Agriculture Committee on April 9th, 2024

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

Okay, thank you for that.

You say there's no way to improve the standards. Other witnesses have told us the opposite. People have provided us with images of transportation conditions that don't really seem adequate and others that seem much more reasonable and appropriate. A lot depends on the sensitivity of the people seeing the images. We've been told that the transportation standards for sport horses and horses being sold elsewhere are higher than the minimum standards, so wouldn't raising the standards do the trick?

[Erin Martellani]

I think the standards are the same for everyone; it's just that the standards applied to sport horses are higher. Personally, I don't think it would be cost-effective to apply those same standards to horses transported for slaughter. We've heard that from other witnesses as well. A hundred or so horses are transported for slaughter at once. I don't think it would be feasible to take care of them as well as sport horses are taken care of.

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

Okay.

If I understand correctly, you consider the transportation of animals destined for a purpose other than slaughter, such as competition, to be mistreatment. Am I right or am I misunderstanding you?

People representing the industries targeted by Bill C‑355 came to tell us that they were afraid it would destroy their industry and prevent them from transporting their animals, which they say they take great care of.

[Erin Martellani]

It's well documented that companies that transport sport horses take great care of their animals. The situation is completely different for them, especially since those horses are used to being transported, as we've heard repeatedly.

I think it's very clear that the only horses covered by Bill C‑355 are those that are exported for slaughter. Horses exported for other reasons are not affected.

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

Okay.

So you think it's impossible to treat animals intended for slaughter with the same care as sport animals. Is that correct?

[Erin Martellani]

I don't think it would be feasible or cost-effective.

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

Thank you very much.

What do you think of the amendments that Captain Perry proposed earlier in this meeting, such as reducing the responsibilities that Bill C‑355 imposes on airline pilots? He's concerned that the administrative burden and paperwork will increase, as will the severe fines that would be imposed directly on pilots.

If we were to find a way to amend the bill, would you see it as watered down?

[Erin Martellani]

No, that wouldn't water the bill down at all, and we would support those amendments. We believe the objective would be the same.

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

Okay, thank you very much.

Ms. Cartwright, I would like to use my final minute to ask you for a few comments on the same subject. Do you think it would be a viable option to make the care provided during the transportation of animals for slaughter equivalent to that provided to animals transported for other purposes?

[Barbara Cartwright]

Certainly, we could. However, the question is whether the industry would continue. Because of the high cost, it would not be a profitable industry anymore. It would be impossible to continue the industry.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

Mr. MacGregor, it's over to you.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Anderson, from Farm Credit Canada, I'd like to direct my first question to you.

You are in charge of credit risk management, and you did outline to this committee the millions of dollars held in loans by various equine producers and that it's a very wide spectrum.

I fully understand that Farm Credit Canada is not responsible for the development of policy, but I do believe that your office has to look at trends and hints of policy that might be changed. When the ministerial mandate letter came out—and it's now three years old—there was a specific line item from the Prime Minister to the former minister of agriculture that said, “Ban the live export of horses for slaughter.”

I'd like to know, from your perspective and that of your department within Farm Credit Canada, how your department reacted to that instruction from the Prime Minister. Did that do anything in terms of how you assessed credit risk for producers that were breeding horses for the sole purpose of exporting them to another country for slaughter?

[Don Anderson]

The position that FCC takes is that until the law has changed and we have a clear path forward with regard to what the customers are experiencing, we work with the status quo. We are cognizant of potential changes that are on the horizon, but at this point in time, until those changes happen, we work with the customers as they execute their business plans and move forward.

That's the best we can do in this situation.

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

Would you have made mention of it to your customers as a caution? Would that have been appropriate for your agency to do?

[Don Anderson]

The customers in question are well versed about their situation, so FCC does not feel that it is our position to provide that counsel to these customers.

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

Thank you for clarifying that.

Ms. Cartwright, thank you for appearing before our committee to help guide us through this.

In my time as a member of Parliament, I've come to understand the role as a bit of a mix of being a trustee and a delegate. We are, of course, the direct democratic conduit of our constituents, but I think there's an understanding and expectation that in some of the day-to-day stuff, there's a lot of trust placed on our shoulders to try to make those decisions on our constituents' behalf, and we of course are held accountable for that.

From our perspective as members of this committee and members of the House of Commons, with respect to this bill in particular, we have been subjected to a wide variety of conflicting opinions from experts on both sides of this issue. It has been mentioned that in Canadians' opinions, roughly seven out of 10 Canadians find that they support this initiative.

In light of those facts, what would your message be to parliamentarians when we're trying to consider all of these big factors? Do you have a message that you would like summarize in that respect?

[Barbara Cartwright]

Yes.

As I said in my opening statement, more than 800 million animals are slaughtered every year here in Canada. We're talking about 2,500 horses that are sent—again, in an unnatural system—overseas to be slaughtered. To me, it's a clear decision, and one that I hope Parliament will make. It isn't a slippery slope.

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.

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

As a segue from that, you mentioned the “five freedoms”. If our air transport for these horses truly respected those five freedoms, would this still be a viable industry?

[Barbara Cartwright]

No, it would not.

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

Okay. Thank you for that.

I will leave it at that, Mr. Chair. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

You're a good man. You're keeping us moving quickly.

We're going to Mr. Barlow for up to five minutes.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

I'm going to use my time to put forward a motion.

All of us on this committee have received a number of letters over the last week or so. They were from the Ontario Minister of Agriculture; the Agriculture Alliance; the Vegetable Growers of Canada; Mushrooms Canada; the Western Stock Growers' Association; the Grain Farmers of Ontario, which represents 28,000 farm families; the Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities and the Wheat Growers Association. These letters are asking for a couple of specific things on the impact the carbon tax is having on Canadian agriculture with the hike of 23% on April 1.

That said, I'm going to ask the committee on this motion. It is:

Given that:

a) The committee received numerous letters from agricultural stakeholders regarding their opposition to the carbon tax hike on April 1, including from the Ontario Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, and the Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities;

b) Seven Provincial Premiers and 70% of Canadians opposed the government's 23% increase in the carbon tax hike on April 1;

c) The Premiers of Alberta, Saskatchewan, Ontario, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick have issued public letters calling on the government to provide a carbon tax carve-out for farmers and pass Bill C-234 in its original form;

d) The carbon tax currently costs greenhouse operators in Canada $22 million a year and will pay between $82 million and $100 million by 2030 when the carbon tax quadruples;

e) 44% of fresh fruit and vegetable growers are already selling at a loss and 77% can't offset production cost increase;

f) The carbon tax increase this year will cost mushroom farms $7.4 million, and by 2030 it'll be more than $16 million;

g) A sample of 50 farm operations across Canada paid a total of $329,644 in carbon taxes in one month last year, with the increase this year it'll cost those same farms $431,544 and nearly triple over the next seven years to $893,944;

h) The Parliamentary Budget Officer has stated the carbon tax will cost farmers nearly $1 billion by 2030;

i) The 2030 Food Price Report estimates the carbon tax will cost a typical 5,000-acre farm $153,000 by 2030; and

j) The Food Professor recommends pausing the carbon tax for the entire food supply chain,

I ask for unanimous consent for the committee to report the letters it received from agriculture stakeholders, the Ontario Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, and the Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities regarding the 23% increase on the carbon tax on April 1, to the House for its consideration in debate on Bill C-234

Chair, these letters we have here represent tens of thousands of farmers who are asking for their voices to be heard.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

One thing I'll note, Mr. Barlow, is that I did receive letters as well, because of course people reach out to me as the chair, not knowing necessarily how procedure works in terms of having all members on board. I know I'm working on getting responses back to some of the stakeholders who have written to explain to them that we do have a study coming down the line.

I take notice that this is not what you're moving right now. It's just to explain to them that they would be welcome witnesses before this committee on a study that we've already adopted. To those stakeholders who might be listening, those letters are coming.

Colleagues, the way in which this works is that Mr. Barlow has moved this particular motion without notice, requesting UC to not only table the letters in the House but also on whether or not you want to actually debate the merits of the motion. If you want to debate this motion now, we can, or we can hold the debate on the motion and make a decision on whether or not to ultimately support what Mr. Barlow is saying at a later time, given that we have witnesses before us.

I see Mr. MacGregor's hand.

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

Thanks, Chair.

I would like to reserve the right to put some amendments into the preamble. My position and the position of the NDP is quite clear, and I want to make sure that it's on the record that we do support Bill C-234 in its original form. We will be voting to reject the Senate amendment, so I want to make sure, for everyone who's listening, that this is very clear.

I also want to put into the record that I think there's a real disservice in this whole debate, because while my Conservative colleagues focus all of their attention on what amounted to an increase of three cents per litre in my region, they were completely silent when the cost of fuel in my region jumped by 30¢ a litre from February to March.

I would like to reserve the right to make some reference to the ridiculous profiteering that is going on in the oil and gas sector. We can always see their publicly reported figures, but for us to completely ignore the role that corporate profits in oil and gas in particular are having on our farm sector is really missing the entire point.

I think my position on Bill C-234 is quite clear, but I would like to reserve the right to amend some of the preamble. I'll just leave it at that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

What I'm hearing, Mr. Barlow, is not an outright rejection of what you're moving, but we have witnesses here on a particular study. Mr. MacGregor has said he would like to be able to take up this conversation moving forward.

We're not rejecting the idea of what you're putting forward, but Mr. MacGregor wants the opportunity to potentially move amendments. You didn't provide notice to this committee about moving this motion today—as you know, because you're a seasoned member of this committee. We will make sure that we give proper time for MPs to consider this motion and we can come back to it at a later date.

Thank you, colleagues. We're going to continue.

That is your time, Mr. Barlow.

I'm going to move to Mr. Carr for up to five minutes.