44th Parl. 1st Sess.
December 14, 2023 10:00AM
- Dec/14/23 3:00:20 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, 2023 has been an extremely difficult year for farmers: rising interest rates, rising input prices, floods, droughts. It is one thing after another.
Meanwhile, the federal government is abandoning them. Ottawa's investments in agriculture do not even amount to 5% of agricultural production value. That is four times less than in Europe.
The government must immediately set up an emergency fund for struggling farmers. We have been saying this for months. Canada also needs to claw its way up from the bottom of the world's agricultural investment rankings.
When is this government going to support our farmers?
101 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/14/23 3:01:32 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, 2023 was a terrible year for our farmers. Fortunately, there is an easy way to make sure that 2024 is better.
The federal government can push back the January 18 loan forgiveness repayment deadline for the emergency account. That is an easy way to prevent farms from going bankrupt. It is an easy measure that will provide much relief to farmers who are working like mad, but are still walking a tightrope.
Could we please get some good news before the holidays? Will the government push back the January 18 deadline?
93 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/14/23 3:52:32 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, to begin, I would like to take this opportunity to wish a happy holiday and a good vacation to everyone in the House, but mostly to the people of Berthier—Maskinongé, who have worked so hard over the past year. I hope they get time with their loved ones. I wish the same for my colleague who just made his speech, because I know him well enough to wish him a merry Christmas.
If we know each other well enough to wish each other a merry Christmas, I imagine we know each other well enough to provide really good, accurate answers. That is the gift I want this holiday season. I would like for him to explain, in all honesty and frankness, the rationale behind this 18-month delay. Quebec has had equivalent legislation for 47 years, which means that workers' rights are not equal. It works very well in Quebec.
How is it that the government ends up introducing this bill after years of promises and then imposes an 18-month delay before it comes into force? I would like a real answer.
189 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/14/23 4:11:35 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech and his last answer in which he talked about the crickets we often get from the Conservatives. I find that very interesting and relevant.
I would like him to comment on the 18‑month delay being placed on the bill's coming into force. I do not understand that. We have had similar legislation in Quebec for 47 years. I think we know how this works and we have demonstrated that it would work.
What does my colleague think of that and how does he explain this insistence on imposing an 18‑month delay? This does not make sense to me.
112 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House to speak to Bill C‑355, which seeks to prohibit the export by air of live horses for the purpose of being slaughtered. That is a very specific bill.
I listened to my colleague who spoke before me, and I think he made some interesting points in the Conservative way, obviously. He raised concerns about where this bill will take us.
This bill is one of the most irritating bills I have had to analyze. I want to say at the outset that the Bloc Québécois's initial position is that we disagree with the principle of this bill. However, we will listen to the arguments that are presented.
As my colleague who spoke before me mentioned, this bill appeals to people's feelings and emotions. There have been many comments made and testimony given by people who said that Canada was built on the backs of horses and so on. They are making horses out to be more like pets than commercial farm animals. They are implying that people have the same relationship with horses as they do with cats or dogs, rather than with cows or sheep. I think that is what they are getting at, but it is unclear.
I, too, am somewhat concerned about setting a precedent, because we export a lot of live animals, and not necessarily to abuse them. Piglets are often exported to be fattened elsewhere. Horses exported to Japan are kept alive there for a certain period as well. It is part of a very important ritual in Japan for the animal to be fed there and so on. This bill raises a lot of questions.
First, if it is cruel to export live animals, why target just one species? I do not deny that it can be cruel in certain circumstances, but in that case, why not ban all animal exports? New Zealand, for example, bans animal exports entirely, no matter the reason, even if it is to house them elsewhere. Great Britain bans export for slaughter. Is exporting animals for slaughter more cruel than exporting them for commercial sale?
There are also horse breeders who can sell a purebred horse that will take part in competitions or things like that. Will we gradually move towards an export ban on these animals? Are the animals not destined for slaughter exported in more comfortable or less cruel conditions than those that are? These questions deserve to be studied, and this bill raises many questions.
Furthermore, why does this bill prohibit export by air only? I am not sure which is more comfortable, transportation by road or transportation by air. If people are concerned about animal health and welfare during transportation, maybe what we should be doing is changing transportation standards. We might not be asking the right question here. I am just suggesting we question things. Could we not revisit air transportation standards given that, as we are told, the animals are in cages and so on? There are standards, and they were actually updated in 2020. Is that what we should be doing?
I mentioned that the Bloc Québécois does not support the principle of the bill, but I would not want people to think we do not care about animal health. On the contrary, we feel it is very important. From an industry perspective alone, no industry is viable without healthy, well-treated animals. I do not believe anyone in this Parliament wants to mistreat animals, but is the end goal to stop exporting animals for slaughter altogether?
My Conservative colleague raised this earlier, and I found the point interesting. We have to be alert when we vote on bills.
Here is another question I could have asked: Why introduce a new bill that only concerns horses instead of amending existing legislation and reviewing the transportation conditions? The Health of Animals Act is one example that comes to mind.
The other doubt I want to raise concerns the Liberal government's nebulous intentions and the lofty promises it often makes us from its sunny perch, up on high, hair blowing in the wind. The good things it promises us never materialize. I get the impression that this is one of those times.
The member who spoke before me talked about activists. I myself have received a lot of letters from certain groups asking us to halt exports of live horses. Maybe it was to please those people that the former agriculture minister's mandate letter told her to ban the live export of horses.
We are more than halfway through the mandate, and this bill is being introduced as a private member's bill. That raises doubts. Does this mean that the government made that commitment without realizing what it entailed and that it does not really feel like following through anymore, so it got one of its members to introduce it so that it could tell those activist groups that it had kept its promise and introduced a bill?
Is the government taking a gamble that the bill will be rejected or die on the Order Paper without damaging it too much? This raises major doubts. The government did not take action. When we make promises, we need to act on them. I feel like I keep repeating myself in my speeches lately. Can they commit to doing something and then do it? I get the impression that the Liberals made a promise that they do not really want to keep and they are doing what they can to wash their hands of it. I am just asking a question. I am not making accusations. The question is worth asking.
We are of the opinion that the issue that is being raised here might be a cultural one. Perhaps it is a matter of sensitivity. Perhaps horses are more important than other animals. That is what concerns us because we eat a lot of animals. Are we going to stop exporting live poultry or live hogs? Are we going to stop exporting live cattle at some point? Let us talk about sensitivity. Many people have presented the argument that horses are very sensitive animals, but so are pigs. Pigs are so sensitive that clear directives have been issued for how pigs are to be transported to reduce their stress. For example, the number of hours that they can travel without water was lowered and a size limit was established. Thousands of live animals are exported every year.
I have the impression that this bill, which is relatively minimal, focuses on only one species. It bothered us quite a bit to say that we supported the bill. That is why we are against the principle. My colleagues can try to convince us, but for the moment, we see no reason to prohibit the export of a single animal species by air. I believe that all animals are important and that all animals deserve proper treatment.
Perhaps the goal is to ensure animal welfare without compromising livestock production. Perhaps that is the underlying, hidden objective of this bill. Once again, I am not accusing anyone, but it does raise some questions. If the goal is to ensure animal welfare, we should be sitting down and reviewing animal transportation standards. However, those standards were reviewed relatively recently. The Bloc Québécois does not deny the fact that, in certain circumstances, there may be things that need to be reviewed.
If it is a question of supporting the bill in its current form, we are not yet convinced, and we will will be watching closely to see what happens next.
1289 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/14/23 6:24:06 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, concerning grocery store prices, I would like to ask my colleague for his interpretation of the theatrical performance put on by the Minister of Industry.
The minister called in the CEOs of major corporations to give evidence and asked them to change their prices. However, when they appeared before the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, these same CEOs told us that they had not changed their practices and that everything is the same as it always was. Instead of following the committee's existing recommendations, the government decided to put on a show to win popular support.
What does my colleague think about that?
108 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
