44th Parl. 1st Sess.
December 14, 2023 10:00AM
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
