44th Parl. 1st Sess.
December 14, 2023 10:00AM
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
- Dec/14/23 6:22:53 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I will offer some facts to the parliamentary secretary. The Auditor General of Canada is investigating embezzlement and corruption at the Liberal billion-dollar green slush fund. That is a fact. The Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner is investigating not one but two Liberal appointees to the billion-dollar green slush fund for their conflicts of interest in voting for motions that put hundreds of thousands of dollars in their own pockets. That is a fact. The report that was commissioned by the government found $40 million in misappropriated funds, but a whistle-blower has now said that there is $150 million in misappropriated funds.
These Liberals have sent gas turbines to Russia. They have sent detonators that are blowing up Ukrainian soldiers, and they voted with Russia in support of Hamas at the United Nations. We are not taking any lessons on foreign policy from these jokers, today or any day.
155 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
Madam Speaker, it was the same theatre that we saw from the minister when talking about his refusal to take action on the billion-dollar green slush fund. There was an awful lot of motion. He was quite blustery, but he wanted us to confuse that for action.
He is not taking any action there, and he is not taking any action on food price affordability. When standing committees particularly make recommendations, those should be the first thing that the minister looks at, instead of having a big show trial where he brings in grocery CEOs to look him in the eye and talk sternly to them. We have presented concrete ways that they can bring down food price inflation and one of those ways would be to pass the common-sense Conservative bill, Bill C-234.
137 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/14/23 6:25:41 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the parliamentary secretary on this seemed to doubt that there was any kind of a problem with the billion-dollar green slush fund, wherein members have actually admitted at committee to have voted to give themselves money.
I wonder if the member, in whatever time he has left, could ensure the parliamentary secretary does have his facts straight.
60 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the member for Calgary Rocky Ridge rightly identified that it was the Liberal-appointed chair of the billion-dollar green slush fund who not only moved the motion, but also voted for the motion to give herself hundreds of thousands of dollars. She put it into a company and then withdrew a salary for $120,000 from that company, at a time when Canadians are struggling to feed themselves. That is what the minister is defending. That is what the parliamentary secretary is defending. It is indefensible, and we need common-sense solutions such as Conservative Bill C-234.
101 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/14/23 6:26:46 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, what an ironic situation to be standing in the House talking about concurrence in a committee report dealing with strengthening food processing capacity after we just spent an hour of private members' business talking about a Liberal private member's bill that is going to shut down an entire portion of Canada's agricultural economy.
It is bizarre to stand here today and talk about food security in the context of the greatest food insecurity time that we have ever had. Since food banks started recording information in 1989, there has never been more demand at our food banks than right now. We have had eight years of the Liberals, now propped up by the NDP, making bad policy, bad law and bad budget after bad policy, bad law and bad budget. We find ourselves in a scenario where inflation, caused by the doubling of our national debt, all previous prime ministers combined, came to a little over $600 billion. For the current Prime Minister, it was $600 billion in just eight years, making the cost of everything go up.
The Liberals' proudest moment was when the Prime Minister stood in this House and announced he was going to implement a carbon tax, a tax that we as Conservatives said would be a tax on everything. Here we are. Canadians are choosing between heating their homes and eating. Seniors are moving back in with their children. Children are not even able to move out of their parents' house. Parents are wondering if they are going to have their kids and parents living in their house. There are a lot of people asking themselves those questions right now.
The agriculture committee studies food processing. That is part of the entire supply chain, so let us take a look at how we get food here.
Liberals would have us believe that Canada cannot produce its own food, that we somehow need to support other countries around the world in order to have food here. That is not true. We are one of, I believe, only five nations in the world that are net food exporters. That means that Canada can make more than enough food for ourselves and can export food around the world. That is what we do with beef, grain, oilseeds, pork and hopefully still horses if there is any sensibility in the room. Imagine the arrogance of a government knowing what people should be able to choose on the shelf. Imagine it being so knowledgeable that it can do people's shopping for them right here in the House of Commons and tell them what they can and cannot have. We see that all the time with the government. It is not just with respect to the food we eat, but the energy we can use for our vehicles and homes, the modes of transportation we can use and the firearms we get to use when we decide to go hunting. A lot more people are hunting these days. Madam Speaker is from a riding with a lot of hunters in it. That is not necessarily because they want to, but out of necessity because of the cost of food. There is a lot of uptake in hunting, which is a good thing. I am a hunter. I like that.
This is all premised on the notion that the Liberal government has no trouble berating its own industries that it does not like. It berates our oil and gas sector, even though we have one of the cleanest oil and gas sectors on the planet. It berates our agricultural sector, even though we are one of the most advanced societies relying on technology. We have to be innovative. We only have four or five months of a growing season in the year to grow crops. If we were not innovative, we could not compete with countries that can grow grass 12 months of the year. We would not keep up with them.
We need to be innovative with greenhouses. In my riding of Red Deer—Lacombe, we have great greenhouses. Guess what we do to increase the efficiency of food production in a greenhouse. Does anyone have any idea what we might pump into a greenhouse to make plants grow faster and help the crop be more productive? It is carbon dioxide. That is what we put into a greenhouse.
What goes into fertilizer? It is natural gas to create urea. We need this so we can use our innovative farming techniques for single pass. When I was a kid growing up on a farm in central Alberta, we used to have things like rod weeders and all kinds of other equipment we would use. We would even contemplate summer fallow, which is leaving the ground empty for an entire growing season just to deal with the weed problem. We do not have to deal with that anymore because we have so much innovation making our land more productive and reducing our input costs.
How do we reduce our input costs? It is by using the innovative technologies I just talked about, which all depend on things like natural gas for the creation of fertilizer. However, now that is taxed.
We are talking about Bill S-234 right now. It was in the Senate. It was passed by this place so that farmers could have a bit of an easier go when it comes to drying their grain. Some years they can take it off dry; some years they cannot. They do not get to pick and choose.
Farmers in my riding are showing me their carbon tax bills: $18,000 a year to dry 90,000 bushels of grain and oilseed. Where are they going to recoup that cost? Are they just going to pass it along to the consumer or the next purchaser? They are already paying more for their fertilizer because there is a carbon tax on that as well, before the inputs even get there.
With the shipping of new farm equipment to their farm, like a new truck, tractor, cultivator or harvester, now there is a carbon tax. It is not only on the creation of the machinery but on the shipping of the machinery. Before they even get a kernel of grain or raise a cow, they are already paying the carbon tax on the items that were brought to the farm.
Now they go through their growing season and are harvesting, and everything they do is taxed. They get a few little exemptions on farm fuel but it is taxed. Then what happens? They put grain in the truck and take it to wherever the market is. They are marketing it to the grain terminal or taking their livestock to the auction market, wherever that happens to be. There is a carbon tax on that fuel and a carbon tax on that vehicle.
Then it gets purchased by a buyer and gets shipped someplace else in the world. There is a carbon tax anytime the stuff moves or changes hands. Hopefully it ends up at a processor, which is what this report is all about. By that time, it has already had a carbon tax applied two or three times directly or indirectly just to get enough grain over to a terminal, where it is sent to a processor. Now that processor is paying a carbon tax on the electricity being used in the building and for the shipment of all the boxes and everything other type of thing they might have. Their entire production line is going to consume energy, which means a carbon tax.
Is it any wonder that we have seen the price of food go up? We have not even gotten to the grocery store yet. How do Canadian farmers, shippers, processors and grocers have a chance when they are taxed to bring us the food that the consumer ends up having to pay the bill for? They cannot do it.
It is time to axe the tax. We want to help innovation for processors. Let us get out of their way, axe the tax and make it affordable.
1364 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/14/23 6:36:57 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo.
Just today I was alerted to something that was really unfortunate with two people in my riding. I found out that two family members of a family that I grew up with had recently passed. On Tuesday, Allen Nordick passed away. May perpetual light shine upon him.
Unfortunately, the day following, his mother, Maybelle Nordick, passed away at 93, so there were two deaths in the family within 24 hours. It is very difficult to see a mother and her son both pass away. May perpetual light shine on Mabel Nordick as well. I will be attending the joint funeral on Monday. My deepest condolences go out to the family.
To my colleague, if he could change one thing that this Liberal government could do in light of his speech, what would that be?
154 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
