SoVote

Mr. Warren Steinley (Regina—Lewvan, CPC)

May/9/24 5:41:25 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, as I am a member of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, we had questions for the member who brought this bill forward during committee. A lot of livelihoods would get destroyed if this bill passes, and a lot of them are indigenous businesses that raise these horses. It is one of their major forms of income in running their farms. We had witnesses come to the committee to talk about just that. It could cost a lot of money if this industry goes out of business and they have loans through Farm Credit Canada. I wonder if the member has received advice as to whether this private member's bill would cost the treasury money. If so, could it still be passed and would it still be in order?

134 words

Context: House Hansard - 312 - May/9/24

Mr. Damien Kurek (Battle River—Crowfoot, CPC)

May/9/24 6:09:43 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, as always, it is an honour to be able to stand and debate important issues in this place, and specifically this issue. It has been interesting as I have listened to the discussion that has taken place today, followed the committee work and heard from many constituents. It is important to understand the full context of the talking points related to what the sponsor of this bill and those who are supporting it say it is about, and then the reality and how those on the ground are affected. Specifically, I would like to thank a number of constituents who have reached out to me and shared their deep concern about this bill and the chill that it has placed not only on the specifics around raising horses but across agricultural sectors, in how we are allowing activism and activist talking points to define government policy. It is regrettable that this is in fact the case, because I think that Canadians have every right to and should ask difficult questions about a whole host of issues surrounding animal husbandry, which is the raising of animals. I come from ranch country. Many of my neighbours are ranchers, and I fully understand the work, the pain, the blood, sweat and tears that go into caring for livestock on the farm, on the ranch and at every step of the food supply chain. When we allow activism to inform the conversation, it does not result in better public policy. In fact, it often has the opposite effect. We see that in a whole host of issues. It is an illustration of exactly how the Liberals, supported by their coalition partners, their confidence and supply partners in the NDP, are quick to listen to activists yet refuse to listen to those on the ground. As I spoke with constituents, they talked about how their operations will be devastated by this. They do not know what to do with their herds of horses, not even at the conclusion of this bill passing, but with the uncertainty it has created. I have spoken to many involved with the transportation of these animals, and while there is a narrative that is being expressed by many who have come out in support of this bill, it is simply not factually accurate. It is fair to ask difficult questions and to demand accountability around the transportation of livestock, regardless of the context, whether that be horses by air transport, any other animal by air transport or various other mechanisms that transport livestock across the agricultural sector. However, that is not what this bill has allowed to happen, which is why I find it fascinating that we have a long list of agriculture stakeholders who have shared how devastating of a message this will send to Canada's agriculture sector if it passes. It is not about protecting animals. It is about listening to a small cohort of voices that do not represent the facts. I would also like to share how this bill will have a damaging effect on reconciliation. Some in this room may be asking what the deal with that is, but here are the facts: A significant portion or a significant number of the farms and ranches that raise horses are indigenous-owned. They were not consulted by that member, nor by the organizations that are pushing for this agenda. What is effectively happening is that the process, and it is not even about the bill being passed, has sent a chill through the market and a chill to the customers. It has created uncertainty in the market, and anybody who understands basic economics knows that uncertainty in a market can have a devastating effect on the ability of that market to function properly. There are indigenous ranches, reserves and those who have invested generations and have earned their livelihood off a sector that the member and the activist groups promoting these causes have ignored. It is fair to have a debate on policy, and we need to have that in this country, but what is disappointing is that it is not the voices of those who understand the sector that are being heard. It is a vocal few who seem bent on pursuing their ideological means at any cost, and the result is that many are going to suffer devastating consequences. Indigenous livelihoods are being taken away by the activism of the Liberals. Some of my constituents would have their livelihoods taken away by the activism of the Liberals. My plea would be this. Let us look at the facts. As somebody who has been involved in agriculture my entire life, as somebody who has had animals on my family farm, I understand very clearly the care that one can have for animals. However, let us understand the consequences of a policy that does not take into account the facts. When I heard the sponsor of the bill initially talk, there were many voices that were not acknowledged. When I have heard the debate take place, both at the committee and since, many voices in this conversation have not been acknowledged. When it comes to agriculture stakeholders, we are not talking about well-paid lobbyists that exist here in the nation's capital; we are talking about regular folks who work hard and volunteer for their industry organizations. It is interesting, and it shows their absolute disdain, when members like the member from Kingston would suggest that somehow those Canadians' voices do not matter. The reality is this. Many of the organizations that have shared their concerns are doing so because they know the impact that bad public policy has on the livelihoods of those involved in this sector. I urge all members of this place to look at the facts. Let us not make rash decisions based on a vocal group of activists who are unwilling to have reasonable conversations about agriculture in general and specifically related to the horse sector here in Canada. Let us make sure that we are informed by those facts, because if we do not, there are consequences. I cannot highlight this enough. I believe close to half of those involved in this sector are indigenous. That means that, effectively, that member and the Liberals would be stealing away their livelihoods because they listened to a vocal few, as opposed to the common sense of those who understand and know well what the reality on the ground is. Now, when it comes to what the future of animal husbandry in Canada should be, we have, for many generations, demonstrated expertise that is looked the world over as being a pinnacle of what can be done to find the right balance, whether it comes to large-scale protein production across the spectrum, whether it be in oilseed and other grown proteins, or whether it be in milk, dairy and the feathered side of our sector. We have a lot to be proud of. I will conclude with this. The bill before us attacks the agriculture industry, without question. If we start listening to these vocal few voices, it will have a devastating impact not only on those involved. Attacking the agriculture sector and saying, through the passing of a bill like this, that it cannot be trusted, which is what it is saying, will have the impact of increasing costs, decreasing trust and ultimately making it so that Canadians are unable to feed themselves through this amazing sector.

1250 words

Context: House Hansard - 312 - May/9/24

Hon. Sean Fraser

May/9/24 6:37:20 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would first like to thank my colleague for his question and for giving me the opportunity to practise my French. Normally, we do not want to use time allocation for debates in the House, but under the circumstances, it is very important because the bill was introduced last fall, and now it is spring. There was winter and then spring. It is essential that we adopt these measures to support communities across the country. With respect to the member's question about agriculture, I think it is essential we continue to support those who produce the food that our communities rely on in order to drive economic opportunities and ensure we enhance food security across our communities. With respect to the timing of the specific fund, I would be happy to have a conversation with my colleague, the Minister of Agriculture, to insist that we continue to move forward expeditiously to support our farmers in every part of the country. I come from rural Nova Scotia. There are many farms that dot the communities that surround the place I call home. I would be pleased to work with members from all parties in the House to support the agricultural sector, because it is in the national interest to do so.

214 words