Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, when shall this bill be read the second time?

(On motion of Senator Gold, bill placed on the Orders of the Day for second reading two days hence.)

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the inquiry of the Honourable Senator Klyne, calling the attention of the Senate to the ongoing business and economic contributions made by Indigenous businesses to Canada’s economy.

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for your question.

The Government of Canada does not take the position that the prosecutor does not have the right to request this. Thank you for underlining the actual stage of the process we’re at.

The Government of Canada was an early founding supporter of the ICC and respects its jurisdiction. However, that doesn’t mean that the Government of Canada is prepared to take a position in advance of the decision of the judges faced with the request of the prosecutor. In that regard, as I tried to point out in the earlier question — and as a jurist, you would understand — there are actual legal requirements the ICC judges have to — and, one expects, will — take into account in evaluating this. We’ll have to wait and see how they apply those criteria in their decision making.

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

(Debate adjourned.)

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Ataullahjan, seconded by the Honourable Senator Marshall:

That the Senate call on the Government of Canada to recognize the erasure of Afghan women and girls from public life as gender apartheid.

Hon. Lucie Moncion: Honourable senators, I rise today to speak to Senator Plett’s amendment to Senator Gold’s motion to have the Standing Senate Committee on National Security, Defence and Veterans Affairs study the subject matter of Bill C-20, An Act establishing the Public Complaints and Review Commission and amending certain Acts and statutory instruments.

The second paragraph of the motion would authorize the committee:

 . . . to meet even though the Senate may then be sitting or adjourned, with the application of rules 12-18(1) and 12-18(2) being suspended in relation thereto;

Senator Plett’s amendment deletes this paragraph from the motion, effectively significantly reducing opportunities for the committee to meet for the purposes of this study, as it would be unable to do so during Senate sittings.

At the end of the session, when committees are overloaded and senators’ schedules are difficult to coordinate, greater flexibility is crucial. More leeway will enable the committee to organize itself more efficiently in order to complete its work in spite of tight deadlines and time constraints.

[English]

That said, I’d also like to endorse Senator Harder’s caution about expanding the practice of conducting pre-studies on certain bills. Pre-studies are sometimes necessary and justified, particularly in the case of budget bills, appropriation bills or bills subject to judicial deadlines. These bills have special status under our parliamentary practices and customs, and require a certain deference on the part of the Senate.

When assessing the need to conduct a pre-study of a bill that does not fall into these categories, we should also consider the criterion of time constraint. Is there any justification for the time constraint imposed on the Senate to study this bill?

Extending this practice is not necessarily consistent with the Senate’s traditional role in exercising its objective second look at legislation. The Senate must be able to take the time it needs, when appropriate.

I, too, would like to caution the government and colleagues about changing practices and customs that would diminish the breadth and depth of our committees’ studies of bills we receive from the other place.

[Translation]

I believe that Senator Plett’s proposed amendment is unnecessary at this time, because I trust that our fellow senators will make the right decision when they vote on the original motion.

Thank you for your attention.

(On motion of Senator Housakos, debate adjourned.)

[English]

Hon. Bernadette Clement: Honourable senators, this item stands adjourned in the name of the Honourable Senator Martin. After my intervention today, I ask for leave that it remain adjourned in her name.

The Hon. the Speaker: So ordered.

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Hon. the Speaker: Is leave granted, honourable senators?

Hon. Kim Pate: Honourable senators, I am pleased to speak in support of Bill C-284, An Act to establish a national strategy for eye care. There are currently 1.2 million Canadians living with vision loss and more than 8 million living with an eye disease that could lead to blindness.

This is an issue that affects Canadians of all ages. Indeed, my own father is one of them. His lack of access to preventative information and therefore to early intervention left him with an advanced state of macular degeneration, which prematurely robbed him of the joys of reading, videotaping family events — the latter perhaps not so missed by some members of the family — and denied this man, who drove for a living, the freedom of driving himself, including to pursue his favourite pastime: purchasing second-hand garden furniture and equipment.

How his family misses that freedom too. We each dread the call to retrieve and deliver another table, mower, swing or heaven-knows-what, which rarely fits in our vehicles and involves scenes of Clampett-style transportation all over the Ottawa River Valley. You get the picture, but I digress.

Increasingly frequent screen time is impacting the eye health of young people. Canada’s aging population also faces particular and increased risks of vision loss and blindness. For these reasons, it is more crucial than ever that we make vision care accessible and affordable in Canada. The implementation of a national strategy must be a priority.

Despite this country’s medicare system, access to eye care services is an out-of-pocket expense for most Canadians. Most provincial coverage only includes medically necessary eye care services, and routine eye examinations are not universally available. Only 55% of Canadians have private insurance eye care coverage. Those with the least amount of coverage include newcomers, at 47.3%; those who are racialized, at 49.3%; and seniors. In fact, despite the increased needs and risks that older Canadians face, only one in three have private coverage.

Public health promotion of eye health is sparse and sporadic. This increases risks of harm that could otherwise often be prevented by early detection and exacts greater human and fiscal tolls due to resulting requirements for more expensive remedial treatment and rehabilitation costs.

Age-related macular degeneration, or AMD, can significantly impact day-to-day tasks, such as reading or driving, and is the leading cause of vision loss and blindness in Canadians over the age of 55. Although, as the name implies, AMD is certainly age-related, the risk of developing it can be reduced by precautionary measures and early detection via regular eye exams.

Access to eye care specialists is far from equal across the country, especially when it comes to rural and Indigenous communities. The Canadian Association of Optometrists rightly insists the lack of equitable access to vision care for Indigenous peoples is a pressing public health issue. According to Statistics Canada, Indigenous people are less likely to visit an eye care professional. In fact, one third of Indigenous people have not had an eye examination within the last two years. Too many Indigenous people face multiple barriers to accessing these services, including lack of transportation, financial constraints and overall abysmal investment by Canada in support of adequate health care on reserves.

First Nations people who live on a reserve also have the highest rates of diabetes in Canada. Over the last 20 years, there has been a 20% increase in the number of Indigenous people living with diabetes. You may be wondering what that has to do with this bill.

Diabetes comes with an increased risk of diabetic retinopathy, which can lead to vision loss. It is the most common eye disease correlated with diabetes and costs the health care system about $1.2 billion every year. It is also preventable. Early detection can reduce the risk of vision loss by 95%. How could we not want access to eye care, given the current system’s human, health and financial costs?

The government is failing to meet many of its obligations to Indigenous peoples. When it comes to providing adequate access to vision care, a major component of overall health and well-being, Canada is behind both the United States and Australia in making these services available for Indigenous peoples.

Canada is failing to meet its obligations under the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, especially Articles 21, 23, 24.2 and 29.3. These articles outline the government’s obligations to provide “. . . the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health. . . .” and ensure that programs to maintain and restore the health of Indigenous peoples are implemented.

This gap in care also fails to meet the terms of Truth and Reconciliation Commission Call to Action 19, which calls on the federal government to “. . . establish measurable goals to identify and close the gaps in health outcomes . . . .” Call to Justice 3.2 of the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls similarly calls upon the government to “. . . ensure that health and wellness services are available and accessible within Indigenous communities . . .” so that they are not forced to relocate in order to access treatment.

This national strategy framework, particularly the requirements for consultations with Indigenous peoples, can and must result in Canada working nation-to-nation with Indigenous governments and in support of improved access to eye care for Indigenous peoples. This work must also address the impacts of this strategy on First Nations and Inuit communities under the Non-Insured Health Benefits Program.

The national strategy must also consider and address the limited number of optometrists in Canada, given that there are currently only two schools of optometry in the country: one in Waterloo and one in Montreal.

The benefits of eye care extend far beyond the health system. Vision impairment is correlated with increased social isolation, lower community involvement and strain on caregivers. Investing in a national strategy for eye care benefits everyone as improved vision for Canadians means increased educational opportunities, improved employment rates and a boost in productivity and economic growth.

In 2019, vision loss resulted in $32.9 billion in costs for Canada. Direct health system costs of $9.5 billion included costs associated with hospitals, surgeries, services provided by ophthalmologists, optometrists or opticians, pharmaceuticals and eyewear. Costs relating to reduced productivity at work, loss of future earnings and loss of caregivers’ income added up to an additional $6.1 billion. Lost well-being resulted in costs of $17.4 billion. If nothing changes, the cost of vision loss in Canada is expected to grow to $56 billion in 2050.

In these challenging economic times, too many are struggling to access housing, food, health care and other essentials. Leaving people to struggle is not only morally wrong but also fiscally irresponsible. It creates preventable and costly crises within the health care system and countless other sectors.

Bill C-284 is yet another representation of the simple yet too often overlooked fact that all of us stand to benefit — socially, financially and in terms of health — when we ensure that no one is left behind and in need.

A national eye care strategy can help to strengthen Canada’s social safety net as we work toward national, universal single-payer pharmacare, an adequately funded Canada disability benefit, a national guaranteed livable income and countless other policies that enhance equality and point the way to a future where no one’s health is contingent on how much money they have in their bank account.

Action must be taken to determine and implement the policies necessary to ensure adequate eye care access across Canada. Creating a national strategy for eye care is an important step toward ensuring prevention and early detection and toward upholding health as a human right.

Thank you, Senator Ravalia and member of Parliament Judy Sgro, for your leadership in this regard. Meegwetch. Thank you.

Hon. Pierre J. Dalphond moved second reading of Bill C-355, An Act to prohibit the export by air of horses for slaughter and to make related amendments to certain Acts.

He said: Honourable senators, I am pleased to rise to begin the debate at second reading of Bill C-355, An Act to prohibit the export by air of horses for slaughter and to make related amendments to certain Acts.

This title is a very accurate description of the content of the bill, which sets out only eight provisions over three pages, one of which is dedicated to a long preamble.

In other words, this private member’s bill, if adopted by the Senate, will do just one thing: prohibit people from putting horses on planes for the purpose of being slaughtered or fattened for slaughter in another country, primarily Japan.

Fresh horsemeat is actually a prized delicacy in Japan. Known as sashimi, the meat must be raw, so it must be eaten soon after slaughter.

One of the main suppliers of live horses to the Japanese market is Canada.

Currently, horses are exported from airports in Winnipeg, Calgary and Edmonton, to which they have been transported by trailer from a feedlot just hours before. At the airport, they’re crammed into wooden cages and flown to Japan.

As we all know, a trip from Winnipeg to Tokyo takes many hours, even if it’s non-stop. That’s in addition to the road trip and waiting time at the airport and on the plane.

The premise of this bill is that this process subjects horses to dozens of hours of unnecessary stress and pain, and that it must end.

[English]

My speech will be divided as follows: One, the origin of this bill and its legislative history; two, the content of the bill; three, the wide support for it among Canadians; four, the impact on Canadian agriculture; five, the scientific and veterinary cases for the bill; six, Canadians’ special relationship with horses; seven, the main arguments of those opposing; and finally, eight, the next steps for the bill.

Before I proceed further, I want to make a declaration. My spouse and I both love horses and are the proud owners of a beautiful, black Friesian horse named Victoria, who is beginning to win prizes in dressage competitions. So I love horses. Maybe that makes me “woke.”

My interests in the issue of the live export of horses for slaughter overseas started with reading a piece in The Globe and Mail, written by columnist Gary Mason, published on March 1, 2023, entitled “The unconscionable horse slaughter we need to end now.” I was shocked to read about up to four horses being confined in small wooden crates for long flights and going without food and water for over 24 hours. Further research by my team revealed that during the 2021 federal election, the Liberal Party announced that, if re-elected, their government would prevent shipping horses to Japan by air for slaughter. The Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food’s mandate letter, issued on December 16, 2021, asked her to, “Ban the live export of horses for slaughter.”

After realizing that the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food was not moving in a timely way, I decided to work on a Senate bill to prompt action on this issue. On June 21, 2023, as some of you might remember, I introduced Bill S-270, entitled the “Horse Protection Act.” At about the same time, and maybe not truly a coincidence, Liberal MP Tim Louis announced in a statement in the other place that he intended to table a private member’s bill on live horse export by air for slaughter in September 2023. I contacted MP Louis and offered to work collaboratively to achieve our shared goal. On September 19, 2023, he introduced Bill C-355.

The same day, the Prime Minister backed this bill. A spokesperson for the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food said that the department would work with MP Louis “every step of the way” during the passage of this bill. Subsequently, MP Louis was able to place his bill on the priority list of private members’ bills up for scheduled debate and decisions in the House of Commons.

His bill completed second reading on January 31, while being studied and amended by the Agriculture Committee and adopted on division on May 9.

Meanwhile, on March 21, I let my bill drop from the Order Paper to avoid the potential point of order that we saw with the two wildlife captivity bills, Bill S-241 and Bill S-15.

I move now to my second point — the content of the bill before us. Essentially, Bill C-355 is animal protection legislation that targets a specifically cruel practice: the export of live horses by air for slaughter. This three-page bill targets the stress and cruelty of these long and grueling flights to Japan, according to scientific and veterinary information.

Let’s be clear, the bill will not affect the domestic slaughter of horses or the export of horse meat. The bill prohibits a person from exporting a horse by air unless they have provided the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food with a written attestation that, to the best of their knowledge, the horse is not being exported for slaughter or fattened for slaughter. As well, it creates an offence to make a false or misleading statement on this subject.

Contravention of the new act would be subject to similar penalties as those found in the Health of Animals Act, a federal statute for regulating livestock in place since 1990. However, Bill C-355 is written as a stand-alone bill specific to the practice we’re trying to ban. Furthermore, Bill C-355 will come into force 18 months after Royal Assent to allow horses currently being raised for food to work through the system. The intent is to strike a balance between practical considerations and ending this practice as soon as possible.

In the other place, the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food amended the bill to remove any administrative burdens on pilots and Canada Border Services Agency, or CBSA, officials as well as to prevent adding red tape for other sectors of the equine industry, such as horses travelling for sport.

I now move to my third point — the strong support of Canadians for ending the live export of horses for slaughter overseas. A key factor in the bill’s origins is determined grassroots support. Last year, singer-songwriter Jann Arden, patron of the Canadian Horse Defence Coalition, said:

Since 2006, tens of thousands of terrified horses have been crammed into shoddy wooden crates and flown 8,000 km to their demise, enduring turbulence, thirst and hunger, and abject fear. To say this practice is inhumane would be an understatement. Canadians want this to end.

Ms. Arden has a good read of Canadians’ feelings about it. For example, on June 22, 2021, MP Nathaniel Erskine-Smith presented a petition to the House of Commons on this subject with over 77,000 signatures. On February 13, 2023, MP Alistair MacGregor presented another such petition to the other place with over 36,000 signatures. Those petitions indicate the importance to Canadians of banning live exports of horses overseas for slaughter.

Moreover, opinion polls also confirm this fact. An online survey conducted in 2021 by Research Co. revealed that 54% of Canadians then strongly opposed the export of Canadian horses for slaughter abroad and another 13% moderately opposed. Only 22% strongly or moderately supported this practice. The highest level of strong opposition was in Alberta, with 61% strongly opposed plus 13% moderately opposed. Like Albertans, I love horses.

Also worth mentioning is that the highest level of opposition was found among persons who voted Conservative in 2019 — at 69%.

A similar survey conducted by the same firm from April 3 to April 5 of this year showed that 68% of Canadians agree with banning the export of horses for slaughter. On a regional basis, support for a ban was highest in Alberta, at 78%; followed by B.C., at 71%; Atlantic provinces, at 70%; Ontario, at 68%; Quebec, at 65%; and Saskatchewan and Manitoba, at 64%. The level of support for a ban among those who voted Conservative in the previous election decreased to 65%, while 74% of those who voted NDP and 73% of those who voted Liberal were in support of the ban. Thus, we can see that support for this policy is strong across the country and among voters for the major parties running across Canada.

Also worth mentioning is that among Indigenous and First Nations peoples in Canada, 71% agree that this practice should be banned.

My fourth point is about the impact on the industry that will likely be affected by the bill.

In Canada, the live export of horses for slaughter is a limited business and relatively new. Many of these horses are large draft breeds, such as Clydesdales, which are famous from Budweiser commercials, and Percherons, which are well known in Quebec.

In 1965, the then Minister of Trade and Commerce responded to a question on the Order Paper regarding horse exports to Europe by revealing that there had been only one shipment of live horses for slaughter to Europe in the previous 10 years, consisting of 330 horses shipped in 1964. So in the 1960s, this was not a real trade.

The first record of Japanese imports of live horses from Canada is found in the United Nations Commodity Trade Statistics Database and dates to 1991, when Japan imported 34 live horses from Canada, valued at USD57,000.

Let me now refer to statistics on the evolution of this trade in Canada. Since 2012, Statistics Canada has provided data on Canadian exports of horses destined for slaughter by country of import. A review of the data reveals that in 2012 Canada exported almost 1,200 horses to Japan for slaughter, worth almost $6 million. In 2014, the number of horses reached a peak of 7,100 live horses exported to Japan for slaughter. In 2015-16, that number decreased by about 20%, with about 5,800 horses each year — down from the over 7,000 the year before. The decrease continued afterwards. By 2019, the number of horses exported to Japan fell to 2,800 — a number never reached again.

In 2022-23, the number seems to have stabilized at about 2,500 horses per year. According to Statistics Canada, these exports were worth about $19 million in each of these two years. By comparison, Canada exported about $25 million worth of horsemeat during each of these years.

As I said, Bill C-355 would come into force 18 months after Royal Assent to allow a transition for affected businesses by allowing horses currently being raised for food to work through the system. These businesses can adjust, if they wish, to participate in the domestic slaughter of horses and the export of horsemeat. However, the export of live horses for sashimi — a cruel practice — will not be possible.

Statistics Canada also provides data on the export of horsemeat, including that of mules and donkeys. Interestingly — as I said — the value in Canadian dollars of this meat export has always exceeded the value of the export of live horses, but it is also on a drastic downward path in value and quantity.

I repeat: This bill will not end the export of horsemeat.

Senators, I turn now to the scientific and veterinary reasons for this bill. Essentially, animal protection legislation requires an analysis at the intersection of biological science and ethics. This science can neither be ignored nor dismissed as woke. A key ethical point is that, with horses, we are dealing with sentient creatures, meaning they have perceptions and feelings. Horses are not property like tables or chairs.

In 1780, the British philosopher Jeremy Bentham wrote a book called An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation. It’s part of the curriculum at Oxford. Prior to this milestone, many European philosophers and religious thinkers viewed animals as unworthy of moral consideration because animals didn’t, they supposed, have souls. However, Bentham wrote of animals, “The question is not Can they reason? or Can they talk? but Can they suffer?“

Thus, Bentham and scientists like Charles Darwin helped bring Western thinking closer to Indigenous wisdom. As we’ve heard in some of our debates, many First Nations view animals as “all our relations,” understanding that life forms are interconnected and interdependent. Taking a similar perspective, in 1871, Charles Darwin wrote:

. . . the difference in mind between man and the higher animals, great as it is, certainly is one of degree and not of kind.

Senators, what do science and veterinary medicine tell us about the ethics of shipping live horses to Japan for slaughter? During air transport, horses — which are easily panicked and have a strong flight response — become stressed and suffer due to the loading process and the loud, sudden and unfamiliar noises of aircraft of up to 140 decibels. They suffer from close confinement in crates with unfamiliar and terrified horses. Having a high centre of gravity, they also have difficulty balancing during takeoff, turbulence and landing, sometimes resulting in falls and injury.

In February, 34 veterinarians and animal welfare experts wrote to the House Agriculture Committee in support of Bill C-355. I will cite a long passage of the brief:

The journey by land and air from remote feedlots in western Canada to feedlots in Japan generally takes more than 24 hours, during which time the animals are denied food, water, and rest. . . . Horses travelling by air can experience moderate to severe suffering in many forms, including anxiety, fear, pain, exhaustion, physical discomfort, auditory discomfort, hunger, thirst, and panic. There is strong scientific evidence to support banning this practice for animal welfare reasons.

It is important to be clear that the conditions under which horses are exported for slaughter – and, by extension, the associated risks to their health and wellbeing – are markedly different from sport horses transported by air for other purposes. This is because horses transported for slaughter (a) are subjected to higher stocking densities and are confined in smaller spaces, (b) are provided less supervision and intervention during flights as well as medical care before, during and after transport, (c) are subjected to different handling styles prior to and during transport and are denied access to water, (d) are more likely to be confined with other unfamiliar and potentially incompatible horses, and (e) have less training and habituation to travel.

I’m tempted to say that horses which compete in Olympic competitions and other sporting events travel first class, but not those travelling to Japan to become sashimi. Colleagues, this is the main case for Bill C-355.

I turn now to Canadians’ special relationships with horses, which, though they are much larger, are often treated as companion animals such as dogs and cats. We don’t have a horse in our house, but we do have two dogs. As MP Louis noted, Canadians rely on horses for transportation and labour. Horses have also given us friendship and service in times of war, with nearly 25,000 horses and mules serving our country overseas during World War I. We know the iconic black horses of the RCMP and celebrate Canada’s Sports Hall of Fame members Big Ben and Northern Dancer.

In fact, not only do we have a special relationship with horses, but they have a special relationship with North America. It is a misconception that wild horses in Canada are an invasive species introduced by Europeans. In fact, horses evolved in North America before crossing an ancient land bridge to Asia and going extinct in the Americas over 10,000 years ago, at the end of the last ice age. They were brought back to North America by colonizers from Europe.

Senators, horses came home, and their strength and loyalty built our country. We are justified in according special treatment to these gentle creatures who are so dear to us. We are therefore looking to ban a particularly cruel and unnecessary practice with Bill C-355.

This is done in the same spirit as the Harper government’s enactment in 2015 of an animal cruelty offence specific to service animals used in law enforcement, including horses. That bill was named Quanto’s Law, in honour of an Edmonton German shepherd police dog killed in the line of duty.

Colleagues, before concluding, I will quickly address five arguments you may hear against this bill during this upcoming debate. The first is the suggestion that this bill initiates a slippery slope with respect to other animal use industries. However, we are dealing with a bounded and particularly cruel practice. This bill does not criticize the slaughter or consumption of horses or livestock generally and deals with one issue: the cruelty of air transport in a particular context related to the biological characteristics of horses.

Banning specific cruel and unnecessary practices is not a slippery slope, but rather a stairway to heaven.

A second potential objection is that the bill does not end the export of horses by air for all reasons, so what’s the difference? As I outlined, veterinarians and other experts have identified major practical differences.

A third potential objection is that the bill is arbitrary or based only on emotions. For my part, empathy with horses should not be dismissed; also, emotions are not arbitrary. Our two species have a close and important relationship of affection and reciprocity. As I explained, we also have rational scientific evidence of cruelty with respect to the transport by air of horses to Japan for slaughter.

A fourth potential objection is that some of the breeders of horses for export are Métis, a matter raised by the Conservative Party and a witness in the other place. Our committee will no doubt hear more about that. However, I understand that the practice of breeding and shipping live horses by air for slaughter in Japan is a relatively recent and non-traditional practice in Canada. Again, businesses can adjust to export horsemeat, just not the live horses intended to be served as sashimi.

It is also my understanding that the same ethical and legal considerations would apply equally to all Canadians in terms of any interest or prohibition regarding shipping horses by air to Japan for slaughter.

On a final and related point, I understand that one witness from the horse-producing sector preferred to appear anonymously at committee in the other place due to fear of harassment by activists. As with all bills, we should judge Bill C-355 on its merits, and the voices of stakeholders should be heard in a respectful way. Disagreement is part of democracy, but everyone should respect the norms of civil dialogue as well as free expression, and treat their fellow citizens with respect. I trust our Senate committee will safeguard and uphold these values in our study.

Colleagues, I conclude with a few remarks on the process. Bill C-355 is a House of Commons private member’s bill. I’m glad that all groups in our chamber are increasingly acknowledging that, as an appointed chamber, the Senate has a duty to properly review and vote on these bills passed by MPs.

On the one hand, these bills have sometimes faced unreasonable and arduous processes in the Senate, with attempts and even successes by some senators to exercise veto-like powers over them by preventing votes through procedural tactics and repetitive adjournments to create delays. Professor Andrew Heard has called this the Senate’s “. . . pocket veto.” Two bills currently facing challenges in our process are the Green Party’s Bill C-226, regarding environmental racism, sponsored in this chamber by Senator McCallum; and the Bloc Québécois’s Bill C-282, regarding supply management, sponsored by Senator Gerba.

On the other hand, our process for these “C” bills sometimes lacks due diligence. This month, a private member’s bill, Bill C-275, passed second reading without a sponsor or critic’s speech or any debate. That was an interesting, fast-tracked second reading. This is all the more surprising in that, according to the emails we have received over the last few months, it seems to be a controversial bill. Such a Senate process cannot be justified to Canadians.

To bring integrity, fairness, transparency and due diligence to our process for House of Commons private members’ bills, in 2020, former senator Murray Sinclair and I proposed rule changes. Our package was based on a 2014 proposal of a former Speaker, the late senator Pierre Claude Nolin of the Conservative caucus, former senator Serge Joyal of the Senate Liberals and former senator Vernon White, then a member of the Conservative caucus and later the Canadian Senators Group. It’s time to consider these proposals again.

Their proposal in the Forty-first Parliament was contained in the fifth report of the Rules Committee, adopted by members not on consensus, but with a vote of nine to six. Perhaps we should revisit that initiative in the fall.

In any event, we should be vigilant and ensure fair and responsible treatment of House of Commons private members’ bills in this place. It is a question of respect for MPs, for Canadians and for Canadian democracy. They’re elected, and they speak on behalf of the Canadians who elected them. Therefore, I am speaking against horse trading in more than one way.

I’m confident, in the process of due diligence, that Bill C-355 presents a strong case for protecting horses from the cruel practice of exporting them live and by air to Japan for slaughter. Therefore, colleagues, I ask for your support.

Thank you. Meegwetch.

Hon. Victor Oh: Honourable senators, I stand today to speak to Bill C-284, An Act to establish a national strategy for eye care, sponsored in the Senate by our honourable colleague Senator Mohamed-Iqbal Ravalia, and in the other place by the Honourable Judy Sgro of Humber River—Black Creek.

First, I would like to acknowledge this bill intends to ensure access to quality eye care for all Canadians. It also aims to designate a month to raise awareness of age-related macular degeneration. Through this awareness, Bill C-284 also emphasizes the importance of promoting research and improving data collection on eye disease prevention and treatment, improving eye care advancements.

The major eye conditions affecting millions of Canadians and disproportionately impacting our aging population include macular degeneration, cataracts, glaucoma and diabetic retinopathy.

Macular degeneration impacts around 2.5 million Canadians. Increasing awareness and promoting preventive measures can significantly reduce its prevalence. Cataracts, which are the leading cause of vision loss, can be effectively treated with modern surgical techniques. Glaucoma, often undiagnosed due to a lack of early symptoms, requires increased public awareness and regular screenings.

There are more than 8 million Canadians who have one of these four common eye diseases and are at high risk of losing their vision. According to the Canadian Association of Optometrists, “. . . 1 in 3 Canadian adults have not sought vision care or purchased corrective lenses due to cost,” and 75% of vision loss is preventable or treatable through proper preventative measures.

This is a shocking statistic. In 2019, vision loss cost the Canadian economy $32.9 billion. Vision health is fundamental to nearly every aspect of our daily life. This includes everything from reading and driving to working and participating in activities. Vision loss can profoundly impact a person’s quality of life, reduce independence and increase the risk of accidents. It can also contribute to social isolation and depression.

Colleagues, I don’t need to stress how important vision health is for Canadians. Bill C-284 aims to alleviate the hurdles many Canadians face in their access to quality eye care. We must ensure that Bill C-284 doesn’t fall short in key areas, such as ensuring fiscal responsibility and transparency and providing a clear, actionable strategy for raising public awareness and ensuring accessibility to eye care for all Canadians, particularly those in remote and underserved communities.

It is imperative that this bill address the regional disparities and inequitable access that many remote and underserved communities often face. It is imperative that a national framework bridge this gap and ensure that all Canadians, whether in urban centres or rural areas, will benefit equally.

It is also important that this bill respect the balance of federal and provincial roles and that the federal government do not encroach on provincial authority. Collaboration with the provinces and territories is vital to avoid duplication of efforts and ensure the smooth implementation of the framework.

Further collaboration between the federal government and vision experts in the private sector, such as ophthalmologists, optometrists and researchers, is also important so that evidence-based strategies are developed. This ensures that a comprehensive and effective approach is developed and addresses the needs of Canadians.

A framework is essential for monitoring and evaluating the impact of Bill C-284 so that its success can be measured accurately and areas of improvement can be identified.

In conclusion, Bill C-284 addresses an important public health issue and provides the opportunity for better accessibility to eye care services, protecting and enhancing the vision health of Canadians. Establishing a framework to monitor and evaluate the data and research and having a clear strategy for public awareness are vital steps toward improving this health sector in Canada and benefiting our citizens.

Thank you.

(On motion of Senator Martin, debate adjourned.)

[Translation]

Hon. Percy E. Downe: Would Senator Dalphond take another question?

Senator Dalphond: With pleasure.

An Hon. Senator: Hear, hear.

Senator Dalphond: I’m sure you will think it’s a “woke” answer to tell you to look at some of the videos that you can find on websites. You will see them at the airport in Winnipeg; you will see how they are treated in other airports. You will hear from some of the people who testified before the Agriculture Committee in the other place. I’m sure our committee — most likely it will be the Agriculture Committee — and you, Senator Black, will be asking all the proper questions of witnesses.

The Hon. the Speaker: Will Senator Dalphond accept another question?

Senator Dalphond: Of course.

Hon. Robert Black: Will my colleague take a question?

Senator Dalphond: With pleasure.

The Hon. the Speaker: Senator Kutcher, I’m sorry, but the time for debate has expired.

(On motion of Senator Martin, debate adjourned.)

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Moncion, seconded by the Honourable Senator Yussuff, for the adoption of the seventh report of the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration, entitled Senate Budget 2023-24, presented in the Senate on February 7, 2023.

Hon. Stan Kutcher: Senator Dalphond, will you take a question?

Senator Dalphond: Of course.