Debates of Dec. 14th, 2023

Canada Labour Code

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, to pick up on the member's last words with regard to our not being there yet, she is right in her assessment. We do not know the position that the Conservative Party is going to take; if its members end up voting against the legislation, I trust that they will do whatever they can in order to filibuster the debate, so it does not become a law.

I appreciated the member's comments about scab labour. It causes a great deal of harm having scabs cross the line, not only in the workforce, in the areas in which they are working, but also outside the workforce in our communities. Could she just expand on her thoughts on that?

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Madam Speaker, the fact that the official opposition's position is unknown could slow the work down, but I clearly read that the Leader of the Opposition said they were pro-worker. It is not that much of a stretch. Someone who is pro-worker should be in favour of this bill.

What does a strong, fair anti-scab bill accomplish? First, it reduces the length of disputes, that is for sure. I gave some examples of that earlier. It also makes workplaces safer. We have seen confrontations break out when scabs are brought in. Finally, it significantly reduces picket line conflicts.

I would go so far as to say that an anti-scab bill improves labour relations, especially during a strike.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to congratulate and thank my colleague, the member for Repentigny, for her speech. It was an excellent speech that I would be prepared to endorse any time. I agree with absolutely everything. Bravo.

I am also very proud that we were able to force the Liberal government to finally put an anti-scab bill on the legislative agenda. We have waited far too long. It is true that this will resolve the inequity in Quebec, as well as in British Columbia, by protecting workers in federally regulated sectors.

I have been visiting strikers and locked-out workers who are currently out there, whether at the Port of Québec or at Videotron's western sector. They agree that we should move forward, even though they would have liked to benefit from this. They know that it is important for the future and for those who will come after them, which is very moving.

I agree with my colleague that the 18-month delay is very worrisome. We in the NDP are also concerned about this. I would simply like to know if my colleague is prepared to work together in committee to change this delay in implementation, because 18 months is also far too long in our view.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question. My colleague is also my MP in Montreal.

In 2005, we were just 12 votes short. It was not Bloc Québécois votes that were missing, we can be sure of that. Obviously the Bloc Québécois is going to make every effort to ensure this bill is adopted.

The 18-month delay worries us. We do not understand it. I have already asked the government about it and I was told we could change this in committee. That being said, it is their bill. What prompted them to include an 18-month delay? That has never been done.

Usually, a bill receives royal assent and then it comes into force. There is no doubt that my colleague and I will work on fixing this.

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Madam Speaker, I get the feeling that we are wasting our breath right now on the issue of the 18 months. If the 18‑month delay is real, if it is effective, even if the election takes place as planned toward the end of 2025, we are wasting our breath. We will never get there.

Is this some sort of massive sham?

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Madam Speaker, I must admit that we are wondering about that. Are we doing all of this for nothing? Will there not even be a bill in the end?

Here is why we are wondering about that. The much-talked-about agreement between the NDP and the Liberals states that the government is committed to introducing a bill. The agreement does not state that the government agrees to pass that bill. We are concerned about that. My colleague used the word “sham”, and we are wondering if that is what this is.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to start by wishing everyone a merry Christmas on these final strokes of the parliamentary calendar for this year.

I want to talk a little bit about the context of Bill C-58. I believe there is 100% agreement among all members, and probably among all Canadians, that we need more great-paying union jobs in this country. I want to talk about how we get there, how we make sure that there are more great-paying union jobs here in Canada.

The challenge right now is that, as a nation, we have a productivity crisis in our country, and productivity is what powers our economy. Let us imagine the economy of the country as a business itself. If, in fact, the business is producing things efficiently and effectively, then guess what? If there is a strong union in place, good wages should follow, and that is exactly what we want for the nation. Unfortunately, the factory that is our economy is not keeping up with other OECD countries.

Let us unpack productivity. What does “productivity” mean? In layman's terms it basically means how efficiently and effectively we are delivering goods and services. How efficiently and effectively is our economy running? The answer is that it is not great, unfortunately, because of a number of standards. Productivity in itself is basically a three-legged stool. One leg is technology; another is capital investment, and the other is workers. I will go through those legs one by one to make sure we understand what the challenges are and why, unfortunately, the government is just not meeting the challenges.

I will start with technology. It makes sense, and it has been true since the Roman Empire and even before it, that a society or an economy that has leading technology will have the ability to bring prosperity, or prosperity relative to the rest of the world, to its shores. Unfortunately, in Canada, we have a government that is stifling technology and innovation. For multiple years, going on almost a decade, in fact, we have been calling on the government for open banking legislation that was supposed to be here a year ago, and a year before that. Finally, in the fall economic statement, we got a promise for another promise to have open banking legislation. It was supposed to be here years and years ago. In the U.K., open banking has saved customers, depending on which academic or economist one approves of, between $1 billion and $10 billion. That is money we are leaving on the table every year because the government cannot get out of its own way.

We can look at legislation with respect to innovation. Around the world, there is a lot of innovation about how we nurture the small or medium-sized technology companies and make them into the behemoths that they are. Unfortunately, in Canada, we are struggling with that. We have innovations like a patent box, which is available to the government as a tool. We have special regulatory and tax breaks that we can give companies, not just to move factories onto our shores by giving multinationals billions and billions of dollars, but also by creating businesses here at home, and we are failing there when it comes to the technology aspect.

Another element of the technology world where we are letting people down is real-time rail. Most, if not all, G7 countries have real-time rail. People at home might ask me what the heck real-time rail is. Real-time rail is just having money travel instantly. A person may say that when they do an electronic funds transfer to their friend to pay half of the dinner bill, it seems to go immediately. However, in reality, while it seems to go immediately, what actually happens is that the financial institutions are fronting the money, and then the money comes back.

Our current money transfer payment system is really held together by duct tape and a dream. It will break down, mark my words, at some point if we do not have some legislative innovation to allow a real-time rail system, which most of the other G7 and OECD countries have. That is an issue because the flows of capital and the flows of transfer are incredibly important to an innovation economy.

We have some great start-ups and great fintechs across this country, but the government seems to be doing everything it can to stifle their development. There are tremendous opportunities. By the way, these are not partisan issues. It was, I believe, both in the Liberal policy items and in the Conservative policy items in the last election to have open banking, but we just need to deliver. That is the problem. Many times, my issue with the government is not so much ideology; it is just competency. These are things every other country seems to get done but that this country cannot.

Second, the other leg I talked about was capital investment. This is the money that powers the technology that powers the worker. We have decisions to make as a society as to how much money we put into the public sector, which is incredibly important, and how much money we put into the private sector, which I would argue is just as important, if not more so. The private sector is that economy; it is what is driving the money flow. If we do not have a vibrant private sector generating revenue and income for the rest of our economy, that means we will not have a vibrant public sector, because the taxes come from the private sector. They come from the small business owner who is working 20 hours out of a 24-hour day.

However, our current regulatory regime, as well as our taxation regime, is not fair to these individuals. In fact, even the government's approach to business is stifling growth. It is preventing winning from happening. I say this not for partisan reasons per se, but it does sort of illuminate where the government stands with respect to business. When it called small business owners tax cheats, that not only affects the bottom line; it also affects the way people think about business. It shows the way the government thinks about business, when in reality, without strong businesses, without entrepreneurs and without doers in our society, we will not have the revenue we need to fund our very important public sector programs.

The final leg I am going to talk about today is with respect to workers. Our workers are, I think, and in fact I know, the best in the world. We have so many intelligent, hard-working women and men across this great country who go to work every day, but what has happened to them over the last eight years is just not fair. I do not know how else to put it. Let us start by discussing what the government is doing directly, and then we can talk about what it is doing indirectly, to our workers. There is something called the marginal effective tax rate, which is how much one pays to the government for the next dollar. That involves both taxation and clawbacks. It is shocking to me that there are Canadians earning less than $50,000 who, on their next dollar earned, will be giving upwards of 70¢, 80¢ or even 90¢ back to a government. Can one imagine?

For those of us who have children, imagine saying to them that they are going to be given an allowance. They are to shovel the snow, which is no doubt coming, or rake the leaves, or whatever, and they will be given $10 an hour to do it. However, by the way, $9 an hour is going to be taken back. It is unbelievable the impact that taking away from workers would have.

In sum, we need to improve the productivity of our country through reductions in red tape and reductions in taxation so we can have the productivity we need to make sure there are great high-paying union jobs across this country.

[Terry Beech, Liberal, Minister of Citizens’ Services]

Madam Speaker, in the spirit of the holidays, I want to take this opportunity to wish everyone happy holidays and a merry Christmas, and to say that, upon reflection, I think it is important for all of us to realize that no matter what party we belong to in the House, we all represent Canadians and, at the end of the day, all play for the same team. I recently had a chance to meet the member opposite's son, who happens to share a birthday with my daughter. I know that the member wants to build a great country for my daughter, just as I want to build a great country for his son, which is something I think all members of the House can come together on.

We agree with a lot of the things and ideas he talked about. I, too, am excited by open banking. I am also excited by patent boxes. In fact, that is something I have worked on for some time. I often think there is a wonderful opportunity for the opposition in the House, not just to oppose but also to propose. I think good ideas can come from all sides of the House, so I congratulate the member opposite for a year of hard work and his relatively non-partisan speech. I will end my comments by agreeing with him on the last part of his statement, when he said, “Our workers...are the best in the world.”

Merry Christmas to everyone.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Madam Speaker, we agree unanimously with respect to our workers' being the best in the world, but the rest of it may be on division.

I thank the member for his kind words. I did very much enjoy working with him on the finance committee.

What I would say is that I believe that everyone here wants the best for Canada and Canadians. The difference, though, between every other party in the House and Conservatives is that they define “compassion” as how many people the government helps, whereas we define “compassion” as how many people the government does not have to help.

[Tracy Gray, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Madam Speaker, if I may, I would like to take this opportunity to wish a merry Christmas and a happy Hanukkah to all colleagues here and to the residents of my community of Kelowna—Lake Country.

The member talked a lot about the cost of living and people needing help. People's paycheques are not going as far as they used to. I wonder whether he can expand a bit on how inflation and rising interest rates are affecting families and on how it was really the decisions of the government that have caused these.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Madam Speaker, that was part of my speech; unfortunately, I did not make it there.

We have a double-edged sword, because Canadians are getting hit twice: once because of low-economic growth, the worst since the Great Depression, and Canadians' wages not increasing; and a second time because of the government's propensity to outspend any reasonable metric. We have inflation, which is driving up costs; therefore, Canadians are earning less and paying more, which is why the polls look like they do.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Madam Speaker, in the spirit of the holidays, I wonder whether my colleague from Northumberland—Peterborough South would grant me a few words about the topic of the bill, which is the use of replacement workers during strikes and lockouts.

I listened intently to what he shared with the House, and while he touched on many different topics, and I know he is a very intelligent person, he did not speak to the actual topic of the bill at hand, Bill C-58, which is about finally banning replacement workers during strikes and lockouts.

I missed the first 30 seconds or minute of his speech, so perhaps I missed it. If he could repeat it for me, I would much appreciate it.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Madam Speaker, I did actually outline the Conservative position on the bill in the first 30 seconds. I am sorry the member missed it.

What I will say is a microcosm of the way Conservatives see the world as opposed to NDP folks. I do have a ton of respect for the member, but that being said, in order to have strong union jobs, jobs that pay the bills, we need a strong economy, and that is what Conservatives are committed to bringing to Canada.

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

Before I give the floor to the hon. member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley, I would just like to wish everyone a very happy Christmas and a great start to 2024.

Thank you all for your support over the past few months.

The hon. member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is real and distinct honour to rise this evening and speak to Bill C-58, which would ban the use of replacement workers in strikes and lockouts. This is a bill that is the result of a lot of work over a lot of years by a lot of folks.

The other day, I had a chance to stand at the press conference here in the foyer when the tabling of this bill was announced. I listened to labour leaders speak about the long history behind this bill and how long workers in this country have been fighting to have their rights protected to ensure that when they make that difficult decision to go on strike, they are not going to be at risk of violence and their rights to collectively bargain are not going to be undermined by the use of replacement workers. This is an effort that has taken place over more than 100 years.

Certainly I am proud to rise as part of the NDP, a party whose roots are in labour and a party that has worked for more than 15 years to bring forward in this House, time and time and time again, bills that would do precisely what would be done by Bill C-58.

This is really a momentous occasion, and I want to take a moment to read into the record part of an email that I received from a constituent who reached out and wanted me to understand what this bill means for him in his workplace.

He wrote to me and said, “Hello again, Mr. Bachrach. ... I've been a union member for over 13 years while working at Telus. ... I've seen Telus attempt to get away with bullying and scare tactics in the workplace to reduce the numbers of our union members and their voice, then benefit from it at the bargaining table, negotiation after negotiation. This time around, we lost more again. I plead with you to assist in pushing the Anti-Scab legislation forward to prevent large corporations...from allowing scabs or replacement workers in to do our work during a dispute and undermining our negotiations.”

That really speaks to the significance of this bill for working people across this country. Nobody takes the decision to go on strike lightly. This is something that affects the families of working people. They need to know that when they make that difficult decision and they choose to exercise their constitutionally protected right to strike, their rights are going to be respected and their rights are not going to be able to be undermined and they are going to be able to fight for better working conditions and to do so in a way that results in a fair and equitable deal at the end of the day.

That brings my time to an end. It is far too little time to do justice to such an important issue. I just want to say how proud I am to stand in this House and support this bill. I do hope that our Conservative friends down the way will also see fit to support Bill C-58. What better message is there to send to the working people of this country than to vote unanimously for this bill to ban replacement workers?

I have a lot of respect for many of my colleagues down the way. I have listened intently to what they have said with respect to this bill, and I do believe—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I am sorry. Unfortunately, I do have to interrupt.

It being 5:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.

Message from the Senate

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I have the honour to inform the House that messages have been received from the Senate informing the House that the Senate has passed the following bills, to which the concurrence of the House is desired: Bill S-13, an act to amend the Interpretation Act and to make related amendments to other acts, and Bill S-14, an act to amend the Canada National Parks Act, the Canada National Marine Conservation Areas Act, the Rouge National Urban Park Act and the National Parks of Canada Fishing Regulations.

The House resumed from November 20 consideration of the motion that Bill C-355, An Act to prohibit the export by air of horses for slaughter and to make related amendments to certain Acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Prohibition of the Export of Horses by Air for Slaughter Act

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

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.

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

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.

[George Chahal, Liberal, Calgary Skyview, AB]

Madam Speaker, before I begin, I just want to acknowledge a staffer in my office who was a page last year, who diligently served here in the House and who is celebrating a birthday today. I wish Jacob Wilson a happy 20th birthday.

I am pleased to stand in support of my colleague's private member's bill, Bill C-355, the prohibition of the export of horses by air for slaughter act. During his speech in the first hour of debate, the member for Kitchener—Conestoga spoke admirably about the significance horses have had throughout Canadian history, including the important symbol they provide our Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the special relationships that so many Canadians have with horses.

Our Liberal government knows that Canadians are deeply concerned about the live export of horses for slaughter. In 2021, as a part of the Liberal Party platform, we pledged to move forward on improving protections for our animals and species around the world. This commitment was also listed in the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food's 2021 mandate letter. A part of this pledge includes banning the live export of horses for slaughter, and the member for Kitchener—Conestoga's bill delivers on this promise.

We know that there are different views on this issue, but I want to reassure this House that I have heard the concerns of Canadians. Almost 27,000 pieces of correspondence on this issue have been received by the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food.

The goal of Bill C-355, to ban the export of horses for slaughter, has been shared across party lines for many years, with many bills and petitions. The member of Parliament for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford also tabled a petition to ban this practice, which had over 36,000 signatures. It is abundantly clear that Canadians want to see this practice come to an end. Several countries, including the United States and the United Kingdom, have already banned it, and as many hon. colleagues noted back in November, it is time for Canada to join them.

I would like to remind members of the House that Bill C-355 proposes to create a new act that would prohibit the export of horses by air for slaughter. Horse exporters would be required to provide a written declaration that horses are not being exported for the purpose of slaughter or fattening for slaughter.

First, I will give a bit of background. Last year, some 2,600 horses were exported from Canada for slaughter. This number, which had reached a peak of 7,000 horses in 2014, has decreased significantly over the past decade. All horses exported for this purpose are transported by aircraft. Currently, all horses exported live for slaughter are for a niche market. It is providing draft or draft cross horses to foreign countries for further fattening prior to the horses being slaughtered for human consumption. This market requires the horses to be exported live, as the horse meat is consumed raw.

There were initial consultations with producers, including indigenous producers, as well as other players along the transportation and export supply chain. These consultations included producers, feedlot operators, exporters and freight forwarders to organized shipments. Horses bound for export may come from different types of farms. These range from small, multi-purpose producers that also breed horses for other primary uses to larger operations that specifically breed for this market.

Our government takes the issue of animal welfare very seriously. Canada is a leader in animal welfare, with a unique and robust system in place to ensure that animals are well cared for through all stages of production.

Our government has heard the views of concerned Canadians and remains committed to ban the export of live horses for slaughter. For this reason, I would like to thank the hon. member for Kitchener—Conestoga for bringing forward a bill that would not amend the Health of Animals Act, but rather positions this as a stand-alone act that would address a concern of so many Canadians.

Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency have been engaging with a variety of stakeholders, including animal rights advocacy groups, provincial governments, industry representatives and indigenous organizations. These engagements were pursued to better understand the points of view of various stakeholders and the potential impacts of a prohibition on the live export of horses for slaughter.

Our government continues to perform its due diligence to minimize potential unintended consequences related to any changes in policies or laws. I appreciate that the member for Kitchener—Conestoga took into consideration, when drafting Bill C-355, that horses transported for other reasons like sporting events would not be impacted by this bill.

We value the perspectives of all stakeholders. I appreciate that the member Kitchener—Conestoga committed to continuing his collaborative approach as the parliamentary process plays out. I know our government also remains committed to working collectively with all relevant stakeholders to advance the work under way to meet our platform and mandate letter commitment.

This includes, but is not limited to, engagement with animal rights advocacy groups, provincial governments, industry representatives, indigenous business owners and organizations, and Canadians to obtain information and their points of view regarding this important issue.

To summarize, our government is committed to addressing the concerns expressed by Canadians. We remain committed to working and engaging with key stakeholders, provincial and territorial partners, indigenous communities and animal rights advocacy groups to better understand the potential impacts of a ban.

Once again, I thank the hon. member for Kitchener—Conestoga for bringing this important bill before this House.

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

Madam Speaker, I begin this debate a little heavy-hearted, because this is an issue that is near and dear to me and I just want to reiterate what I just heard.

I just heard the member of Parliament for Calgary Skyview advocate against jobs in his own riding in the Calgary airport, jobs of shipping horses. This is from a bill from the member for Kitchener—Conestoga.

Apparently this is the pressing issue in Kitchener—Conestoga. It is not affordability. It is not any other issue, like day care, crime or violence in our communities and streets or people using food banks; the most pressing issue in Kitchener—Conestoga apparently is what some Métis people in Alberta are doing, and a few farmers in Manitoba, Alberta and Quebec are doing, when it comes to horses.

It is a niche market, as I will freely admit, and my constituents admit that, but it is an important issue. I am referring, obviously, to this notion of somehow singling out horses for export from our agricultural community. In essence, the government and its acolytes in the Senate have launched a two-pronged attack. The first bill here is Bill C-355, which we are debating today, and the second is Bill S-270. Both of these bills would prohibit the export of live horses from Canada for the purpose of slaughter. The primary difference is that Bill C-355 would only restrict that export by air, while the Senate bill would do so more generally and broadly.

Since this issue is not often discussed in the public domain, other than in misinformation campaigns, I would like to begin my speech today with a few statistics and some key information about this valuable industry.

There were only 347 exporting breeders in Canada, and they exported a total of 2,600 animals for slaughter in the last year, 2022. For the education of my colleague for Calgary Skyview who just spoke and said that we used to export 7,000, that was because we used to have PMU barns and we used to produce a lot more horses because of that pregnant mare urine, which is a biotic used for the creation of birth control. As that was phased out in favour of therapeutics, the number of horses has gone down.

However, we still need a market for these animals, but that member would not know that. I do not think there are a whole lot of horse breeders or horse raisers in Calgary Skyview, which is fine. I always find a lot of humour in listening to my Liberal colleagues from urban areas talk about how much they clearly do not know about agriculture. That number is complemented by another 10,840 live horses that are also exported, but not for the purpose of slaughter. Basically, a five-to-one ratio of horses that are actually exported are not for slaughter, but who is going to know what the motives are of the buyer of that particular horse when it is purchased in Canada and shipped on an airplane?

While the distribution of this industry, as I said, is spread across the country, the greatest number of these animals comes from my province of Alberta, as well as Ontario and Manitoba. It should be noted that 25% of these horses come from indigenous herds. I remember when this government used to say that there is no relationship more important to it than the relationship with first nations people; a quarter of this industry is actually providing income and stability to the economic viability of first nations, primarily the Métis in Alberta.

Canada consumes 1,000 to 1,200 tonnes of horsemeat every year. This is mainly in la belle province of Quebec. As well, over a billion people—16%, so almost two in 10 people on this planet—consume horsemeat, so almost 20% of human beings on the planet consume horses. That is an astounding number, but apparently it is not good enough for those who do not know the industry, do not know anything about agriculture and never represented anybody in agriculture, and they are just going to shut down this industry.

It is also very healthy meat, with 20% more protein than beef, 25% less fat, 20% less sodium and double the iron of a beef sirloin, so I do not know why my colleagues across the way are protesting so much.

Now that we have a picture of what this industry looks like in this country, I would like to stay with what the Liberals propose to do with Bill C-355, and it is nothing short of shameful. The bill would require an unreasonable regulatory process to be undertaken prior to any flight being allowed to depart with a horse on board. This includes a signed declaration, to be approved by the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, that the horses are not being exported for slaughter.

Can members imagine? The pilots have about five minutes when the plane pushes back from the gate when the pilots have the authority to get their documentation, get everything signed, push back and take off.

Now, we would have to have an approved letter from the Minister of Agriculture just before push-back. I am sure that would be an interesting bureaucratic hoop to jump through. This declaration must then be in the hands of the pilots of that aircraft and the chief customs officer of the airport. If it is contravened, the consequences of this act would be devastating. On the higher end, fines of up to a quarter of a million dollars, imprisonment for a term of not more than two years or both may result.

One gets less for violating a gun prohibition order in this country. This is the way the folks across the aisle think about these particular issues. There is nothing more damaging to Canada, apparently, than a farmer.

This is not speculation. The Air Line Pilots Association, International, for Canada has expressed concerns. It represents 95% of the unionized pilot workforce employed at 21 airlines.

The result of this bill would be to essentially restrict the air transportation of all horses in and out of Canada for all purposes. Not only would this bill impose an unfair burden of proof on the pilots and exporters, who cannot always be assured of what the end use is of the horse that is on board, but it would also dissuade them from even taking any live horses as cargo because of the overly punitive fines.

As previously mentioned, Canada exports 10,840 live horses for purposes other than slaughter. This bill would inadvertently hurt those producers as well, as it would make it harder for them to find air shippers that are willing to take their cargo.

For example, this may cause delays for those who need to fly horses engaged in Olympic or other equestrian competitions, as well as horses that are simply sold for their genetics and used in breeding programs elsewhere in the world.

These delays could jeopardize their opportunity to compete and represent their country internationally. We would lose things such as the Spruce Meadows and show jumping. We would have all kinds of problems, even applying for an Olympic bid in this country, because somebody would bring their horse here and would like to take it home with them. “Not a chance in Canada,” say the Liberals.

I must say that this bill is not just about the export of horses. It is part of a larger issue, which is the general assault on the Canadian farmer, who is already burdened by costly carbon taxes and excessive regulations.

We saw this disregard for farmers again recently, when the Liberal-controlled independent senators blocked Bill C-234's passage through the Senate. Finally, when they did pass it, they amended it to gut the bill of its impact. Instead of healing the urban-rural divide, the government is still stoking division.

This debate is personal for me. The horse export industry is prominent in my riding of Red Deer—Lacombe. A testament to this importance can be found in some of the feedback I have received from constituents and stakeholders. As one can imagine, in mixed and rural ridings such as mine, the impact of such legislation can be of outsized importance. This includes a member of an Alberta Métis group.

As part of a larger statement to us, they have stated, “There has been no consultation with indigenous producers and people on the plan to ban the export of live horses. The Canadian government has a history of stepping on indigenous farmers.”

There is a duty to consult in the Constitution, and they have not done that with this bill. I would also like to point out that the rationale for banning the bill, based on the so-called premise of animal welfare, is all based on misinformation and untruths.

This is especially the case when it comes to claims of mistreatment and abuse of these animals during their transportation. I can tell members that I grew up on a farm. On the farm, our animals are the most important thing we have. They are part of our business. We have to treat them well and with respect, because our business and livelihood both depend on the health and viability of these animals.

Since 2013, over 41,000 horses have been exported. The mortality rate at all stages of transport, not just on the airplane, is 0.012%. Basically, this is statistically insignificant. I want to highlight that no deaths as a result of the transportation of these animals have occurred since 2014.

We have veterinary oversight. We have very stringent transportation rules for animals. This is a clear campaign by misinformed individuals who simply want to make an emotional argument to try to shut down an industry that they disagree with ideologically.

This is absolutely frustrating, not only for my constituents but also for all farmers. It is a slippery slope. I urge all my colleagues in the House to vote against this bill.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member for Kitchener—Conestoga for his right of reply.

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

Madam Speaker, we are here today to discuss an issue that is important to me and to many Canadians, my private member's bill, Bill C-355, which seeks to ban the export of live horses for slaughter.

I tabled this private member's bill in September and I continue hearing from and consulting with stakeholders and receiving calls and emails as recently as today. I commit to continue this dialogue and I am open to hearing people's concerns and ideas. If this bill passes second reading, it now looks like the vote will be at the end of January. I look forward to this bill going to the agriculture committee and continuing this conversation. I am especially proud of the fact that I sit on the agriculture committee.

I thank everyone who spoke today and everyone who has reached out to me and all members of Parliament across Canada to share their opinions about this practice. I want them to know their voices are being heard.

The most important thing to me, the goal that I commit to work toward, is that we join other countries in the world and ban the export of live horses for slaughter. I welcome the opportunity to work together across party lines and advance this important legislation.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Is the House ready for the question?