44th Parl. 1st Sess.
December 14, 2023 10:00AM
Madam Speaker, in the spirit of the holidays, I wonder whether my colleague from Northumberland—Peterborough South would grant me a few words about the topic of the bill, which is the use of replacement workers during strikes and lockouts.
I listened intently to what he shared with the House, and while he touched on many different topics, and I know he is a very intelligent person, he did not speak to the actual topic of the bill at hand, Bill C-58, which is about finally banning replacement workers during strikes and lockouts.
I missed the first 30 seconds or minute of his speech, so perhaps I missed it. If he could repeat it for me, I would much appreciate it.
123 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/14/23 5:26:14 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I did actually outline the Conservative position on the bill in the first 30 seconds. I am sorry the member missed it.
What I will say is a microcosm of the way Conservatives see the world as opposed to NDP folks. I do have a ton of respect for the member, but that being said, in order to have strong union jobs, jobs that pay the bills, we need a strong economy, and that is what Conservatives are committed to bringing to Canada.
85 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/14/23 5:26:51 p.m.
- Watch
Before I give the floor to the hon. member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley, I would just like to wish everyone a very happy Christmas and a great start to 2024.
Thank you all for your support over the past few months.
The hon. member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley.
50 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it is real and distinct honour to rise this evening and speak to Bill C-58, which would ban the use of replacement workers in strikes and lockouts. This is a bill that is the result of a lot of work over a lot of years by a lot of folks.
The other day, I had a chance to stand at the press conference here in the foyer when the tabling of this bill was announced. I listened to labour leaders speak about the long history behind this bill and how long workers in this country have been fighting to have their rights protected to ensure that when they make that difficult decision to go on strike, they are not going to be at risk of violence and their rights to collectively bargain are not going to be undermined by the use of replacement workers. This is an effort that has taken place over more than 100 years.
Certainly I am proud to rise as part of the NDP, a party whose roots are in labour and a party that has worked for more than 15 years to bring forward in this House, time and time and time again, bills that would do precisely what would be done by Bill C-58.
This is really a momentous occasion, and I want to take a moment to read into the record part of an email that I received from a constituent who reached out and wanted me to understand what this bill means for him in his workplace.
He wrote to me and said, “Hello again, Mr. Bachrach. ... I've been a union member for over 13 years while working at Telus. ... I've seen Telus attempt to get away with bullying and scare tactics in the workplace to reduce the numbers of our union members and their voice, then benefit from it at the bargaining table, negotiation after negotiation. This time around, we lost more again. I plead with you to assist in pushing the Anti-Scab legislation forward to prevent large corporations...from allowing scabs or replacement workers in to do our work during a dispute and undermining our negotiations.”
That really speaks to the significance of this bill for working people across this country. Nobody takes the decision to go on strike lightly. This is something that affects the families of working people. They need to know that when they make that difficult decision and they choose to exercise their constitutionally protected right to strike, their rights are going to be respected and their rights are not going to be able to be undermined and they are going to be able to fight for better working conditions and to do so in a way that results in a fair and equitable deal at the end of the day.
That brings my time to an end. It is far too little time to do justice to such an important issue. I just want to say how proud I am to stand in this House and support this bill. I do hope that our Conservative friends down the way will also see fit to support Bill C-58. What better message is there to send to the working people of this country than to vote unanimously for this bill to ban replacement workers?
I have a lot of respect for many of my colleagues down the way. I have listened intently to what they have said with respect to this bill, and I do believe—
590 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/14/23 5:30:05 p.m.
- Watch
I am sorry. Unfortunately, I do have to interrupt.
It being 5:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.
35 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
I have the honour to inform the House that messages have been received from the Senate informing the House that the Senate has passed the following bills, to which the concurrence of the House is desired: Bill S-13, an act to amend the Interpretation Act and to make related amendments to other acts, and Bill S-14, an act to amend the Canada National Parks Act, the Canada National Marine Conservation Areas Act, the Rouge National Urban Park Act and the National Parks of Canada Fishing Regulations.
88 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I rise to speak on Bill C-355. If passed, Bill C-355 would prohibit the export of live horses from Canada for the purpose of being slaughtered.
I assume that the Liberals and the activists behind this legislation have deliberately chosen the word “slaughter” in their communication strategy in the hopes of evoking an emotional outcry from Canadians. While some Canadians may not like hearing the word “slaughter”, as a lifelong farmer myself, I think it is important to point out that the humane slaughter of animals has sustained our society since human existence.
It is this humane and responsible slaughter of animals that will continue to sustain the world, especially during a time of such high food insecurity. Instead of focusing on addressing the worst cost of living crisis in a generation, the Liberals are more focused on targeting Canadian livestock producers in an attempt to score cheap political points. In typical Liberal fashion, they have chosen to divide, distract and stigmatize, once again.
Most Canadians are unfamiliar with Canada's horse export industry and the details of horsemeat consumption. Although the consumption of horsemeat is not very popular in Canada, it is important to note that over one billion people worldwide consume horsemeat as a form of protein. The vast majority of horses exported from Canada for consumption go to our friends in Japan, a nation whose culture highly regards horses. It may surprise some Canadians, but even here in Canada, over 1,000 tonnes of horsemeat are consumed annually. I know my colleagues from Quebec are used to seeing horsemeat available for purchase in grocery stores across their province.
Exporting horses for consumption is not a practice exclusive to Canada. The United Kingdom, Argentina, Belgium, Poland, Brazil, France, Netherlands and Uruguay all export horses for consumption. Here in Canada, there are currently over 300 breeders who raise horses for export. These livestock breeders and producers make a living through their work in this segment of Canada's agriculture industry.
While some members have no regard for these families whose livelihoods depend on raising horses for export, many of these producers live in my constituency. When we debate the proposed Liberal law that would kill this industry, I believe it is paramount that members understand the impact it would have on the livelihoods of Canadian producers. Last year, Canada exported $19 million in horses for consumption.
If this legislation passes, that means $19 million would be removed from our rural economies, much of which will be removed from indigenous communities. In fact, of the Canadian horses exported for consumption, 25% of the horses come from indigenous herds owned and managed by Canadian indigenous breeders.
Over the past eight years, the Prime Minister has never shown any understanding for the livelihoods of rural Canadians, so I am not surprised to see his government support this legislation without considering rural Canada.
However, while the economic impacts of this bill are concerning, the most disturbing aspect of this proposed law is the underlying notion that producers have no regard for the welfare of the animals they raise. This notion is false and extremely insulting to Canadian producers. As someone who has personally raised livestock for export and consumption, I can assure the House that Canadian producers take the highest level of care in treating their animals. I do not tolerate animal abuse nor do Canada's agricultural producers.
Canada is recognized across the world as a leader in the safe and responsible production of animals. Bill C-355 fails to recognize the strict standards followed by Canadian producers. This is just another prime example of how disconnected the current NDP-Liberal government is from the realities of Canada's agricultural industry.
The political ideology of the government has distracted its members from the facts when it comes to the export of horses. The fact is, since 2013, 41,000 horses have been exported from Canada for consumption. Of those 41,000 horses, the mortality rate at all stage of transport is 0.012%. Since 2014, zero deaths have occurred as a result of transport. The Canadian Food Inspection Agency ensures that veterinary inspectors are present at airports to make sure that every shipment of live horses, regardless of purpose, is compliant with animal welfare regulations.
However, these facts do not matter to the NDP-Liberal government. The government has no shame in pushing forward an emotionally driven narrative that totally disregards the facts. The Liberals would rather share anecdotes than share the facts on how Canadian producers follow some of the world's most stringent transport requirements for livestock.
Let us be honest: The only reason the Liberals are moving ahead with this politically motivated and scientifically baseless legislation is because of a group of self-proclaimed activists who have never raised livestock for a living. These activists have singled out one species of livestock solely to exploit society's emotional connection to horses, but let us not be fooled. The activists who want to pass this legislation are the same people who want to outlaw the sale of fur and erase Canada's hunting and trapping heritage. These activists are the same people who believe livestock should not be raised for personal consumption. These are the same activists who believe feeding one's family with nutritious meat is morally wrong.
I do not believe for a second that these activists will stop at horses if this bill becomes law. The fact is that these activists do not believe any animal should be transported for slaughter to feed the world, so my question is this: What is next? Is it pigs? Is it sheep? Is it chickens? Is it goats? Is it cows? Where does this end?
I do not think this activist-led campaign against the responsible production and consumption of animals does end. It is because of these constant attacks against responsible animal use that I fear not only for Canadian producers but also for the millions of people around the world who are hungry because of food insecurity.
Before I conclude, I want to note that industry experts are raising concerns too. The Canadian Meat Council, Equestrian Canada, the Horse Welfare Alliance, the Canadian Quarter Horse Association, the Métis Nation of Alberta and many Canadian equine veterinary practitioners oppose this legislation.
I hope that every member of this House takes the time to visit one of the 300-plus breeders in Canada who raise horses for export before they vote on this legislation. Maybe they will understand the facts and realities of the industry before punishing Canadian producers again.
1110 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
Madam Speaker, before I begin, I just want to acknowledge a staffer in my office who was a page last year, who diligently served here in the House and who is celebrating a birthday today. I wish Jacob Wilson a happy 20th birthday.
I am pleased to stand in support of my colleague's private member's bill, Bill C-355, the prohibition of the export of horses by air for slaughter act. During his speech in the first hour of debate, the member for Kitchener—Conestoga spoke admirably about the significance horses have had throughout Canadian history, including the important symbol they provide our Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the special relationships that so many Canadians have with horses.
Our Liberal government knows that Canadians are deeply concerned about the live export of horses for slaughter. In 2021, as a part of the Liberal Party platform, we pledged to move forward on improving protections for our animals and species around the world. This commitment was also listed in the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food's 2021 mandate letter. A part of this pledge includes banning the live export of horses for slaughter, and the member for Kitchener—Conestoga's bill delivers on this promise.
We know that there are different views on this issue, but I want to reassure this House that I have heard the concerns of Canadians. Almost 27,000 pieces of correspondence on this issue have been received by the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food.
The goal of Bill C-355, to ban the export of horses for slaughter, has been shared across party lines for many years, with many bills and petitions. The member of Parliament for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford also tabled a petition to ban this practice, which had over 36,000 signatures. It is abundantly clear that Canadians want to see this practice come to an end. Several countries, including the United States and the United Kingdom, have already banned it, and as many hon. colleagues noted back in November, it is time for Canada to join them.
I would like to remind members of the House that Bill C-355 proposes to create a new act that would prohibit the export of horses by air for slaughter. Horse exporters would be required to provide a written declaration that horses are not being exported for the purpose of slaughter or fattening for slaughter.
First, I will give a bit of background. Last year, some 2,600 horses were exported from Canada for slaughter. This number, which had reached a peak of 7,000 horses in 2014, has decreased significantly over the past decade. All horses exported for this purpose are transported by aircraft. Currently, all horses exported live for slaughter are for a niche market. It is providing draft or draft cross horses to foreign countries for further fattening prior to the horses being slaughtered for human consumption. This market requires the horses to be exported live, as the horse meat is consumed raw.
There were initial consultations with producers, including indigenous producers, as well as other players along the transportation and export supply chain. These consultations included producers, feedlot operators, exporters and freight forwarders to organized shipments. Horses bound for export may come from different types of farms. These range from small, multi-purpose producers that also breed horses for other primary uses to larger operations that specifically breed for this market.
Our government takes the issue of animal welfare very seriously. Canada is a leader in animal welfare, with a unique and robust system in place to ensure that animals are well cared for through all stages of production.
Our government has heard the views of concerned Canadians and remains committed to ban the export of live horses for slaughter. For this reason, I would like to thank the hon. member for Kitchener—Conestoga for bringing forward a bill that would not amend the Health of Animals Act, but rather positions this as a stand-alone act that would address a concern of so many Canadians.
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency have been engaging with a variety of stakeholders, including animal rights advocacy groups, provincial governments, industry representatives and indigenous organizations. These engagements were pursued to better understand the points of view of various stakeholders and the potential impacts of a prohibition on the live export of horses for slaughter.
Our government continues to perform its due diligence to minimize potential unintended consequences related to any changes in policies or laws. I appreciate that the member for Kitchener—Conestoga took into consideration, when drafting Bill C-355, that horses transported for other reasons like sporting events would not be impacted by this bill.
We value the perspectives of all stakeholders. I appreciate that the member Kitchener—Conestoga committed to continuing his collaborative approach as the parliamentary process plays out. I know our government also remains committed to working collectively with all relevant stakeholders to advance the work under way to meet our platform and mandate letter commitment.
This includes, but is not limited to, engagement with animal rights advocacy groups, provincial governments, industry representatives, indigenous business owners and organizations, and Canadians to obtain information and their points of view regarding this important issue.
To summarize, our government is committed to addressing the concerns expressed by Canadians. We remain committed to working and engaging with key stakeholders, provincial and territorial partners, indigenous communities and animal rights advocacy groups to better understand the potential impacts of a ban.
Once again, I thank the hon. member for Kitchener—Conestoga for bringing this important bill before this House.
949 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I begin this debate a little heavy-hearted, because this is an issue that is near and dear to me and I just want to reiterate what I just heard.
I just heard the member of Parliament for Calgary Skyview advocate against jobs in his own riding in the Calgary airport, jobs of shipping horses. This is from a bill from the member for Kitchener—Conestoga.
Apparently this is the pressing issue in Kitchener—Conestoga. It is not affordability. It is not any other issue, like day care, crime or violence in our communities and streets or people using food banks; the most pressing issue in Kitchener—Conestoga apparently is what some Métis people in Alberta are doing, and a few farmers in Manitoba, Alberta and Quebec are doing, when it comes to horses.
It is a niche market, as I will freely admit, and my constituents admit that, but it is an important issue. I am referring, obviously, to this notion of somehow singling out horses for export from our agricultural community. In essence, the government and its acolytes in the Senate have launched a two-pronged attack. The first bill here is Bill C-355, which we are debating today, and the second is Bill S-270. Both of these bills would prohibit the export of live horses from Canada for the purpose of slaughter. The primary difference is that Bill C-355 would only restrict that export by air, while the Senate bill would do so more generally and broadly.
Since this issue is not often discussed in the public domain, other than in misinformation campaigns, I would like to begin my speech today with a few statistics and some key information about this valuable industry.
There were only 347 exporting breeders in Canada, and they exported a total of 2,600 animals for slaughter in the last year, 2022. For the education of my colleague for Calgary Skyview who just spoke and said that we used to export 7,000, that was because we used to have PMU barns and we used to produce a lot more horses because of that pregnant mare urine, which is a biotic used for the creation of birth control. As that was phased out in favour of therapeutics, the number of horses has gone down.
However, we still need a market for these animals, but that member would not know that. I do not think there are a whole lot of horse breeders or horse raisers in Calgary Skyview, which is fine. I always find a lot of humour in listening to my Liberal colleagues from urban areas talk about how much they clearly do not know about agriculture. That number is complemented by another 10,840 live horses that are also exported, but not for the purpose of slaughter. Basically, a five-to-one ratio of horses that are actually exported are not for slaughter, but who is going to know what the motives are of the buyer of that particular horse when it is purchased in Canada and shipped on an airplane?
While the distribution of this industry, as I said, is spread across the country, the greatest number of these animals comes from my province of Alberta, as well as Ontario and Manitoba. It should be noted that 25% of these horses come from indigenous herds. I remember when this government used to say that there is no relationship more important to it than the relationship with first nations people; a quarter of this industry is actually providing income and stability to the economic viability of first nations, primarily the Métis in Alberta.
Canada consumes 1,000 to 1,200 tonnes of horsemeat every year. This is mainly in la belle province of Quebec. As well, over a billion people—16%, so almost two in 10 people on this planet—consume horsemeat, so almost 20% of human beings on the planet consume horses. That is an astounding number, but apparently it is not good enough for those who do not know the industry, do not know anything about agriculture and never represented anybody in agriculture, and they are just going to shut down this industry.
It is also very healthy meat, with 20% more protein than beef, 25% less fat, 20% less sodium and double the iron of a beef sirloin, so I do not know why my colleagues across the way are protesting so much.
Now that we have a picture of what this industry looks like in this country, I would like to stay with what the Liberals propose to do with Bill C-355, and it is nothing short of shameful. The bill would require an unreasonable regulatory process to be undertaken prior to any flight being allowed to depart with a horse on board. This includes a signed declaration, to be approved by the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, that the horses are not being exported for slaughter.
Can members imagine? The pilots have about five minutes when the plane pushes back from the gate when the pilots have the authority to get their documentation, get everything signed, push back and take off.
Now, we would have to have an approved letter from the Minister of Agriculture just before push-back. I am sure that would be an interesting bureaucratic hoop to jump through. This declaration must then be in the hands of the pilots of that aircraft and the chief customs officer of the airport. If it is contravened, the consequences of this act would be devastating. On the higher end, fines of up to a quarter of a million dollars, imprisonment for a term of not more than two years or both may result.
One gets less for violating a gun prohibition order in this country. This is the way the folks across the aisle think about these particular issues. There is nothing more damaging to Canada, apparently, than a farmer.
This is not speculation. The Air Line Pilots Association, International, for Canada has expressed concerns. It represents 95% of the unionized pilot workforce employed at 21 airlines.
The result of this bill would be to essentially restrict the air transportation of all horses in and out of Canada for all purposes. Not only would this bill impose an unfair burden of proof on the pilots and exporters, who cannot always be assured of what the end use is of the horse that is on board, but it would also dissuade them from even taking any live horses as cargo because of the overly punitive fines.
As previously mentioned, Canada exports 10,840 live horses for purposes other than slaughter. This bill would inadvertently hurt those producers as well, as it would make it harder for them to find air shippers that are willing to take their cargo.
For example, this may cause delays for those who need to fly horses engaged in Olympic or other equestrian competitions, as well as horses that are simply sold for their genetics and used in breeding programs elsewhere in the world.
These delays could jeopardize their opportunity to compete and represent their country internationally. We would lose things such as the Spruce Meadows and show jumping. We would have all kinds of problems, even applying for an Olympic bid in this country, because somebody would bring their horse here and would like to take it home with them. “Not a chance in Canada,” say the Liberals.
I must say that this bill is not just about the export of horses. It is part of a larger issue, which is the general assault on the Canadian farmer, who is already burdened by costly carbon taxes and excessive regulations.
We saw this disregard for farmers again recently, when the Liberal-controlled independent senators blocked Bill C-234's passage through the Senate. Finally, when they did pass it, they amended it to gut the bill of its impact. Instead of healing the urban-rural divide, the government is still stoking division.
This debate is personal for me. The horse export industry is prominent in my riding of Red Deer—Lacombe. A testament to this importance can be found in some of the feedback I have received from constituents and stakeholders. As one can imagine, in mixed and rural ridings such as mine, the impact of such legislation can be of outsized importance. This includes a member of an Alberta Métis group.
As part of a larger statement to us, they have stated, “There has been no consultation with indigenous producers and people on the plan to ban the export of live horses. The Canadian government has a history of stepping on indigenous farmers.”
There is a duty to consult in the Constitution, and they have not done that with this bill. I would also like to point out that the rationale for banning the bill, based on the so-called premise of animal welfare, is all based on misinformation and untruths.
This is especially the case when it comes to claims of mistreatment and abuse of these animals during their transportation. I can tell members that I grew up on a farm. On the farm, our animals are the most important thing we have. They are part of our business. We have to treat them well and with respect, because our business and livelihood both depend on the health and viability of these animals.
Since 2013, over 41,000 horses have been exported. The mortality rate at all stages of transport, not just on the airplane, is 0.012%. Basically, this is statistically insignificant. I want to highlight that no deaths as a result of the transportation of these animals have occurred since 2014.
We have veterinary oversight. We have very stringent transportation rules for animals. This is a clear campaign by misinformed individuals who simply want to make an emotional argument to try to shut down an industry that they disagree with ideologically.
This is absolutely frustrating, not only for my constituents but also for all farmers. It is a slippery slope. I urge all my colleagues in the House to vote against this bill.
1709 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/14/23 6:07:55 p.m.
- Watch
The hon. member for Kitchener—Conestoga for his right of reply.
12 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, we are here today to discuss an issue that is important to me and to many Canadians, my private member's bill, Bill C-355, which seeks to ban the export of live horses for slaughter.
I tabled this private member's bill in September and I continue hearing from and consulting with stakeholders and receiving calls and emails as recently as today. I commit to continue this dialogue and I am open to hearing people's concerns and ideas. If this bill passes second reading, it now looks like the vote will be at the end of January. I look forward to this bill going to the agriculture committee and continuing this conversation. I am especially proud of the fact that I sit on the agriculture committee.
I thank everyone who spoke today and everyone who has reached out to me and all members of Parliament across Canada to share their opinions about this practice. I want them to know their voices are being heard.
The most important thing to me, the goal that I commit to work toward, is that we join other countries in the world and ban the export of live horses for slaughter. I welcome the opportunity to work together across party lines and advance this important legislation.
215 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/14/23 6:09:40 p.m.
- Watch
Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes): 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.
69 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/14/23 6:10:22 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I request a recorded vote.
7 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/14/23 6:10:28 p.m.
- Watch
Pursuant to Standing Order 93, the recorded division stands deferred until Wednesday, January 31, 2024, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.
27 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the excellent member for Red Deer—Lacombe.
It is a very challenging time for Canadians. We have food price inflation that we have never seen before in this country. Food bank usage is at an all-time high. A third of all food bank users are children. We have seen reports from experts that the inflationary policies of the NDP-Liberal government are contributing to food price inflation.
As we move into the holiday season, Canadians are getting ready for Christmas and are struggling. Rents are up. Mortgage payments are up. The interest payments that people are paying on everything they borrowed, whether it is through a line of credit, a credit card or their vehicle loans, are up. They are looking for a little relief.
When we talk about food in particular, the food that we get does not come from the grocery store. That is not its point of origin. Food comes from the farmers who grow it. One way that we could address food insecurity and food price inflation is by reducing some of the pressure on our farmers and producers.
Conservatives put forward common-sense Bill C-234. It would remove the carbon tax for our farmers on their grain drying and on the heating and cooling of their buildings. When we have farmers paying an average of $150,000 for their carbon tax bill, which is set to quadruple with the Liberals, it is incredibly concerning what the downstream effect of that is going to be for Canadians when they go to the grocery store. Our farmers have two options. They can either cut production to cut their carbon tax bill or pass the increased costs on to consumers, who are already feeling the effects of food price inflation. This is after eight years of the NDP-Liberal government and the unsustainable path it has put us on.
What we hear from Liberal members is that the alternative, Canada's Conservatives, would cut. What we will cut is Liberal corruption. What we will cut is Liberal taxes. I could list a few of the areas very quickly where the Liberals have found no dollar that they are not willing to take from Canadians' pockets in the form of taxes. Instead of helping Canadians out, the Liberals help out friends and insiders.
We had the infamous $54-million arrive scam. This is not a project that Conservatives support, and we would cut that kind of spending. There is the billions of dollars that Liberals have given to their friends in high-priced consulting fees. In true Liberal fashion, when they were called out on their high-priced consultants, no one ever having spent more on consulting than the Liberals, they hired a consultant to tell them how to spend less on consultants. That cost taxpayers three-quarters of a million dollars. We would cut that.
We can look at the $1-billion green slush fund, which is mired in scandal. We had a whistle-blower at committee just this week talking about $150 million. The Liberals allowed that money to line the pockets of well-connected insiders. We have two Liberal appointees now under investigation by the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner for voting to give themselves $600,000 between the two of them. We would cut that kind of spending. Of course, we would root out that kind of corrupt behaviour.
Another director on that board has also been identified as having furthered their own interests—
593 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/14/23 6:17:25 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am rising on a point of order. When I was speaking with respect to the agriculture report and concurrence, I did not talk about the corruption that was there with Stephen Harper—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
41 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/14/23 6:17:38 p.m.
- Watch
That is a point of debate. I would just ask members, when they rise on a point of order, to please specify the standing order that they are speaking on.
The other thing is, instead of trying to interrupt members or making comments while the member is speaking, I would ask members to please wait because there is going to be an opportunity for questions and comments.
The hon. member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes.
80 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, they cannot even help but heckle the Speaker when that member is so desperate to try to defend the indefensible, and that is the Liberal corruption that is costing Canadians and is forcing them to skip meals.
The Liberals' inflationary spending is not for legacy projects. It is not to build bridges or build homes. It is to line the pockets of insiders. While we have tent cities that did not exist eight years ago and while we have food bank use in numbers that did not exist eight years ago, we have corruption the likes of which has never existed in this country, except for under the current NDP-Liberal government.
It is clear that after eight years of this Prime Minister he is not worth that cost. He is not worth the cost of record food bank usage. He is not worth the cost of record food price inflation. He is not worth the cost of scandals. It is hard not to be disappointed in the government when every day there is a new scandal. These Liberals just cannot help but jump up to defend the indefensible.
We saw it today, in fact, when the industry minister stood up and was very animated in defence of all of the conduct at the billion-dollar green slush fund. These are Liberal appointees who are under investigation. I understand that there might be an initial instinct, but many months have passed. The Liberals have seen the evidence. The Auditor General has now launched an investigation. That is the stage that we are at.
We are at the stage where we have many millions of dollars go missing and instead of saying they are going to get Canadians their money back and they are going to make sure that everyone who had anything to do with it is held fully accountable and that of course they are going to clean house and everyone is fired, they have fired not a single person. They have not sought to recover a single dollar. I have to say that my first call would be to the RCMP because with Canadians who are starving and struggling and freezing in the dark, that is the kind of reaction that we should have to misappropriation and embezzlement; not looking to jump up and, as I said, defend corrupt practices.
That is why we have put forward common-sense solutions, like Bill C-234. It is horrible to have seen the pressure that the PMO and his radical environment minister used, to have senators amend that bill before sending it back here. It is brutal. It could have provided real relief to Canadians. It could have had a real effect on food price inflation and could have contributed to food security for Canadians. While the Liberals may have given up on doing the right thing, we are always going to stand up for Canadians and we are going to bring home lower prices and food that people can afford.
503 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/14/23 6:21:42 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it is interesting that the member talks about food security. With respect to the issue of affordability, at the end of the day, they will find that what is happening in Europe is having more of an impact than the price on pollution on inflation here in Canada. What did the Conservative Party do in regard to Europe? Not once, not twice, not three times and not four times, but five times the Conservatives voted against Ukraine, whether it was the trade agreement or budgetary allocations. That does nothing in terms of world or European stability, which has an impact on food prices.
As opposed to trying to have his fairy tales of corruption, as if only in the member's mind, why does he not recognize the fact that the Conservative approach on substantive policies like Ukraine is for the member opposite and his caucus in its entirety to vote against Ukraine at every opportunity they have had in the last number of weeks?
167 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
