Debates of May 9th, 2024

Opposition Motion—Legalization of Hard Drugs

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Madam Speaker, I hope that my colleague understood what I said.

He talked about the fact that the war on drugs, criminalization, is a model that does not work. We can compare the model used in the United States, where overdoses increased by 100%, to the one used in Portugal.

Can my colleague elaborate on that?

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Madam Speaker, that is exactly it. If the war on drugs were working in the United States, it would be leading the world in sobriety and recovery, and it is not.

We can fight over policy and ideology, but facts count. Which provinces in this country have the worst record, the highest number of deaths and the worst trends for overdose addictions? They are Alberta and Saskatchewan, where they take a criminalized approach. Those are the facts.

We know that, after decades and decades of evidence, criminalizing people with health issues does not work. It is time to dispense with that policy, not only because it is wrong and it wastes money, but also because it destroys lives.

[Robert Gordon Kitchen, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Madam Speaker, when we look up at the screen, we see how this is dictated by the House. It talks about the legalizing of hard drugs, but that is not what we are talking about here. This is not about legalizing hard drugs. This is about the role of government, as well as the Public Health Agency of Canada, to educate and protect the people of this country. This includes health care, and while the provinces and territories play the leading role, they are given guidance and oversight by the federal Minister of Health, the Minister of Mental Health and Addictions, Health Canada and the Public Health Agency of Canada.

The federal government must work with and listen to its provincial counterparts, which it is not doing. When it comes to health care policy, it needs to respect provincial jurisdiction. When the Province of B.C. came to the federal government to say that its experiment was failing, the government failed to respond quickly to that aspect. It is shocking that we sit here and listen to the government and members talk about how they believe it is important to be providing free drugs to Canadians when they are finding out from B.C.'s example that it does not exist.

At the Health committee, we heard from Ms. Fiona Wilson, president of the British Columbia Association of Chiefs of Police and deputy chief of the Vancouver Police Department, on April 15th. Ms. Fiona Wilson stated, “As police leaders, we were unequivocal about the need to prevent unintended impacts on community safety and well-being, especially for youth.” Again, they were not provided with the information.

Ultimately, when we talk about things, what we need to be aware of is that 21,824 Canadians suffer from hypoxic brain injury. With two to three minutes of no oxygen to the brain, the damage to brain cells is extensive. With just one shot of naloxone, either nasally or by injection, to resuscitate, the risk of brain injury is exponentially greater.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

It being 5:30, pursuant to an order made Wednesday, February 28, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the Business of Supply.

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.

[Laila Goodridge, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB]

Madam Speaker, we request a recorded division.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

Pursuant to Standing Order 45, the division stands deferred until Tuesday, May 21, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-355, An Act to prohibit the export by air of horses for slaughter and to make related amendments to certain Acts, as reported (with amendments) from the committee.

Prohibition of the Export of Horses by Air for Slaughter Act

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

The mover of the motion has indicated to the Chair that he does not wish to proceed with the motions.

As a result, the House will now proceed, without debate, to the putting of the question on the motion to concur in the bill at report stage.

[Tim Louis, Liberal, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

moved that the bill be concurred in.

(Motion agreed to)

[Tim Louis, Liberal, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

moved that the bill be read the third time and passed.

Madam Speaker, I proudly stand here to discuss my private member's bill, Bill C-355. This legislation seeks to prohibit the export of live horses for slaughter by air, and I firmly believe that it is our duty to protect these magnificent creatures from unnecessary suffering.

Our relationship with horses runs deep in Canada. Throughout history, and with the Mennonite community in my riding of Kitchener—Conestoga to this very day, we have relied on horses for transportation and for labour. From the iconic imagery of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to the draft horse pull at our New Hamburg Fall Fair every year in my community, horses have been our steadfast companions. They symbolize strength, grace and resilience, which is a testament to their significance in our culture.

However, let us be clear that Bill C-355 is not driven by emotions alone. This bill is grounded in science and facts. We have consulted experts and examined the conditions faced by horses during transportation. We have heard from veterinarians and other expert witnesses. The evidence supports the need for this legislation, and our duty as lawmakers is to make informed decisions based on empirical evidence. That is what we are doing.

Some argue that existing provisions in the Criminal Code already address this issue. It is true that the Health of Animals Act provides for the protection of animal health, but those provisions do not specifically target the practice of the export of live horses for slaughter by air.

Bill C-355 would address this gap. It recognizes that horses endure unique risks during air transportation, including confined spaces, stress and harsh conditions. By banning this practice, we would send a clear message, a message that Canadians are asking for, which is to put an end to the export of live horses from Canada by air to other countries to be slaughtered for raw consumption as a delicacy.

I will explain the reality for horses exported by air for slaughter. They endure stress, dehydration and exhaustion. It is our responsibility to protect them from such cruelty, and here are some of the risks associated with the conditions these horses endure. Draft horses bred for export often endure life in open feedlots without shelter or protection from the elements in some of Canada's harshest weather conditions. During transportation, horses experience intense audio distress due to their acute hearing. Confined in crates, they endure the roar of engine aircraft, which can subject them to deafening sounds exceeding 140 decibels. They are subject to injury and discomfort. Horses have a high centre of gravity, which makes them vulnerable during a plane's ascent and descent. With multiple horses crammed in each crate, they risk injury because of balance loss.

There is a lack of oversight and transparency once the plane's doors are closed and it takes off for the horse to be flown halfway across the world. At that point, there is no oversight or accountability. There are those who claim that these horses that are sent for slaughter by air are treated similarly to those flown for recreation, sport or competitions, but let us dispel any misconceptions. Contrary to the conditions I mentioned about live horses exported for slaughter by air, horses for sporting events and recreation are trained and habituated to travel. Race horses and equestrian event horses are given access to food and water and are also given more space to move and correct their balance during takeoff and landing. They are also not confined with other unfamiliar animals, and they are attended to and transported with supervision. In short, there is no comparison.

We addressed concerns about this legislation and its effect on horse-breeders. The bill focuses on banning export only. The breeding, raising and selling of horses in Canada would be untouched by this legislation. Bill C-355 would allow breeders to continue raising and selling horses within Canada, but this bill would ensure that these horses would not be subjected to the horrors of long-distance air travel for slaughter. It is the export that would be banned.

This bill proposes an 18-month period for coming into force. It would allow industry stakeholders time to adjust, while at the same time signalling our resolve. This time frame strikes a balance between practical considerations and the commitment to ending this practice as soon as possible. It would give time to prepare and adjust, while moving forward quickly and responsibly, as Canadians want us to do.

Seven out of 10 Canadians want an end to live horse exports by air for slaughter. Once people hear about this practice, they do not want Canada to be any part of it. By passing this bill, we would align ourselves with their voices and demonstrate our commitment to the humane treatment of horses.

When I mention to people that I have been working on this legislation protecting horses, they often share amazing personal stories and fond memories related to these companion animals.

Last week, I spoke with a woman and she shared with me her favourite picture of her father. It was an old black and white photo of him as a young man standing with his horse. She said she could see the pride of ownership in her dad's eyes. It is one of her favourite pictures. With the unique relationship we have with horses, we need to remind ourselves of the responsibility that comes with it.

I want to thank the many stakeholders who took the time to meet, discuss and give their opinions. I want to thank my committee colleagues for their thoroughness, and I want to thank the law clerks and all those who helped shape this bill. I want to thank our team and staff in Kitchener—Conestoga for being there every step of the way.

I also want to thank the Canadians who wrote, emailed, called and signed petitions, including one sponsored by the member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, who has been a champion for this cause.

In closing, let us recognize that by passing Bill C-355, we affirm our commitment to compassion and to the well-being of our horse companions. Let us stand united in our resolve to end this practice of live horse exports by air for slaughter. Our legacy will be one of empathy, progress and justice. It is a legacy worthy of Canadians.

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

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?

[Tim Louis, Liberal, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Madam Speaker, I also sit on the agriculture committee and we have been working together well for years. I am glad this bill went right through that committee.

As I mentioned, this bill proposes an 18-month period for coming into force. This would allow industry stakeholders the time they need to make those adjustments. We heard from the exporters, we heard from breeders and we heard from stakeholders on all sides. This would only affect the export of horses. It would not affect the breeding, the raising or the selling of horses in Canada. Those things would still be untouched in the legislation.

This is what Canadians have asked for, and we worked together to make this happen. As a matter of fact, we even strengthened the bill in committee by adding some amendments that cut the red tape to ensure this could happen and would not affect other sectors, such as racehorses and Equestrian Canada.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Madam Speaker, my office has received a tremendous amount of correspondence on this particular bill, and I am pleased to be supporting it as we send it off on its journey to the Senate.

I want to ask a question of my hon. colleague. I, too, sit on the agriculture committee and during our deliberations, in testimony from witnesses, briefs that we received and even in general correspondence, there was an allusion to this being the start of a slippery slope.

I hope my colleague could address that concern, because it is my understanding that people can still continue to breed horses in Canada. Horses can still be slaughtered in Canada. This bill is really just focusing on one small niche area. Could he clarify anything in that regard?

[Tim Louis, Liberal, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford for his advocacy, for carrying the torch. It was his petition that garnered tens of thousands of signatures across Canada. I do appreciate the work that he has done.

Yes, there were easier ways to do the bill. It could have been written by slightly amending other legislation. That might have been easier to write, but it would have been possible to widen that scope. This bill was written very specifically as a stand-alone piece of legislation. That is why the title says that it is banning the export of live horses by air for slaughter. It is a very specific practice that is being banned.

That way, the legislation makes sure that there will not be unintended consequences. I have met with the Beef Farmers of Ontario and the Canadian Cattle Association. I let them know that this bill is very narrow in its scope. It will not have those unintended consequences.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

Madam Speaker, today I rise in the House to speak on an important issue and raise attention to the grave harms that Bill C-355 would have for our hard-working Canadian producers, farm families and countless industries.

Bill C-355 intends to prohibit the export by air of horses for slaughter and would restrict trade with some of our closest international allies. This bill has been tabled by the Liberal MP for Kitchener—Conestoga with no consultation with affected stakeholders and an appalling disregard for the unintended consequences of this bill.

Although my colleagues across the aisle have attempted to downplay both the importance of our Canadian industries and the detrimental effects of this bill, I would like to restate some actual facts.

Canada has approximately 347 breeders who are providing purpose-bred horses for consumption to nations such as Japan. The majority of horses exported for this purpose are from Ontario, Manitoba and my home province of Alberta. Since 2013, 41,000 horses have been exported for the purpose of consumption, and the mortality rates at all stages of transport, including stock trailers and so on to the airport, have been 0.012%.

I would also like to correct the record. The regulations for transporting horses by air for equestrian competitions such as the Olympics are identical to those transport standards for horses for slaughter and consumption. Additionally, Canada has some of the highest standards and regulations for transport in the entire world.

Many other exporting countries include the U.K., Argentina, Belgium, Poland, France and the Netherlands. Over one billion people, or 16% of the world's population, eat horsemeat, making this industry an incredibly important part of our food supply and food security globally. Countless agriculture producers and stakeholder groups have reached out to me and my Conservative colleagues to show their disapproval of this bill and important concerns about the future of Canadian agriculture and equine welfare.

The bill would have catastrophic consequences for a number of industries in our beautiful nation, one being the indigenous populations and incredible breeders that make up this country. In Canada, 25% of breeders are indigenous, yet they produce about 40% of the horses exported for consumption. Indigenous farmers and producers play an important role in our country and demonstrate incredible practices and efficiency in providing food to feed the world.

Conservatives believe in prioritizing the needs of indigenous populations and empowering them to provide the world with Canada's sustainable and abundant resources, such as energy, agriculture and other natural resources. This bill is yet another example of the Liberal government and the Prime Minister threatening the industries and livelihoods of indigenous people in Canada.

Members of the Métis nation of Alberta and first nations groups have expressed their disappointment with this damaging bill and the Liberal government's disdain and disregard for their work as producers, as well as the sponsor's failure to hold important consultations before tabling this piece of legislation.

After tabling this bill, the work of the Liberal government has led indigenous producers, primarily women, to fear the consequences of publicly speaking out against it. They fear verbal and physical harassment and have received an influx of hate for their generational businesses both online and in person.

On March 21, as Bill C-355 was referred to the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, members heard from a Métis horse producer from western Canada. This witness cited the staggering amount of ignorance about horse culture in regard to the care and respect of indigenous-owned horses. The witness described the importance of horses for survival in Métis culture and their use in farming, transportation, trapping and other traditional practices.

The producer stated:

Just like most Métis, we are not in a position financially to keep horses only for recreational use. Our farm is not sustainable without the meat...industry. Raising and owning horses involves a lot of hard work, and it's very expensive, but we think it's worth it. Selling draft foals to our exporter allows us to keep and maintain horses for farming, to feed livestock, to handle cattle, to trap, to train and to connect with Métis and first nations communities through horse trading and rallies.

They continued:

The Canadian government is ignoring the impact that banning meat [for] exports will have on many Métis and first nations producers.

After tabling this bill, Canadian horse producers have been faced with horrible threats on social media and horrific protests across western Canada, some of whom have even received death threats. This impactful indigenous witness appeared at committee at risk to their family and their business and spoke on behalf of this important industry anonymously for fear of violent protests by a radical minority of woke animal rights activists.

In this place, each and every one of us understand the importance of parliamentary privilege and the same should be afforded to witnesses speaking on important issues such as this bill. Out of fear, many producers directly impacted by this bill wanted no part of the study at committee, even though they could lose their livelihood if this bill is ever passed. It is unacceptable that this bill has driven such hatred and our own Canadian farm families have been intimidated to a point where they feel too frightened to have their voices heard at committee.

After this bill, Bill C-355, was passed at committee and was referred back to the House, my Conservative colleague presented a motion asking the clerk to compile a report on the instances of harassment described by potential witnesses. I would have to agree that we must stand with Canadians across this country who have been harassed and intimidated as part of this bill, and I look forward to the ruling on this clear breach of privilege for horse producers and the agricultural community.

I would ask my colleagues in the House to take a long, hard look at this bill and tell me that good and sound legislation would need the harassment and intimidation of witnesses and stakeholders in order to garner its support. It is shameful that this bill passed through committee simply through the silencing of critical voices and those of indigenous communities, producers and interest groups from coast to coast to coast.

Looking at Bill C-355 from a procedural angle, we can see, yet again, that it is a prime example of shoddy Liberal policy-making, so much so that even the sponsor of the bill was forced to amend it at the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food. This bill would require an unreasonable regulatory process to be undertaken prior to any flight being allowed to depart with a horse on board. This would include a signed declaration that the horses are not being exported for slaughter to be approved by the Minister of Agriculture for every single flight. This bill would directly restrict the air transportation of horses in and out of Canada for all purposes, and would add onerous and unnecessary burdens to the process for fear of incredible monetary fines, even imprisonment.

Canada competes internationally in some of the most renowned horse shows, which includes the Olympics, the Pan American Games, along with some world-class events held right here, which attract an impressive group of competitors from across the globe. Bill C-355 not only would affect every Canadian competitor exiting or re-entering our nation and transporting a horse by air, but also would require competitors coming to Canada for events, such as the Calgary Stampede or Spruce Meadows, to receive an approved declaration of transport from the minister. The time and energy this ridiculous policy would require would be astronomical to every individual involved with transporting a horse, for any purpose whatsoever.

This bill demonstrates, yet again, the lack of knowledge the Liberal Party and this bill's sponsor have about the importance of Canadian agriculture and agri-food and about the scientific evidence proven time and again by respected members of our veterinarian community. The Alberta Veterinary Medical Association, which is the professional regulatory organization responsible for regulating and supporting the profession of veterinary medicine in Alberta, has expressed serious concerns for this piece of legislation. The ABVMA includes oversight and advocacy for both Alberta's nearly 5,000 veterinarians and veterinary technologists. The renowned group believes Bill C-355 was not made based on scientific evidence or with balanced consultation and strongly opposes this bill on behalf of a number of valued producers, some of which are in my riding.

The Canadian Food Inspection Agency has developed some of the highest regulations for animal transport based on scientific research and evidence and has safely been transporting horses for slaughter and other purposes for many years. Regardless of the end purpose, all livestock deserves the same level of animal welfare, which Canada already meets. Horses transported by air for equine competitions and shows are transported exactly the same as those transported to Japan and to other nations for slaughter. It is clear that the purpose of this bill, Bill C-355, is not to prioritize the safety of animal transport regulations, but wishes to push the ideological views of a minority group and eventually to end animal agriculture.

Although many members may have misconceptions about the purpose-bred horse production industry, Dr. Jennifer Woods, an expert in this field, has made it incredibly clear, as this bill has been brought forward, that it is simply based on incorrect rhetoric and falsehoods being made based on emotion rather than facts. Our legal system in Canada is built on fact rather than on emotion, yet the sponsor of Bill C-355 has used the word “cramped” many times when discussing the bill and has relied on a very niche activist agenda, rather than on the opinions of experts and of affected groups.

Dr. Woods is a long-time veterinarian and has inspected the conditions in which horses are transported by air and has performed animal welfare audits, both in Canada and in Japan. Jennifer has stated that, based on her decades of knowledge and experience in this industry and her knowledge of those animals, the current regulations and high standards allow for the welfare of the animals to be considered and to be upheld in every step of this carefully coordinated process.

More than a billion people around the world rely on that meat for a major part of the protein in their diets, including in Japan, Mexico, Italy, Russia, China and even right here in Canada. This type of meat, in many cases, is healthier than others and is enjoyed across our nation, and significantly in Quebec. Horsemeat has 20% more protein than beef cuts, 25% less fat, 20% less sodium and double the amount of iron in beef sirloin.

It would be my sincere wish that members of the House would have never brought forward this bill, Bill C-355, in the first place. It is just another attack by a Liberal ideological government that was motivated to form government to stop everything it hates, rather than loving and cherishing everything that Canada has to offer.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to this bill tonight. I will be fairly brief.

The work we have to do here, as elected representatives of the people, is very serious. We have to do it rigorously. Unfortunately, these days, that rigour is not always there. We had a great example of that for a good part of the day. I will now get back to the bill.

Bill C‑355 deals with a sensitive issue, and we have asked a great many questions about it. I think we were right to ask those questions. In particular, we wondered why a bill dealing with an issue in a minister's mandate letter had to be a private member's bill. That did raise some questions. We wondered about the process. We also wondered whether it was not better to take action on the Health of Animals Act, on animal welfare. The Bloc Québécois has always been a champion of animal welfare. That is one of our fundamental values. We have always defended this principle.

We have before us a bill seeking to fully prohibit a specific practice. We questioned various witnesses. I somewhat agree with my colleagues who spoke about the testimonies. A good number of the many testimonies we heard were contradictory. At times like these, as parliamentarians, we must recognize that. We have to consider where it is coming from, weigh the pros and cons, look at the sources. It was very demanding work.

We wondered about the precedent this sets, and we asked ourselves whether this was the first step towards something else. My NDP colleague actually posed this question to the bill's sponsor. That is one of the questions that was addressed. We also wondered why the bill covered just one species. Why not prohibit this kind of practice for various species? That is a question we had tackle in a comprehensive, rigorous way.

A number of witnesses also expressed concerns, including people from the pilots' association, who were concerned about being forced to deal with more forms. I think that was resolved with the amendments we adopted. We have heard from so many groups.

We really focused on transportation. How are they being transported? Basically, the purpose of the bill is to put an end not to slaughter, but to air transportation. There were lots of questions about the terms and conditions of carriage. We were told that the conditions were not appropriate.

There was some interesting testimony, including from Canadian Veterinary Medical Association representatives, who shared scientific facts about livestock welfare and how they are transported. My Conservative Party colleague mentioned that the animals are transported several to a cage-like box. We looked at how this species functions. They are herd animals, a prey species, so it is reassuring for them to be with others.

As it was also mentioned earlier, we made comparisons with horses transported by air for different reasons. Many were transported to be in competitions, to be put up for sale, to be raised elsewhere, and so on. My goodness, it was quite an interesting study. It generated a lot of debate. The evidence shows that transportation has improved. I believe it was back in 2020 that transportation conditions were changed for the better.

In the end, one thing stood out. It was mentioned by the bill's sponsor: Horses have a status unlike that of any other animal in Canada and Quebec. Although they are used for food in Quebec, many people think of them more as a companion animal. There is a kind of overlap.

As elected members, our job in the House of Commons is to examine scientific facts, to assess the pros and cons, but also to consider the values of Canadians, where we stand as a society and, ultimately, to vote on this bill. That is our job, and that is what we did to the best of our ability.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise to offer my thoughts on Bill C-355. I too am a member of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, and it has been my privilege to be a member of that committee now for six and a half years. It is a great committee, probably the best one in the House of Commons. Those on the committee treat each other with a lot of respect, even though we have differing opinions on many matters, but it is a committee that typically arrives at its decisions with consensus.

I congratulate the member for Kitchener—Conestoga. Not many private members' bills get to the stage where they are reported back to the House after making it through committee, so he has succeeded where many have failed, and I congratulate him on that.

I gave a more in-depth analysis of the bill, Bill C-355, during second reading in the House, so I do not want to spend too much time on it. Essentially, I would remind people watching this debate that this bill seeks to prohibit the export, by air, from Canada, of live horses for the purpose of being slaughtered or being fattened for slaughter. That is a very important point to underline in this. Certainly, from what I have heard in the debate today, there is a bit of hyperbole, thinking that this is going to be the end of the entire horse industry in Canada, which is simply not true. We have to look at the bill and read the wording of it. It is a very specific surgical instrument, which looks at one specific type of practice for one type of animal.

I am proud to be a member of a party that, since 2010, has introduced three private members' bills on this subject. I want to reference former member of Parliament Alex Atamanenko, who used to represent the riding of British Columbia Southern Interior. He introduced Bill C-544 in the 40th Parliament, Bill C-571 in the 41st Parliament, as well as Bill C-322. This is an issue that first came to light in Parliament in 2021 in the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food's mandate letter. The mandate letter directed the minister to deliver on a commitment to ban the export of live horses for slaughter. That took shape in the legislative form through Bill C-355.

Like the member for Kitchener—Conestoga, I have been involved in this conversation in other ways. I got to sponsor e-petition 4190 in the House of Commons that received over 36,000 signatures. I know that on this particular issue, as the agriculture critic, I have received well over 34,000 individual emails on this subject, many directly from my riding. This is a topic that galvanizes a lot of people in Canada, and they take a very real interest in this subject. Many people are happy to see this bill come forward.

I will talk a little about the committee work. When we look at the committee work we did for a private member's bill, I would argue that we did a pretty thorough job. This one private member's bill involved five meetings, 23 briefs were submitted, and there were 31 witnesses. I would say, given the length of this bill, we did our job. We heard from a wide range of people. Did everyone agree with the bill? No. That is impossible to find in a democracy. We have to balance out the differing points of view and try to find a way forward.

I did find, though, that the witness testimony helped inform the committee to make Bill C-355 a better bill. We did our job, and based on witness testimony, we made some amendments to it. We could compare the version of the bill we are debating now in the House to the version that was introduced at first reading. Based on some testimony, we removed the onerous declaration requirements that were spelled out in great detail. We certainly heard from some stakeholders that it was far too onerous, so we deleted that offending section, and the reception was quite positive. The committee did its job and listened to the witnesses, who gave helpful advice on which amendments to pass. It did, in fact, do that.

I want to spend a bit of time talking about two particular witnesses.

Racetracks of Canada sent us a written brief in support of this bill on March 18. I just want to quote from that brief. It states:

We consider the practice of exporting horses by air for slaughter to be abhorrent, and our industry has long taken extensive measures to ensure that horses exiting their time in horse racing find caring and quality ownership in Canada.

That comes from an industry that deals in horses, loves horses and is very much involved in animal agriculture. I think that really blows out of the water the Conservative narrative that this bill is attacking animal agriculture, when in fact we have witnesses involved in the horse industry who absolutely support this bill.

On April 9, Barbara Cartwright, the CEO of Humane Canada, said the following:

There are always varying types of animal welfare science. We do see that at the National Farm Animal Care Council. However, when you look at the testimony that focuses on the experience of the animals and not on the experience of the farmer or the agriculture business, you will see very clearly that the experience of the animal, which is what should be considered here, is a lot of tension, anxiety, fear and pain, all the way up to death.

I would implore Parliament to look at the horse, not the farmer.

I was very encouraged to have people like Ms. Cartwright, among others, come before our committee to give us their view on this bill.

Another person I wanted to mention is Captain Tim Perry from the Air Line Pilots Association. I asked him about a typical flight from Winnipeg to Japan. Let us just underline the fact that Japan is the key market for live horses. They are used for a delicacy that is served in Japanese restaurants. For the travel of live horses from Winnipeg to Japan, there are some variances, but one flight can burn anywhere from 50,000 to 70,000 kilograms of jet fuel. This is just to export live horses. That is an incredible amount of fossil fuels to be burned to export live animals that are eventually going to be slaughtered.

I want to underline the fact that this bill is not going to prevent horses from being raised in Canada for meat; it is not. It is black and white, period. Horsemeat is found on grocery shelves throughout Quebec. It is eaten in Canada. It is on the menus of high-end restaurants across Canada as well. More than 25,000 horses are slaughtered in Canada for food each year, and those products are exported mainly to Japan, France and the United States.

Far from this bill being the end of animal agriculture, I implore people to look at the facts, read the bill and look at the statistics of the industry. This bill is not going to end animal agriculture. It is going to stop a very niche practice of exporting live horses, which are going off to be slaughtered.

This is an incredibly popular measure. A survey from April 2024, just last month, said 78% of Albertans are in support of this measure, and when it comes to indigenous communities, 71% are in support.

Given that the House of Commons is the natural democratic outlet of the will of the people, I am pleased to stand with the majority of Canadians to see this bill pass through the House of Commons and make its way to the Senate.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

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.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

I recognize the hon. member for Kitchener—Conestoga for his right of reply.

[Tim Louis, Liberal, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Madam Speaker, in closing, I want to thank my colleagues from all parties for getting together. I sit on the agriculture committee as well. We did this in a thoughtful process. We heard from everyone concerned. We responded to concerns.

This bill is very specific in its nature in that it focuses on exporting horses only, not domestic products for horses. Canadians sent us here to represent them and to work together. I believe this is an example of working together across party lines.

Over seven out of 10 Canadians want this practice to end. That is what we are doing together. I appreciate it. I look forward to the bill moving through the House and into the Senate. I thank everyone for their co-operation. It is a proud day.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

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.

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would ask that the bill be carried on division.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed)