster financial assistance program would be used to help reconstruct our community. The City of Abbotsford has also applied to a climate adaptation fund to help rebuild the waterways, Highway No. 1 and the train routes through this area.
Will the government help Abbotsford access that money as quickly as possible so our national trade corridors are not cut off again?
87 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/9/24 6:28:23 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, one thing that the hon. member and I have in common is that we both come from communities that have seen devastating impacts from severe weather events. That is part of the reason that we need to do everything we can from both a mitigation and an adaptation point of view; we need to ensure that we are there for communities that been impacted.
With respect to the disaster financial assistance arrangement, I expect the hon. member is well aware that it operates in the form of a reimbursement to cover some of the costs that were incurred and covered initially by provincial governments.
With respect to the specific application that may be before departments, I am happy to do an inquiry to figure out the current status of any applications when it comes to disaster mitigation and adaptation, to ensure that we keep those trade corridors flowing. I do not have the specific details on the unique project the member has just raised before me. I would be happy to take part in a follow-up conversation to chase down the information he is looking for.
189 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/9/24 6:29:21 p.m.
- Watch
Uqaqtittiji, it is good to see the Minister of Housing here.
For the last two years, the Nunavut government has been asking for investments in housing. Understanding that the Government of Nunavut is not an indigenous government and is not eligible to apply to the urban, rural and northern housing initiative, can the minister update the House on what investments they will be providing directly to the Government of Nunavut so that they can help alleviate the housing crisis up north?
81 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/9/24 6:29:57 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I had an opportunity to visit my hon. colleague's community, where she graciously hosted me to meet with certain stakeholders there. She is a fierce advocate for more housing in Canada's north.
In addition to some of the programs that will operate through non-profits or directly support rights holders who represent distinctions-based communities in Canada's north and across the country, there are opportunities to work directly with provincial and territorial governments as well. I would point to the Canada builds program as an example, where we are seeking to enter bilateral agreements directly to finance housing that will be offered in rental markets. There are further opportunities to enter bilateral agreements to put forward the housing-enabling infrastructure and, of course, through the announcement that we made jointly in Nunavut with respect to the housing accelerator fund, there can be local communities that can partner with provincial governments to advance their shared goals.
There is not a single throughput for the federal government to co-operate with the territorial government in Nunavut, but there are a range of programs that create opportunities to work directly with housing providers and with different levels of government, including the territorial government in her constituency.
208 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/9/24 6:31:06 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, this is another embarrassing admission by the government that it has completely failed in its role. We have already had one vote on budget 2024, and yet the fall economic statement is before us tonight. Of course, the government is going to time allocate it. It has been months since it was brought up for debate. This is an admission of failure on the government's part.
Why is it so bad at managing the calendar and getting things done?
82 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/9/24 6:31:41 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, with respect, when one is faced with an opposition that will obstruct and delay the process in the chamber, it can make it difficult to get legislation passed, but that will not stop us.
The member is right to point out that we are going to use time allocation. I am glad he sees common sense in that approach, given that the fall economic statement was in the fall of last year. Since then, we have seen winter and now spring. We have to move forward with the legislation that is going to implement the measures. The opposition's delay tactics are preventing additional support through the rural top-up to the Canada carbon rebate and a number of other measures that are important when it comes to building housing and saving people money.
136 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
