Proposition 51K2411

Projet de loi relatif à l'interdiction de la production commerciale et du commerce des fourrures de chiens et de chats et les produits dérivés.

General information ¶

Submitted by

PS | SP MR Open Vld Vooruit Purple Ⅰ

Submission date

April 10, 2006

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

protection of animals animal skin domestic animal import animal welfare

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

CD&V Vooruit Ecolo LE PS | SP Open Vld N-VA MR FN

Contact form ¶

Do you have a question or request regarding this proposition? Select the most appropriate option for your request and I will get back to you shortly.

Discussion ¶

Nov. 16, 2006 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Following my report, I will also speak on behalf of my group.

Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, your committee examined this draft very carefully during its meetings of 11 and 24 October 2006. The bill aims to introduce a national ban on the commercial production and trade of dog and cat skins and derived products.

This initiative constitutes a strong position taken by Belgium with regard to the abominable practices exercised on these animals in certain countries – notably Asian – which, under cover of false indications or even without indication of species, sell the skin in question in European countries, in this case Belgium.

This project thus responds to the expectations of various organizations aiming at the protection of said animals, but also supplements a lack of European regulation in this area.

It is aimed at the prohibition of production and marketing, which does not preclude the “non-marketed” embellishment by individuals of the skin of their deceased animal, nor the useful practices carried out in the framework of professional research.

The proposal was submitted to the WTO, which did not object.

Following some clarifications made by the Minister at the request of some commissioners, the entire bill was adopted unanimously.

The draft law attached and submitted by Mr. Monfils thus becomes without object.

I would like to speak for the Socialist Party. In fact, our group welcomes the unanimous adoption of this project in the Economy Committee. It became urgent to legislate on this subject. The national ban on commercial production and trade is a good step forward, although it is known that this initiative will not be sufficient to eradicate the cruel practices practiced against animals in Asian countries.

For our group, this project remains important because it sends a strong signal to the population regarding the treatment of domestic animals. We can still go beyond. Bills are currently pending, in particular regarding the prohibition of the production of fox skins and derived products.

A bill filed by our group prohibiting in Belgium the introduction, import and marketing of raw or processed skins of animals whose main purpose is the commercial exploitation of their fur, is also pending and shows the sensitivity of our group to the problem of animal welfare in general.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to give a brief explanation from my bank, because I would like to make a few comments.

First, I also cited in the committee that the design has a symbolic value for us above all. Therefore, I would like to nuance the high urgency that the reporter invokes. The problem was solved a quarter of a century ago. There is also an industry commitment, which was confirmed in 2002. In addition, there is a European initiative, which is almost completed.

However, Mr. Minister, after reading the draft, as it is on the table, I would like to point out here and now again the sluggish work in the field of legistics, which is apparently a trademark. It is then about incorrect terminology, namely the difference between skins and leaves in the memory at Article 3.

We had insisted that in that article the term “flakes” would be used for the leather skin and the fur together for mammals weighing less than 15 kg. After all, this is the correct terminology for “leaves”. We would have liked to see this changed.

I think my next comment has already been answered, but I may receive confirmation immediately.

We had also requested that no discrimination be explicitly introduced and thus not only fur products, but also leather products. In particular, we are talking about the so-called kits for the shoe and gloves industry. For this, apparently, a number of “products” of dogs and cats were also used. We therefore requested that the aforementioned products also be included on the list of prohibited products. We assume that the aforementioned products are the derivative products that were mentioned.

Mr. Speaker, these two nuances should ⁇ be applied to the draft, which we will, of course, substantially support.

Dear colleagues, you will leave me the pleasure of welcoming Ms. Corinne Touzet who is the marraine of the French and international Association for the Protection of Animals and who went this morning to the minister, which will have arranged favorably, after seeing the chairman of the House at lunch with Prince Laurent. Thank you, Madame, for your dedication to this cause. We congratulate you. (The applause)

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, colleagues, every year in Asia 2 million dogs and cats are horribly killed for their fur. They are caught on the street or raised in miserable conditions. They are often killed alive. Their fur is exported all over the world, unfortunately also to our country. Just a good month ago, the French animal rights organization Afipa of which we welcome a very well-known representative in the hemisphere and an ambassador, in Brussels, fur jackets of dog fur were sold under the title Korean wolf. A DNA test under door guard supervision irrevocably showed that it was dog fur.

For more than three years, various organizations have been advocating for a trade ban on dog and cat butter in Europe in general and in Belgium in particular. Often consumers are simply not aware of the fact that the fur they buy actually comes from dogs or cats, animals that are seen as companion animals. Consumer information is absolutely necessary. Animal rights organizations play an important role here. The legislator too.

Therefore, sp.a-spirit welcomes the current trade ban, as it is promoted in the present draft law. The legislator must ensure that this prohibition is also complied with. The law provides for sanctions. Both the police and the inspectorate can act on their own initiative but also at the request of third parties, an important element for the animal welfare organizations and warn consumers to stay alert and signal washing to the police and inspection.

For us, however, this is only the first step in the fight against fur. Sp.a doesn’t like ladies with a fur coat. For us, the ban on dogs and cats is a first step in a global ban. The next step that we look forward to with great excitement is the trade ban on seagull butter, long promised to us by the minister concerned. We share a lot of suffering for Europe and the World Trade Organization. Canada is busy lobbying to do something about this. It is ⁇ important that Belgium also takes the lead in this area. I myself have witnessed the horrible sea horse slaughter in Canada. I can assure you this really can not. I think many colleagues agree with me on this.

Moreover, in general, we find it unethical to raise animals only for the fur, hence our bill that is being considered today. That bill aims to establish an extinguishing policy for nertheasery farms. Nertsen are wild animals. They do not belong to home in small cages, locked in two or three. These are animals that in reality need countless square kilometers to live in. They do not belong home in such cages.

In addition, it is true that wearing fur is no longer of this time. We have long passed the medieval conditions. There is enough fake bone on the market, which cannot be distinguished from actual fur and which, by the way, can provide a lot of extra work. Our country can take the lead in this.

Finally, colleagues, finally, it is important that people who have a role of example in society also stand up for fake bone. I would like to once again pay tribute to the French-speaking actress who is present here and puts her fame in the fight against fur.

I can only regret, from our own royal house, that the magnificent princess Mathilde yesterday on King's Day wore a fox bone collar on her otherwise excellent outfit. It is better to leave them at home in the future.

Mrs. De Meyer, you make it pretty fur.

Mr. Speaker, first of all, know that I was not running the guilledou, but that I was working on another meeting.

Mr. Monfils, I never doubted the fact that members who are not present here were working elsewhere.

Thank you for this, Mr. President.

Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, first of all, I would like to congratulate Ms. Ghenne for her report on this bill which is finally being examined by our assembly. In fact, this problem has been posed for a long time and for a long time there was no solution to it.

Let me remind you very modestly, Mr. Minister, that in May 2002, I had already submitted, in the Senate, a bill aimed at prohibiting the marketing of dog and cat skins, a proposal that I re-submitted to the House in 2003. Unfortunately, a number of technical and even political problems have arisen. This includes the opinion of the State Council. But some believed, above all, that this was a technical regulation that could have a significant impact on trade with other Member States and that the project should be notified to the WTO. Some countries, such as China, had made significant objections in this regard. So the Minister had to ask questions, intervene with the European Commission. Finally, it was only on 23 February 2006 – you know, Mr. Minister – that the latter gave its green light. The bill was notified to the WTO in March and submitted to the House in April 2003.

Eventually, things have gone well and that is important. Indeed, although Belgium is the only country to prohibit the marketing of these skins, although some countries such as the United States, France, Italy, Australia, Greece, Denmark have already legislated in this sense, it is here the attitude we want to adopt in relation to a situation deemed unacceptable.

Of course, we know all the intolerable conditions in which certain animals, including dogs and cats, are held, raised, transported or slaughtered in some countries. Things had to start moving somewhere. This traffic, which allowed to find fur coats made of dog or cat skins, was therefore unacceptable in our country.

A recent FIPA survey showed that cat fur can be obtained in many countries, and even at home. A cat fur coat can be ordered tailor-made for 650 euros in some Eastern countries. Furthermore, as explained by the Belgian press on September 28, it is also possible to find this type of fur at home. It was necessary to legislate on this issue.

I will answer two objections. According to some, the cases recorded are few. In fact, people usually don’t rush to buy fur coats made from cat and dog skins. Dear colleagues, if we systematically measured the interest of a legislation by the number of cases it regulates, I assure you that for a number of sectors, especially at the criminal level, we would no longer legislate. The important question to be asked is whether it is appropriate or not to legislate to prohibit this type of trafficking that challenges domestic animals.

It would also be a cultural issue. Certainly, countries like China, Kenya and others do not have the attitude we have towards dogs. Sometimes it also serves as a food reserve.

There is no question, in the case that concerns us, of intervening at the level of the “cultural” attitude of certain States. We prohibit the export and sale of dog and cat fur in Belgium. What will happen at the international level, from the moment that this project is voted? This is a completely different question. Obviously, Mr. Minister, it might be desirable to make the necessary contacts with the Commissioner responsible for the European Commission to try to advance in this sector and that in any case, a widespread ban manifests to begin in our European countries, where this cultural barrier obviously does not exist, but that could be encountered internationally in some countries.

Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, this project, which finally comes into being, will undoubtedly prevent abuses and will delight not only our four-legged friends but all those who own such pets.

First, I would like to point out that the draft law could count on a broad social support. That we can bring this bill to a good end, I am very pleased. From here, I greet all those who have made this possible, first of all in Parliament.

I also greet all those who have defended the interests that are at stake here, including Ms. Corinne Touzet, whom I received this morning, as well as the French society that defends the rights of dogs and cats.

However, I do the same for Michel Vandenbosch and Pol Goossen, whom I was able to receive this morning and who have been advancers in this.

It is said that the problem has been solved. I heard this from the banks. I must tell you, Mr. Speaker, that I have nevertheless been able to establish that where it is said that it has been resolved for a quarter of a century, it is not more than just two months ago that there had to be drawn up a process-verbal by a court executor showing that there is still a real trade in dog and cat beet, which we want to combat precisely with this bill.

One makes a distinction – which will undoubtedly be etymological – between leaves and leaves – as it existed at the time also between boats and ships – but I can tell you that the inspiration for this draft law – and with it immediately the criticism of the blatant legislative work that would have been laid out on the subject – is a copy of what in France and Italy has already seen the light of day.

I find it good that, like France and Italy, Belgium has a law in this area. We are one of the founding fathers of the European Union, which enables us to launch this idea at the European level.

My last comment relates to the seagull. We followed the procedure scrupulously. The Canadians and the Norwegians were heard. I am now waiting for the decision to be taken by the World Trade Organization. It is indeed the intention of the government to bring this bill to a good end, as soon as it is excluded and shortened.

Mr Minister, I thank you.

I found that the committee had unanimously approved the text, which had been improved taking into account the comments of the State Council.

I would like to react to what the Minister said.

Mr. Minister, indeed, in every environment there will be a number of malafide practices and malafide persons. However, I do not think that you should thus generalize the matter and therefore still drive it to the top. I do not find it necessary.

By the way, you didn’t answer my question to fix the text and replace “the skins” with “the leaves”. You obviously don’t need that, you obviously don’t find it so important. I regret that, of course.

Which article are you talking about, Mr. Verhaegen?

I am referring to the explanation to Article 3. In the Explanatory Memorandum of Article 3, telkenmale means “skins” instead of “leaves”.

Mr. Verhaegen, the explanation is not part of our decision. I don’t want you to talk about this, but we vote on the bill. It is an introduction and an explanation. I ⁇ ’t be so formal about it.

The terminology should be used correctly. If necessary, it must be inscribed in a law – if it comes – which must ⁇ be taken into account with the fact that this could possibly be sheets. I have been very clear about it. I also gave it enough time to find out. The terminology remains. If you find that this is not necessary, then we are making another foolish law. That should not be the intention, I think.

I searched for that word in the text of the law itself. You refer to what surrounds the law.

Mr. Minister, would you like to respond to this?

Mijnheer de voorzitter, we have thereover gediscussieerd during de werkzaamheden. I have then an affidavit answer given to Mr. Verhaegen. I can announce that said wetsontwerp hem niet ligt. Good, dan zal hij of consequences ervan moeten undergaan. This is no legislation in which no exact terminology was used.

Mr. Speaker, I do not take the blame that we are looking for nails in low water.

We want to go beyond the government. We demand that the legislation be made closer, including for the leather.

In addition, we also demand that there be no misleading legislation, but a correct legislation. We do not ask for more or less than that.