Thanks very much, Mr. Chair.
I want to take the opportunity to begin here by thanking my colleague for bringing this important piece of legislation forward.
We often live in and talk about the Ottawa bubble. That means there are issues here that sometimes consume a lot of our energy, our time and our focus, but are disassociated from the things that people on the ground really care about.
Our colleague, Mr. MacGregor, received over 36,000 signatures on a petition in support of the objective of this legislation. I'm told that in my constituency office, we are getting 30 emails about every minute right now, which puts us over 10,000 in the course of the last couple of days.
I know that my Conservative colleagues like to refer to this as pandering to activists. I do take some exception to the demonization of activists as somehow being flawed in their pursuit of better treatment of animals, but that aside, I don't understand how we can characterize the voices of tens of thousands of Canadians that have been expressed through the democratic process as simply being chalked up to some form of extreme activism.
The job of a member of Parliament is to reflect the views of their constituents back to folks that do business here in Ottawa. I respect the fact that Mr. Barlow and my Conservative colleagues are, I think, genuinely doing that—reflecting concerns raised by those they represent. I'm doing the same thing, as I believe Mr. Louis, Mr. MacGregor and others are.
When I campaigned during the by-election we held in Winnipeg South Centre in June of this past year, I heard about this issue more than any other that was raised by people at the door and in my office who wanted to see action on something that mattered to them. In part, that is because my riding is not too far from Richardson International Airport in Winnipeg where, as we know, a large number of these horses are sent for slaughter.
I do also have a couple of concerns or perhaps just curiosities about the rationale used by my Conservative colleagues in particular in opposition to this bill. I did hear my colleague, Mr. Barlow, talk about the fact that no rules were broken, so therefore, why bring forward legislation?
I'm not sure that the purpose of legislation is always to respond to a broken rule. Conservatives are bringing forward legislation as it pertains to a price on pollution. I'm not sure that's breaking any rule, but they brought forward legislation that they want to see bring changes to that.
I'm also not really hearing Mr. Louis or others talk a lot about broken rules as much as I'm talking about the core of this issue, which is that these are sentient beings under current regulations, even if rules are not being broken, that are not in line with the values we believe we should have as Canadians.
I also don't quite understand the point raised about death and always coming back to minimal numbers of death. Of course, assuming that the statistics are true—I've read them and I have no reason to believe that they're not—that's a minimal number of deaths. That's like saying, if somebody hits a dog but the dog doesn't die, we don't need to worry about it. If somebody abuses a child emotionally, but there's no physical or fatal consequences as a result of that abuse, it's not something that we should be talking about. The point I'm simply raising is that just because the horses aren't dying in transport does not justify that the provisions currently in place are good.
I know that my Conservatives colleagues, much like many of us, like to be rooted in evidence. The evidence certainly suggests, Mr. Louis, that this is a priority for many Canadians. I don't depreciate the significant concern that is coming from some folks that my colleagues represent. That does not mean that there aren't tens of thousands or millions of people across the country who feel differently. I think, sometimes, that's being left out of the conversation.
I do note that in a comment made by our colleague from Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa during debate on this not too long ago, he accused the Liberals of attempting “to score cheap political points” on the basis of this legislation.
With the 30 seconds I have left, Mr. Louis, can you tell us why you brought this bill forward and why you believe, if you do, that the feedback you and we have received from tens of thousands of Canadians is legitimate?
Thank you.