Proposition 51K2771

Projet de loi modifiant la loi du 14 août 1986 relative à la protection et au bien-être des animaux.

General information ¶

Submitted by

The Senate

Submission date

April 25, 2005

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

consumer credit protection of animals domestic animal

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

Vooruit Ecolo LE PS | SP Open Vld MR

Party dissidents ¶

• Maya Detiège (Vooruit) voted to reject.
• Maya Detiège (Vooruit) voted to reject.

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 ¶

April 12, 2007 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mr Raemaekers, rapporteur, you have the word. You can provide a summary of the report.

Can I read my 83 pages? I will not do that.

This draft was discussed on 23 and 30 January this year. A hearing was held on March 12 with among others Unizo, Sint-Hubertus, Anti Broodfok Actie, the Dog School Martin Gaus, the Blue World Chain, Andibel, Animaux and Péril, Mr. Giffroy of the Council for Animal Welfare, the East Flemish animal asylum, Veeweyde, representatives of the dog traders, behavioral therapist Kaat Raas, GAIA and the Neutral Syndicate for Self-employed.

The final vote on the draft was held at the end of March. There were no comments on Articles 1 and 2. On Article 3, Mrs Nathalie Muylle, Mr Luc Goutry and Mr Mark Verhaegen submitted amendment no. 6 in, which aims to replace Articles 1 to 3 of the draft law. Their amendment takes over the content of the bill laying down the conditions for the recognition of animal establishments and the conditions for the treatment of animals.

In order to respond to the various comments made by the sector during the hearings, Ms. Magda De Meyer submitted amendment no. 8 in order to replace the proposed Article 3. In order to prevent impulsive purchases, that amendment includes a ban on keeping dogs or cats in the commercial area of the animal trade stores or in their adjacent buildings.

It also provides that commercial ⁇ can still act as intermediaries for the trade in cats and dogs. However, the owner or operator of an animal trade establishment may operate a cat or dog breeding establishment provided that it fulfils the conditions required for this purpose.

Furthermore, the amendment authorises the King to take additional measures to support the sector during the transition period.

Ms. De Meyer clarified that the amendment does not prohibit the sale as such, but only modifies its rules. Thus, the trade affairs can still act as intermediaries. The proposed text will therefore enable traders to play their full role and assist customers individually in choosing their cat or dog. This system is already applied in several European countries: Austria, Switzerland and Norway.

Mr Koen Bultinck stressed that his group supports strict animal welfare rules. Mr Chevalier clarified that the amendments nrs. 8, 9 and 10 have grown out of the honest compromise that reconciles the interests of all stakeholders involved, namely the merchants, the animal protection associations, but also the buyers of pets.

Mr Koen Bultinck pointed out that the submitted amendments do not address difficulties such as online sales or imports of animals from Eastern Europe. Mr Chevalier pointed out that the current debate, which is a social debate, does not result from the conclusion that there would be serious problems within the sector. Rather, it is intended to combat impulsive purchases through a balanced solution that includes measures to support the sector.

Mr Mark Verhaegen pointed out that the hearings gave more insight into the sector. The Minister of Social Affairs and Public Health acknowledged the importance of the issue under discussion. Animal welfare should not be ridiculous. It is a social care shared by more and more citizens.

This mental change must also be reflected in the law. Only the question arises how this should be done. It is essential that impulse purchases are avoided, as for the purchased animal the condition is not seldom post-conspiratory.

The text of the draft law adopted by the Senate is in this regard consistent with the recommendations of the Council for Animal Welfare.

Amendments to the amendments. The provisions 8, 9 and 10 are an acceptable compromise. The sector can keep the head above water, as it can be further sold on catalog and customers can be well advised based on their specific needs.

With this compromise, the trader is no longer under pressure. He can now advise a potential buyer without having to take into account his animal stock to be removed. In other words, the Minister stands behind the amendments nrs. 8, 9 and 10.

Mr Alfons Borginon submitted amendment no. 3 introducing a new article 4 which determines the date of entry into force of the law on 1 January 2008.

Mrs Magda De Meyer submitted amendment no. 5 to introduce a new Article 4. That new provision provides for the entry into force of Article 3 as amended by amendment no. 4 fixed on 1 January 2009.

During the meeting of 28 March 2007, Ms. Magda De Meyer submitted an amendment no. The purpose of the bill is to add a new Article 4 to the draft law. That provision modifies the definition of the concepts of dog breeding and cat breeding as set out in Article 3 of the Act of 14 August 1986 on the protection and welfare of animals. That amendment presupposes that each breeding house must be a recognised breeding house and thus prevents the development of a black market.

The entire bill was adopted by 9 votes against 4.

This was an additional report. This issue has been sent back and forth to the committees several times.

Mr. Speaker, the committee examined this bill at the meetings of 23 and 30 January 2007. In his introductory speech at the meeting of 23 January 2007, Mr. Pierre Du Ville, representative of the Minister of Social Affairs and Public Health notes that the bill intends to prohibit any credit contract for a sale at temperament aimed at the acquisition of a pet.

In doing so, the bill aims to combat impulsive animal purchases by removing the possibility of making such credit purchases. Many animals collected in shelters after abandonment have often been acquired unthinkingly and thus end up in shelters.

The bill is in line with the opinion expressed by the Working Group of the Council on Animal Welfare as part of the Plan for the Prevention of Canine Bites developed by the Minister of Social Affairs and Public Health. This measure can be effective in avoiding impulsive purchases and thereby combating, in particular, the overpopulation of shelters.

The text is not perfect. During discussions in the Senate, it was asked whether, in order to better ⁇ the aim pursued, namely the fight against unthinking purchases, it was not better to question the trade of animals rather than regulate some of its terms. However, the bill is a first step in the right direction, which does not prejudice the results of a broader reflection on the commercialization of pets.

In the discussion on Article 2, Mr. Germeaux recalls that the present bill has experienced a long journey in the Senate and that some tensions appeared when considering the expansion of its scope. He then signs the compromise text in discussion.

by Mr. Verhaegen submits Amendment No. 1 to replace Article 2 of the bill. by Mr. Verhaegen believes it is better to prohibit any credit agreement because the only sale at temperament covered by the current text is not sufficient.

by Mr. Chevalier specifies that the bill on improving animal welfare, which he is the author and which is attached to the discussion of this bill, also aims to prohibit the credit sale of domestic animals. It therefore supports Amendment No. 1, whose drafting is comparable to that of the aforementioned proposal.

Ms. De Meyer supports the objective of the bill and considers, given the many abuses found, that the ban on credit sale should be extended to all pets. He asked, like Mr. Verhaegen, if the formulation used in the project – credit contract for a sale at temperament – allows to cover all forms of credit. If not, she fears that the bill does not ⁇ the goal assigned to her, namely to avoid impulsive animal purchases.

Amendment No. 1 to replace Article 2 is adopted unanimously.

In Article 3, Ms. De Meyer considers that the prohibition of the sale on credit of domestic animals is not sufficient with regard to cats and dogs. Therefore, it deposits amendment no. 2, taking back article 3 of its bill amending the law of 14 August 1986 relating to the protection and welfare of animals. This provision aims to prohibit the sale of cats and dogs in commercial establishments. The sale of puppies, especially in such establishments, is indeed problematic. These animals often stay in cages for weeks or even months without any distraction or stimulation. Meanwhile, the crucial period of socialization has passed and this dog will later pose problems since it will not have learned to live in a family, to come into contact with other people.

The speaker in this regard refers to the opinion of the Working Group "Aggressive Dogs" established within the Council of Animal Welfare where it can be read that the prohibition of the sale of dogs in animal shops is considered the ideal measure not only to counter impulsive purchases but also to avoid the developmental disorders that may appear in animals sold through this channel. Many animals purchased from these establishments end up in animal shelters.

Amendment No. 2 intending to insert a new Article 3 is adopted unanimously. Following the adoption of amendments 1 and 2, the committee notes that the title of the bill will need to be adjusted to match its new drafting. The draft law as amended is adopted unanimously. The proposals of law 2443 and 2451 become therefore without object.

I will speak now, Mr. Speaker, briefly on behalf of the Socialist Group.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Ministers, dear colleagues, a few words now about what constituted the main stumbling stone during the discussion of this bill, namely the prohibition of the sale of cats and dogs in commercial establishments. I would like to remind you that, at first, Amendment No. 2 of Mrs De Meyer was adopted unanimously by the members of the committee. The main advanced arguments, to which we all had subscribed, were that the sale of puppies in these establishments was problematic at more than one title. In fact, these animals sometimes spend long periods in their cage, thus preventing any socialization with all the problems that this brings for the potential buyer. In addition, to these behavioral disorders is added the problem of impulsive purchases with the consequence that these animals end up, most of the time, in animal shelters.

However, following the hearings of industry representatives and animal protection organisations, we became aware that difficulties could arise in the commercial establishment sector, especially in terms of infrastructure and potential job loss.

Furthermore, it seems to us, to the Socialist Group, that the compromise solution consisting in anticipating that commercial establishments may in the future serve as intermediaries in the trade of cats and dogs is a balanced solution that deserves to be defended. It is clear that the relevant traders will also be able to become breeders, provided they comply with existing legislation on the authorisation of livestock establishments. Finally, the transitional period that is introduced protects the sector from immediate economic difficulties and counteracts the black market that could arise as a result of a too abrupt measure.

In conclusion, our group will support this project. He marks and continues to mark with this his determination to defend the animal cause as he has done before and to support this social concern of animal pain, a phenomenon rightly increasingly shared by our fellow citizens.

Mrs Burgeon, I thank you. The next speakers are mevrouw Muyle, Mrs Lejeune, of Mr Bultinck, of Heren Chevalier in Verhaegen.

Soms spreekt men van een hondenleven. The well-known expression: “a dog’s life”!

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, the draft, which was transmitted by the Senate, was originally intended to amend the law of 14 August 1986 so that the conclusion of a contract for the sale on payment of a pet would no longer be possible in the future. Everyone agreed on this. The design was refined by colleague Mark Verhaegen.

Suddenly there was an amendment from Mrs. De Meyer intending to ban the sale of dogs and cats in commercial business. I admit that everyone was caught in speed, including us. However, we were not alone. This was ⁇ in the newspapers the following days. Even within the majority, one was apparently very surprised at what was then approved.

We know it. Then they went to sit together. A compromise has been reached, by Mr Borginon, to postpone everything until 1 January 2008 and to hold hearings. That was a good way out. Those hearings came there and actually brought little clarity or added value. It was black and white. We heard very little news. The only thing we have learned is that there is very little or no scientific research on which the majority could rely to make those decisions.

After the hearings, a committee came up, again with a compromise from the majority. They wanted to approve it very quickly. There was no need for discussion or article-based discussion. The Minister did not even have to be there. They wanted to let it go very quickly. Because we thought it was very reasonable at that time, we submitted our bill, which had not yet been considered, as an amendment. What have we received as comments, colleagues? We performed delayed manoeuvres. At that time, there was not a word about it in the committee. We then asked the Minister to be present, which eventually happened the week after.

A week later, we were all waiting in the committee. We thought: now comes the big debate. At ten o’clock, however, it was said that some delay was requested until 11:30. Once again, a compromise has been reached. We did not see the differences. They will probably be discussed, but not in the committee. Then a new text was put on the table, which did not solve the problem, colleagues.

There is indeed a solution for us. The Minister knows this very well. There is a solution that has been proposed by the Minister himself. There is a KB, the KB of 17 February 1997, which already regulates many matters in the context of recognition. In 2005, a very good initiative had been taken from the purple majority. A preliminary draft of KB was submitted. It was unanimously approved by the Council of Ministers. Everyone was in favor, but unfortunately it was never signed by the King, understood Minister Freya Van den Bossche. She never wanted to sign it, probably because it would not go far enough for certain people. The KB has never entered into force.

That is very regrettable. I know that the Minister is very sorry for that too. Despite all the efforts made by violet, we found the initiative so good that we re-enrolled it and submitted it as a bill.

I had to find very few arguments to defend this. I have just looked at the minutes of the 2005 Council of Ministers. I was able to find the arguments of Minister Demotte himself. The motivation consisted of three reasons. Initially, the Minister said that the situation on the ground has changed. That is correct. It was seen that there could be a lot of improvement in animal welfare, not only with the sellers but also with respect and responsibility with the buyers. This changing situation should actually find some solutions. Therefore, the amendment of the KB of 1997.

What is also important is that the minister wanted that if there were changes this would be done after consensus and after consultation with all sectors, breeders, asylum and trade affairs. Colleague Goutry, you are the specialist of dolphins and you have already experienced that. When we talk about animal welfare, we will very quickly refer to the Council for Animal Welfare, the great experts who have a lot in their march in this area. It was therefore right that the minister stated that if we wanted to take further steps, that should be done with the Council for Animal Welfare. A very good initiative, a very good track. Hence also that this draft, that change was actually carried by all sectors.

Another point is that it is not just about dogs and cats. Colleague Tommelein, it’s not just about dogs and cats, it goes much further. I know that dogs and cats are enormously media genetic. This is extremely tempting. However, the Minister’s proposal went much further. It wanted to sketch a very broad framework, a framework that also covered birds, reptiles and fish that, of course, are much less mediagenic. It was also about small mammals and was therefore much more spacious than the dogs and cats that had so much to do over the last few weeks.

The modification of the KB was threefold. Initially, the animal welfare was greatly improved. In the second instance, it was intended to increase the sense of responsibility, both among the professionals and among the buyers. What is extremely important, they wanted to make the legislation more applicable and also controllable.

Colleagues, are these not the three things that should be discussed? Unfortunately, she did not talk about that. We have therefore taken the initiative to submit this draft, which will not be submitted again within the current legislature, as a bill. Today we have submitted this again as an amendment because we still find it such a valuable initiative. We would be sorry if this was lost.

Now a matter of content. I’m not going to make you overflow the entire KB at this hour of the night. Colleague Verhaegen will subsequently criticize the current compromise that precedes. However, I would like to point out a few elements that constitute a change in the draft KB and the bill we have submitted. It is about a few points. One of the major changes is that the draft provides for the conclusion of a contract with an approved veterinarian. Thus, it is true that the various institutions in this draft KB and in the bill could conclude contracts with veterinarians who could therefore come to visit with a certain regularity, a certain frequency. The draft speaks from once a year for breeding plants to once a month for commercial affairs. For asylum seekers, this is once a quarter. It is even provided in the design that in case of problems the inspection could actually increase the frequency. If one comes into an asylum or a trade business and one sees effective problems, then one could actually perfectly say that one is going to increase the frequency until every two months, every two weeks or weekly, until the problems are solved.

Colleagues, that all must be kept well in a register for the control authority for two years, so that everything can be checked very well.

In the debate there was a lot to do around socialization, which is extremely important. We also admit that. The pre-design also had a solution for socialization. The preliminary design stipulated that for the various establishments and very specifically for the breeding farms, depending on the number of mother animals present, there would be a kind of minimal, interactive presence. This can range from 4 hours a day to 8 hours a day. This would solve the whole problem of socialization.

Another, new initiative that the minister and the whole, purple government have taken with the preliminary draft was to do something about the registers that need to be kept. The registers were kept in a completely non-uniform way. This had to be streamlined. There would therefore be a uniform register, in which the entry and departure of the animals would be kept very well.

Because of the uniformity, all this would have to be recorded again for two years. The data should also be kept at the disposal of the control authority.

Colleagues, another point around which there was a lot to do and for which Unizo was the requesting party, was to start working with a kind of quality or guarantee label. The minister also thought of a label. In the preliminary design there was a solution in this regard. In fact, a guarantee certificate already exists today through the Royal Decree of 1997, which stipulates that certain animals can be replaced when certain diseases are identified after purchase. The animal may be exchanged or the cents can be requested back.

In 2005, the Minister wanted to develop more reasons for which the guarantee certificate could be applied.

Another point that the draft envisaged was that asylum seekers should keep individual records, which should record everything about the behavioral observations during the stay. In this way, the data could be communicated when the animal is adopted. All details should also be recorded in an adoption contract, so that not just a cat in a bag is purchased, Mr. Goutry. In this way, the buyer knows very well what he got in an asylum, because everything is very well recorded.

Colleagues, when we look at the design, we can say that it makes the responsibility in different domains stricter, which is not simply attributable to certain articles in the design. The responsibility will become stricter for both buyers and sellers, and not only for commercial affairs but also for breeders and asylums.

We were very pleased with the design. We find it very regrettable that it never happened. After all, if we look at the 1997 Royal Decree, we find that the decree already contained a lot of intelligence obligations. With the 2005 draft, a lot of other things were added.

Ms. De Meyer said in the committee that the case for CD&V was easy, because we simply took over the majority design. I asked why, if it was the design of the majority, the majority would never have implemented it.

I also said that the proposal for us was not simply to take or leave. We wanted to go even further. We wanted to make agreements, including with the majority. For example, we wanted to agree on more guarantees. Mr. Verhaegen, regarding the warranty conditions, we wanted to go further. Why could not the entire labelling proposed by Unizo? It is a very valuable initiative, with which we could take very important steps forward.

The socialization, which is so important for Ms. De Meyer, is now regulated in the KB only for asylum. We could also arrange this for the shops and the trade affairs, we could find solutions for that.

During the hearings, there was much to be done about the black circuit, over the internet. It is true that the KB only provides very little that one must have a business number when selling dogs and cats on the Internet. However, we know too well that there is a lot of things happening on the Internet today that isn’t costume.

We have the problem of illegal imports into our country. There are many problems there, there is the black circuit. I must also say that today the compromise that is on the table says nothing about that. There too, we were willing to go much further and to find certain solutions together.

But no, one has chosen a compromise that is closed in the back chambers of Parliament, which has not been able to be discussed in the full openness of the committee. Colleague Verhaegen will come back to this later.

Mr. Minister, we noticed it at the last discussion, we saw a lot of disappointment with you. There was a lot of disappointment because you had done valuable work with this design KB and this never came into effect.

You have then tried, I understand that, you have to do it from the majority, you have said that for you it is an important first step that has been taken with the compromise, namely the compromise whose colleagues all know it is actually about the prohibition of sale. You can only act as an intermediary. Through the catalog you can still sell dogs and cats, unless you also become a breeder.

Becoming a breeder is not easy. I know that some colleagues say, especially from the Open Vld faction, that this is very simple, that it is just building a wall in the matter and that it is very easy, that one can simply become a store breeder.

Collega Verhaegen will soon demonstrate that this is not so obvious at all, that one cannot simply become a breeder. We therefore find it completely unfair that people are sent into that legal uncertainty, because becoming a breeder can not today for many of those things.

My colleagues, you know it very well. My colleague Verhaegen and I have visited several of those things. We know too well. The big thing, colleagues, I dare to put a figure on it, I dare to say that 90% of all those affairs are bonafide affairs and that 10% are not doing well. This can be said about any steel in Flanders or in our country. In every job there are people who are not serious about their job. 90% of them are correct and are doing well. We do not think that there can be a compromise on the cap of one sector.

There is us sometimes, maybe not in the commission, but the days after via mail, the accusation made that we, that CD&V would not be for animal welfare, that we would even be animal bulls, that was in certain emails. Colleagues, I can tell you that we from CD&V, I have the support of all my group, are very strong supporters of a sensible animal welfare policy.

Colleagues, it may surprise you, but this was also confirmed by the minister himself. The minister himself has said in the committee that he has very much respect for the statements of the opposition, that they have taken place in a very constructive atmosphere and that the opposition has also shown that one stands for steps forward in animal welfare policy.

What we were not willing to say, however, is the following. (The Romanian)

Ladies and gentlemen, be careful! Mr Lano is!

Colleagues, for what is coming now, I ask your attention, because that is actually the clue of the story.

Colleagues, what is now revealed is a compromise on a compromise that we can only assume that it was compensated for a lot in other areas. Well, we do not step into the scenario of a compromise on a compromise on the cover of a sector that with this proposal no longer has a future, in addition knowing that this compromise does not solve the problems of online sales and the black circuit.

Colleagues, what are we standing for? We do not want to prohibit anything. More importantly, we want to make the breeder, the seller and the buyer responsible by imposing very strict standards and by controlling very strictly. If we were therefore animal bulls, I would very much like to be called animal bulls.

Thank you very much, Mrs. Muylle. Mrs. Lejeune and then Mr. Bultinck.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, the bill that is submitted to us concerns not only the prohibition of credit sale of dogs and cats, but also the prohibition of exposing them for sale in animal shops.

The purpose of this project is obviously not to get the key under the door to the animal shops, but simply to ask them to trade differently. It is obvious that it is out of question to make a whole profession pay for the deviations of some. We are all absolutely aware that managers of animal shops take care of the well-being of their animals.

Unfortunately, it cannot be denied that in some establishments – a minority fortunately – animals are parked in deplorable conditions and this is unacceptable. No excuses should be allowed in these cases. It should also be remembered that many animals find themselves abandoned when they grow up or become overwhelming or require costly care or simply become annoying when they go on vacation. This is absolutely unacceptable in an evolved society like ours.

Often, these animals are the object of a purchase that can be called an impulse purchase. That is, you go to an animal store to buy a small animal and you get caught and tempted by other animals, such as a dog or cat, which require more space and care than the animal originally planned. One does not realize the moment, all happy with the new acquisition, but later, one comes to regret this demanding purchase and to think about getting rid of it.

It is against this kind of impulsive purchase that this project intends to fight by banning in particular the presence of cats and dogs in animal shops. Other animals not affected may continue to be sold in the store. This bill has been the subject of many contacts and is the result of a consensus that led to a very satisfactory balance in my opinion, whether in the head of the associations that fight for animal protection or in the head of the animal shops. In fact, as I mentioned earlier, from next January, animal shops will no longer be allowed to sell dogs and cats, as is already practiced in some of our neighboring countries such as Germany or Austria.

In order to safeguard employment as much as possible, managers of livestock farms will be able to serve as intermediaries between consumers and farmers. Sales by catalog will be permitted. Consumers will therefore be able to go to the livestock store and ask the managers to help them determine which animal best suits their type of life and where to find it among the different breeders with whom the livestock store is in contact.

Responsible persons may also exercise the profession of breeder in so far as it is an activity completely independent of that of the manager or owner of an animal farm and in so far as they meet the conditions of the Royal Decree which sets out the prescriptions for the approval of livestock farms.

In order to obviously assist as much as possible the managers or owners of livestock farms, especially those who wish to reconvert, a royal decree will follow in order to take all necessary measures.

I can, Mr. Minister, only welcome this measure, because we must not lose sight of the fact that the abolition of the sale of dogs and cats in the shops will reduce the turnover of the animal shops. Certainly, most will not close, because the sale of other animals and accessories will allow the business to continue.

But this lack to earn will affect, in particular, the repayment of loans and rent. That is why I can only rejoice that this law does not come into force immediately but leaves a year and a half to the animal shops to consider an adaptation. Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, for all these reasons, the Reform Movement and myself will vote in favour of this bill, convinced that it will greatly improve the situation of animals without causing the bankruptcy of animal shops.

I say it very honestly, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, colleagues, if I look at the number of hours we have spent on this subject in all tranquility and honesty – Mr. Minister, I have also told you that at a certain time in the committee – I feel as a member of Parliament a bit of substitute shame.

I dare to say in all tranquility and honesty: I had it hard when, on the one hand, I saw the speed with which sometimes very serious designs were chased by this Parliament and, on the other hand, how we spent very many hours on the subject “sales of dogs and cats.” while occasionally it does not give serious discussion to very serious designs and devotes much less time to them.

Very clearly our position is the following, let there be no ambiguity about it: we have always said very clearly, as the Flemish Interest Group, that we have been won for very strict rules on animal welfare. Therefore, we should not want to put anything in our shoes.

Furthermore, and this has already been said by some colleagues in the debate, we still find that this topic has been treated very hypocritically by the purple majority. I explain myself more closely. For a very long time – Mr. Minister, you know very well what I am going to say now – a draft implementing decree has been prepared that provided for sufficiently strict rules to regulate the whole problem of the sale of dogs and cats in animal shops. Then it is not strange – you must not blame a simple member of an opposition party – that in this file we want to turn the knife politically, even if it was only to accuse the political hypocrisy of the sp.a. in it.

On the one hand, our sympathetic colleague Magda De Meyer is very frequently sitting on the shoulder with Michel Vandenbosch of GAIA, and then this is the kind of draft that must be dealt with in Parliament, but on the other hand it is indeed the same sp.a that through its own minister – and not the least – Freya Van den Bossche, for several years has stopped your famous implementation decision, Mr. Minister.

Well, colleagues, I say to you without any reservation and in all tranquility, even at this blessed hour, that when we speak of political hypocrisy the sp.a. really did not have to convince us in this case. They have ⁇ the strongest performance they have already done in a number of files. This can count!

We are clearly on the same line. This will therefore be the only concrete question, Mr. Minister, which I would like to ask you tonight in this dossier. In your responses to, among other things, my critical questions in this file, you said that you would still like to see your famous implementing decision published. Well, how far do you stand in your negotiations with your colleague Freya Van den Bossche? What about the possibility – we are coming to the last fourteen days of this legislature – of getting this implementing decision still published? That is the only critical concrete question you will receive from me tonight in this dossier. I would like to get an answer to that. Per ⁇ then, in the last fourteen days, there will be an end to the political hypocrisy of the sp.a.

Our position in these is very clear. We have always said that, after consultation with the industry, the implementing decision, which has been blocked, should come into force, because it would solve most of the problems and that a new legislative initiative, which we have had to keep in the Parliament for many hours, was not necessary.

Colleagues of the VLD, in the last eight years purple you have swallowed almost everything and in the Open version you are ready to swallow much more. I will not mean all possible words that may come up with the word “open” or all possible dispersions that may occur. (Protest on the VLD banks) Indeed, the throat hole is also much more open than ever before. It must be my heart, colleagues of the VLD, also in this dossier there has been a lot of political hypocrisy among you.

We must have determined that the VLD – so far as there are still some self-employed people who vote for them – sends support emails to those self-employed people, claim that they are behind the sector and say they will defend the sector. No single self-employed would be left behind by the VLD, not even in this file. Well, colleagues, also in this case you have left the self-employed away. You make sure that with the compromise, as it predicts today, dozens of self-employed people will be killed again. You have tried to camouflage with a number of implementing decisions, which are yet to be issued, and with a transitional arrangement that can work until 2009, but in principle you have put some additional self-employed on the slaughterbed with this design, as it is today revealed. Whether you like to hear it or not, this is political hypocrisy of the VLD colleagues.

Mr. Minister, as to the substance of this file, the amendments submitted by the majority, after consultation in dark back rooms, fundamentally do not solve the problem. Internet sales are not resolved. The import of animals from Eastern Europe is not resolved by the design presented here today. We have new rules and prohibitions. I thought that the VLD colleagues were won for simplifying things and not for imposing new strict rules. I see that my good colleague Tommelein, who comes from my region, has already disappeared. I hope that a number of colleagues will have the courage to think before the vote and stick to the harsh statements they have made here and there in the media. I hope there will be some more courageous ones, but what will be approved here is not a good thing for the self-employed. It provides additional “pest rules” for the self-employed.

The shopkeeper can now become a dating agency for the sale of dogs and cats. In our vision it should be possible that a self-employed can still sell his dogs and cats in the store, although under very strict rules, but as it is now revealed, it is not a good thing.

Mr. Minister, you have tried to screen with the fact that there is an increase in the number of abandoned animals. I will return to the statement I made in the committee. Until now, there is no scientific evidence confirming that this increase is due to animals purchased in ordinary commercial stores.

In short, given so much political hypocrisy, we will very clearly vote against the draft, the compromise as it predicts. We will also tell the interested parties what happened in the file. We refuse to play the game of political hypocrisy.

In no way should one attempt to act in the file as if the Flemish Interest Group did not win for strict rules regarding animal welfare. We have said from a to z that we want very strict rules on this subject. So try not to put anything in our shoes; that would not succeed. But in such a game of political hypocrisy we do not play, let that be clear.

Ladies and gentlemen, it is 2:55 p.m.

This is an objective determination. You will receive applause.

Mr. Speaker, I came to you last afternoon at 4 p.m. with the notification that I had to leave for an appointment in Mechelen. I asked you when I should be back for the fifteenth item of the agenda. You then promised me that at eight o’clock everything would be over.

I said the hour, not whether it would be evening or morning.

Meanwhile, it is 02.55 pm and agenda item 15 is in full discussion.

Everyone gets the morning news.

This is a time when all the chickens are stuck.

You are still awake, right?

I don’t know how that goes with other colleagues, but whoever later has to explain to his girlfriend that he was engaged in poaching at 02.55 in Brussels, I think, will have a problem at home.

You can also say that you have a dog life.

The [...]

Yes, that’s the problem if you have a particular family name, Mr. Goutry.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, in the last few weeks – I found this very bizarre – there has been a lot of blast in the Chamber, in the committee, about dogs and cats. There have been many emails received, from pro and against a total ban. This total ban was initially approved by Mark Verhaegen in the Chamber Committee.

There was a lot to be done. Demonstrations took place on the streets, around the Chamber. The protesters, with a lot of watchers and with a lot of bells, broke a certain cordon. We must therefore find that there was a discussion going on, not only in Parliament, but apparently also with the population, with people who buy or have dogs. Some people have a lot of misery with it: they buy animals that are not healthy or not species-like. I think it is up to Parliament to conduct this discussion.

What comes ahead today is ahead, of course. What is important here is what was initially introduced and what was technically refined by colleague Mark Verhaegen, namely the reduction of impulse purchases. Mark Verhaegen was a partner in the whole matter. He, with a certain intelligence that is his own, has made those refinements. That was a welcome contribution for the very rudimentary contribution that the VLD and the sp.a had made. Mark Verhaegen has said how we could settle it; he pulled laws, the Council of State and the Arbitration Court. That was over. Then Mark Verhaegen, in his enthusiasm, also approved the total ban. However, we found that a total ban could not be carried out, because that was not the true core of the case. However, there are a number of things that we need to put into a clearer and better light.

This is about dogs and cats. The chairman said that it should not be about horses. In fact, we only talked about dogs and cats. The question is whether it is only about dogs and cats, Mr. President. No, it is not really about that. It’s about the fact that people buy dogs and cats and that people develop a relationship with those dogs and cats over time and how they relate to it.

If one follows the literature, one must admit that a lot has gone wrong in the relationship over the past decades. We thought too long that in full freedom we could do what we wanted. It does not appear to be so today. In the meantime there is a public opinion. I recall the large survey carried out by a particular newspaper in the context of the municipal council elections. They asked what is important to people. People turned out to be busy with things like zebra paths, stoplights and with their dogs. This is being done. This is an actual fulfillment of the Christian idea of charity. People extend this idea not only to their neighbor, but also to their dog and cat. I note that CD&V no longer acknowledges that concept of love of neighborhood, no longer replenishes it. They choose to protect the sector and those beasts can be stolen from them. We have now filled it. In the committee with the minister, with hearings and so on, we have tried to define that concept and to brew a legislation adapted to the current public opinion.

I hear people say that the Open World is against self-employed. I heard this in the committee too. Mr. Bultinck said this, among other things. I then gave him a list of what the Open Vld and the government have done for the self-employed over the past eight years. The criticism of Mr. Bultinck was gone.

Also in the current design we have made a very good arrangement for the self-employed. We say clearly that the sector is being repaired. The sector itself has been the requesting party for Articles 1 and 2. Credit forms can no longer be used. Impulse purchases are no longer possible. I have also received emails: my name is Johny and I am an impulse buyer, I have a pitbull and I have not had any Polish thief in my house anymore. Later it turned out that he had already bought four dogs, three of which were in an asylum. The fourth dog turned out to be a good dog, one that stopped Polish thieves. The dog was from Poland. It was not a flame, but a pool. This is the rhetoric of some parties.

What have we done after a lot of consultation with the majority and the industry? We have created a law that prevents impulsive purchases. We have also ensured that the sector can continue to exist, in the sense that it is further allowed to buy and sell dogs under conditions that are different from today and respect the integrity of the existence of dogs and cats.

Mr. Minister, Mr. Speaker, Mrs. De Meyer, we have ensured that there is a KB which provides for a broad transition period for the sector. They can organize their affairs. One can make sure that the dogs can be sold at a certain date in a different way. People will still be able to buy dogs. In addition, the Minister, I hope he will do so as soon as possible, or otherwise the next Minister, will introduce a KB with supporting measures so that the sector can organize itself.

Ladies and gentlemen, people often wonder what the Parliament was doing. I asked myself that too. However, if I receive approximately 1,300 emails on a given weekend from people who are involved, from both pro and opponents, then I must note that there is a debate on that. Politics must also speak on the matter.

It is the task of the Parliament to regularly move beacons in society. I would like to make the comparison with a dossier that was approved in the House a few weeks ago and that also fell under the competence of the Minister of Public Health, namely the law on medical-guided reproduction. Parliament thus moved an important beacon. Couples and women who are not treated equally by a natural disaster or a little hump in their lifetime can now, by the aforementioned law, also decide in all freedom to fulfill their child wishes.

Today, with the present law, we are again moving a beacon. We move a beacon through the prevailing law, because it gives a contemporary fulfillment to the role and interaction of people with their environment, in this case the relationship with pets. I found that public opinion was ahead of the animal welfare law. It is indeed the task of the Chamber to give it a contemporary fulfillment.

I would recommend that the Chamber approve the design that better protects pets and provides a better organisation to the commercial trade. I have learned from this experience that we in Parliament and among politicians often deal with each other in a bestial way. However, that cannot be a reason to maintain an even worse regime for what is not human.

12 March 2007 was the day of the hearing. I still remember that the Congress Hall on the third floor was filled until the last seat. The tribune was also full. The hall was almost completely filled. When I look around now, the interest is a little less. This may have to do with the late hour, because many people who were still present after that have already left because of the time of the current meeting.

The hearing was held on 12 March 2007. Then it was April 12, 2007, the date when the point was scheduled. Therefore, exactly a month has passed. Colleagues, it is important that everyone here in the hemisphere has been given the time and opportunity to visit animal shops for a month, and thus abundantly.

I know that a large number of invitations have already gone. We, who have to vote on the law later, therefore have no excuse in the vote. I even know that some members present in the hemisphere have been on the spot and have made sure of the situation. Since then, however, the great light has also come to me. So I am convinced. I can now speak with knowledge of things, whatever I will do. I can now bring the testimony of the animal special cases.

I must say that this, after what I saw there, is a testimony of respect for animals. You must not put us in a corner and say that we are animal bulls, as colleague Muylle has already said. We do not fit in a cage. Even an animal does not fit in a small cage, there are standards for this. In any case, we also stand for respect for animals.

I have also seen this in the various animal affairs I have been to. They have respect for their animals. Those are cared for, who are treated well, in the best possible conditions. I am talking about the official sellers and breeders. Of course we visited them. These are all people who think well, who treat their animals with love, who carry animal welfare high in the valley. Of course, we see this as well.

Colleagues, that is why I also want to warn and ask not to make unconscious decisions today. The hearings did not give any further insight. This is incorrectly cited in the report. I have taken the report of the committee again today. It is stated that the hearings brought more insight. No, that’s not true, they raised more questions than they gave answers. After all, there were many controversial facts, controversial figures, which were completely different depending on the source or the mission interpreted by certain people.

That makes me recall – I wasn’t there, but I look at a few colleagues who have definitely been there – to the law on the prohibition of the sale of pet animals on markets, halfway in the 1990s. Colleague Paul Tant, I see you knocking. You ⁇ were there. Older colleagues can talk about this.

Ladies and gentlemen, I have had the difficulty of reading this explanation. It was also a bill. In that explanation it was – and it is still there, because that text is for eternity – the following: “200,000 dogs were euthanized in the past year,” that is about 1994, that conscious year before 1995, “in the asylums.” Subsequently, these figures were refuted by official reports from the Ministry of Agriculture. It turned out to have been 7,900.

I know that this is still a high figure. That 200,000 was at least a overestimation of 25 times. On the basis of those 200,000, a prohibition law was enacted. I think this can count. I am not talking about the substance of the case, the question of whether animals can be sold on markets. It’s just about having official figures before we pass a ban law. They are ⁇ not there. We have heard different types of numbers and they speak completely against each other.

Therefore, I made a written request during the committee meeting, unfortunately during the committee meeting itself, but I could not do it earlier. I then asked to get figures from a veterinary inspector of FOD Public Health, Animal Welfare. They carry out the controls. If necessary, they will also make the PVs. They also give the identification number.

For me, it is unheard of that a government that oversees the sector for ten years is not heard in a hearing. That is unheard. In what kind of country do we live, would I almost say? That is impossible.

I only got a document from one page on my table in the committee. In that document it was simply noted that the number of complaints – which we also knew – has dropped sharply since the entry into force of the KB in 1997.

That was all there was to read. So we did not get any numbers.

I also remember that the Chairman of the Council on Animal Welfare, Jean-Marie Giffroy, urged caution during the hearing. He emphasized that there is little or no scientific research on the matter. We must therefore be very careful.

The accountability of the compromise amendment is for us absolutely inadequate, especially because the recognized Belgian Association for the Identification and Registration of Dogs can provide accurate and objective figures. This association is under your supervision, Mr. Minister.

I would like to ask you why such a preliminary study was not done and we were not provided with exact figures. I think an answer to that question is really necessary before we can vote on the matter. I will ask you the question now, because you may still be able to contact us.

The freedom of trade, the job of the employee, the legal certainty, that all requires at least an objective study before far-reaching measures can be taken. We must also not forget that all the traders in question have a valid license.

One cannot here outline a ban after a blurred hearing, blurred because all the numbers contradict each other. On the contrary, one must find out the true causes of the overcrowded asylums and dare to act in concertation with the people on the ground with an open vizier.

The industry wants to go even further. Mr. Mueller talked about this. The industry has handed out and said it wants a quality label, although the fact that there is a recognition in itself already means a certain guarantee. I know that there was no response to that. That is regrettable.

It is also not wise to pursue an animal welfare policy while at the same time forgetting the human aspect of the matter. We believe that animal welfare should go hand in hand with the economic viability of the sector.

We also want to warn about the possible perverse consequences of the ban. I think of a further growth of the illegal circuit, of the private breeding and of the private sale, of crossings, of more street and less rash dogs, of more imports of foreign dogs.

I have looked at a number of foreign websites where dogs are promoted. Imports are mainly from Spain, Greece and Bosnia. With the closure of the registered trade, we open the doors to the black sale.

I’ve met several people who have made heavy investments and taken heavy loans to give the animals enough space and keep them in optimal conditions. They threaten to be loaded with useless and expensive infrastructure when the ban on the sale of stores comes into effect. We wonder who will bear those costs.

There is a transition period of eighteen months. That transitional period will ⁇ not bring sunshine for the large investments that many in the sector have made. I have met a lot of young families who have put themselves heavily in debt.

We should also pay attention to this. The only feasible map, colleagues, is for us still a good, practical legislation on animal welfare, more than 20 years after the law of 14 August '86 on the protection and welfare of animals, and more than 10 years after the KB of '97, which sets the conditions for the recognition and trade of animals. The consensus amendment states that animal trade ⁇ can still sell under a number of conditions as imposed in the breeding industry. In the end, this is almost equivalent to a ban, colleagues. In principle we are already against it, in principle we can say that it is not good to impose a ban in a period of recognition. At that point, it is not correct, not fair, to impose a ban. In terms of content, I ⁇ anticipate major, almost insurmountable difficulties in spatial planning and environmental authorisation.

I am sure I know what I am talking about. I am experiencing the impact a good neighborhood can have in the delivery of the oh so necessary environmental permits. I think of the problem of the flattering dogs. I also know what impact the regulations of the decree can have on spatial planning in the delivery of the oh so necessary urban planning permits; what problems can be in the urban planning area if one has to turn an animal business into a breeding farm and this often in a residential area. Well, this is almost impossible and then you are stuck with useless infrastructure.

Another argument cited in the consensus amendment is that animals should not be kept in glass boxes. Collega Chevalier has quoted for a moment that Verhaegen was "picked" at the impulse mood. We were then clearly told that those animals would be kept in some kind of glass bowl, bowl or bowl. I have pictures with me and for those interested I can let them go around. I took those photos specifically in two animal trade stores. There is only a glass door. This is stated in the KB of '97. That glass door serves to keep young animals out of reach of too quiet visitors and to avoid those animals being caught causing them to fall to the ground, to avoid children or adults with a pointed object that would injure puppies. It is actually for the sake of their protection that those animals are kept in such housing. It is a closet, almost a couveuse, with a glass door. It is neither more nor less than that. I would dare to say that a reverse effect will be achieved. I mean that the animal is better socialized in a store where a lot of animal-friendly visitors come over the floor, rather than in a remote space somewhere in a breeding store. That is our impression.

It is often said that those who do not have the possibility of extension as an intermediary can work with a kind of catalog. This is the “blind date” that colleague Bultinck was talking about. I find this absurd for animals because it will increase the problem of miscarriage. We believe that the candidate buyer should have contact with the puppy. He must see that it clicks between him and that little animal. Otherwise, there will be many more misspellers and many more animals will be brought to shelters. This is a reverse effect.

Finally, I would like to make a political consideration. More than a year ago, the Minister answered a question from colleague De Meyer.

That was in January 2006. The Minister replied that in December 2005 a draft KB on conditions of recognition for animal trade in the Council of Ministers was approved. He added that he would therefore want to focus on the implementation of this draft KB which should make a significant contribution to the improvement of animal welfare in the pet sector. Also colleague Muylle has cited, that the design of KB is about providing good, reliable controls on the sale and keeping of animals. It will also give more responsibility to everyone who deals with animals, up to the buyer. It is also very important that this KB design is the result of consultation between the various actors and sectors. A special working group has been established for this purpose, which has met for more than a year. The KB was established after discussion in the Council for Animal Welfare. That is important. Therefore, we propose to come to your aid, with an amendment that actually solves the problem fundamentally. Colleague Goutry and other colleagues, the high point is that the opposition here must submit a draft of KB as an amendment. In fact, we find this very extensive. However, we would like to do so and we would like to reach out to you because we are concerned about the animal welfare and the human side of the story. Others in the committee have also noticed that the minister among the rules somewhat suggested that the KB was a better option. I quote the report: “There is a need for a consensus solution that allows all parties to live.” Well, that is contrary to the consensus proposal that is now ahead and excludes one party.

We all find that purple is stuck on the bench of Gent on 8 October. Mr. Speaker, you have added another piece. You say that purple will continue. Whether it is with a Flemish majority or not, that does not matter. You say that you will continue, although today I have the impression that it is rather to get through than to continue. I now speak from the importance of animal welfare then I wonder what the Flamings are still waiting for.

I am shocked when the minister says that we must ensure that we impose a number of good standards. What is the point of imposing standards at a time when there is a ban and the animal shops are closed? If the animal sales would be banned, then the kennels will surely be dealt with. That’s not my words, I’ve heard that from people within the majority. They said the kennels are the next step. The breeds must also be removed. Therefore, I am afraid that this purple amendment that is presented here is an intermediate. We ask ourselves where we ultimately want to go. We are very clearly concerned with simple, clear standards for animal welfare from that responsibility. With us, the economic interests of the sector are also very strongly involved, also in order to ⁇ better protection for the animals. We must be able to reconcile these two things. Therefore, we continue to include the sale of dogs and cats by animal sales stores with a high level of quality.

They demand a quality label based on animal welfare. I linked this to the question of why we would not label people who score well in the absence of behavioral disorders and in the information of consumers. We can link a number of other criteria to this.

I would like to end what colleague Bultinck began. Colleagues, I do not regret that a hearing has been held on this fairly important matter, but I regret that there has been no hearing on another matter of vital importance, namely the nofault scheme for patients seeking assistance, to which compensation must be paid for poor health care, which we subsequently dealt with and was chased over in a few hours. Colleague Goutry can testify to this. Let that hearing have been there, I regret that matters are not assessed according to the importance, seriousness and impact of the case. Ultimately, politics is still primarily about people.

Mijnheer de voorzitter, mijnheer de minister, colleagues, de huidige regeling die na na een uitgebreid debat in de Kamer is geformuleerd in het voorliggende ontwerp, is uiteraard een goede regeling. You know that we originally were for a complete verbod op de vente van honden en katten in shops. Why Why ? There are two important redemptions. Ten first will we of impulsaankopen tegengaan. Ten second will we aggressive dogs as much as possible vermijden. Ik verwijs naar de werkgroep Agressive honden van onze officiële Raad voor Dierenwelzijn en ik cite uit het verslag: “Most members of the working group consider that the ideal solution would be to prohibit the direct sale of dogs in commercial establishments in particular to combat impulsive purchases and for reasons of animal development.”

The first intention is therefore absolutely the counter-impulsive purchases. After all, it is absolutely undoubted that such a sluggish puppy that sits so sad and lonely in such a glass bowl, of course, leads to impulse purchases. Those dogs are exhibited in those pots, such as candies are placed at the box office, to be taken with them quickly, preferably at dumped prices if they become too large or on credit as a Easter gift. Too often it happens that one enters for a fish and goes out with a dog. Over time, however, it turns out that the dog must urinate, poop and need to be walked. It becomes big and is no longer as cute as it was in the beginning. The sad result is that we currently have more than 38,000 dogs in shelters. 38,000 dogs, which is a sad record today. One forgets that buying a dog is a commitment, a commitment for ten to fifteen years.

Choosing a dog is choosing a living creature. It is a choice to take responsibility, colleagues of CD&V. I notice that colleague Muylle is gone again, but it’s about taking responsibility, it’s about choices, it’s about ethics.

So, first and above all, we want to counter impulsive purchases and secondly, we want to counter aggressive dogs. Why Why ? The essence is that in puppies who end up in those glass shopping baskets for a long time during their socialization period things thoroughly go wrong with their behavior over time. What is the evolution of a puppy? This was clearly demonstrated in the hearings. Of course, I also cannot argue that when we hold hearings, one does not listen. If you only listen to what you want to hear, of course, it is a bit difficult. But in the hearings, the evolution of a puppy is clearly described by people who know something about it. The first eight weeks of a puppy are a blueprint for life. They learn how to be the real dog with their mother. Often they are removed from the mother too early, sometimes at 4 or 5 weeks, which is nefast for the further development of the dog.

Suppose the dogs are lucky enough to stay with their mother for 7 or 8 weeks. Then they are lucky. But then they must begin with what is called environmental socialization: learning to deal with people, with traffic, with unexpected circumstances, with other animals, with walking on the rope, with children, and so on. It is precisely in that crucial period of socialization that such a puppy is placed in a “aquarium” without any stimulus, often up to 4 months or longer, and that is deadly. This leads to behavioral disorders, as abundantly proved by the various behavioral therapists we have heard. It leads to stress, to destruction, to compulsive behavior, to anxiety, and therefore to aggression.

In the hearing – I refer to the hearing, because I have heard important things there – the dog therapists told us that 75% of the dogs they are going to work with are dogs coming from the store. Not only are animal rights organizations flooded with complaints from consumers who bought their dog in a store, but also the breeders. The animal shelters also confirm the many problems with the shopping animals.

There has been plenty of talk about “the lack of scientific studies.” I would like to add a three.

First, Professor Giffroy himself, the chairman of our National Council for Animal Welfare, refers to a British study that has put the places of purchase of animals in line: with an authorized breeder, with an unauthorized breeder, with a private or in a store. The behavior of these different dogs was examined. What happens when we look at the behavior of these different dogs? The dogs purchased in a store show the worst behavior. I think that is clear. That was a British official scientific study, quoted by Professor Giffroy during the hearings.

Second, there is the study of Test-Buying of 2002, a study on puppies and the purchase of puppies in different locations. What is revealed? Puppies purchased in a store are 5 times more likely to get sick and 7 times more likely to die than a puppy purchased from a breeder. Scientific research ? No, apparently the weather is not good enough...

Third, there is the study of the most famous dog specialist in Belgium, veterinarian Rudy De Meester, and consorts. That study was published in the Flemish Veterinary Journal in 2004, so own research. That study shows: 40% of puppies purchased from a merchant become sick after the purchase, 32% appear to have an inherited condition. Sorry, if that is not scientific research, I don’t know either.

That is supplemented by the many complaints at GAIA, at Veeweyde, at Animaux and Péril, at The Blue World Chain, at the people of the Anti Breadfruit Action. What do you want more?

However, that you do not want to listen, I cannot help. I can only state that there is a broad, social front to get puppies out of the glass pots. This morning we received 133,380 signatures, which were collected over three weeks. That is, in support of a bill, a unicum in Belgian history.

It is clear why we absolutely want a ban on keeping and displaying puppies in stores. This, of course, is not a good message for a shopkeeper. But I myself, the daughter of a middle-class man, believe in the strength, creativity and adaptability of the middle-class man.

What opportunities are there for the 290 shops that have a recognition in our country to sell dogs? What can they still do? They can sell on catalog. They can sell via webcam. They can sell through internet videos. They can advise and play intermediary. They can be advisors.

Believe me, the bill does not mean the end of the merchants. Nor did it mean the end of the traders in Austria, Norway, Switzerland, where the system has been running for a long time. In addition, they now have a lot of advantages. They no longer have the burden and misery of ⁇ ining the puppies in the glass pots. They no longer have problems with unsold puppies, with which they do not know the way.

The shoppers who prefer to deal with live animals have an alternative. They can start a breeding. There is no problem. However, they must indeed meet the standards of a breeding farm. There is an upcoming new royal decree that the minister has worked hard on and that, as some colleagues have abundantly pointed out, will provide more control, more staff and more health guarantees. It also provides through the indication of the registration and identification number for control on the Internet.

It will therefore not be as simple as some want to imagine, namely that it is only formalism, that the sign “store” will simply have to be replaced by “breeding”, that the placement of a false wall will be enough to just continue as in the past and everyone will therefore be satisfied. No, it will not be so. We want healthy dogs in body and mind. This can only be done by a professional and good breeder who does not love too many breeds and does not have too many nests, who has respect for the mother animal, who invests time and effort in the socialization of puppies and who assists the future owner with advice and action.

Immediately, our amendment will also ensure – which is very important for the recognition of every breeder in our country – that from now on everyone who breeds for sale needs a recognition, which until now was not the case. No longer animals from breeding farms that do not meet the Belgian standards may be sold. This will allow us to take significant steps in tackling illegal imports.

In short, after mature deliberations, after extensive hearings and discussions among the people’s representatives, we have a good result: no more impulse purchases, no more frightened and aggressive dogs, the stores can continue to advise and mediate and receive support measures and a transition period. The breeders will be better framed and controlled. We also begin to stop illegal imports and internet sales.

Dear friends, here are heavy words. CD&V is called animal bite. Who am I to oppose this? The Flemish Interest talks about hypocrisy. This is probably the reason why the party initially fully approved the amendment. In any case, the sp.a is pleased with the result. It is a step forward for animal welfare. For us, this is an important value in society.

This is part of a global respect for nature and for all living things. This has one result, namely, good and happy dogs and good and happy owners.

Mr. De Meyer, I have listened to you with great attention. I have clearly understood that you really do not know what you are talking about. You push all animal dealers here in a particular corner. The dog breeders are apparently the saints of the stall.

Mrs. De Meyer, I bought my dog from a breeder. Everything I hear telling you here, I have experienced. I bought my dog from a breeder. I think you really work with two sizes and two weights. I am sorry that you cite a number of things in such a one-sided way.

My group has taken a good stand by not following you in this madness. You are just saying nonsense.

Mr. Minister, you have the word for a short speech, because it is a parliamentary initiative.

I will be brief.

First of all, I am very pleased with this text because, like Mr. Chevalier said it just recently and as Ms. De Meyer just said, this is a considerable step forward in the protection of animal rights but it is also a recognition of the place of man next to the animal. The evolution of mentalities is a fact that today the legislator acknowledges.

Secondly, in this text, we were able to ⁇ a desired balance between animal trade and respect for the intrinsic rights of the animal.

Before concluding and answering the two questions I have been asked, I can also formulate the following comment.

The debate raised by this text is not so much about the quantity of animals sold or abandoned but rather about the quality of life of the animal and its ethology in the conditions of sale. When animals are sold in bad conditions, they pose problems to human beings who later adopt them.

The first question asked by Mr. Bultinck is political, embarrassing. It should not be denied.

What is the Royal Arrest?

I have said it and can repeat it today. The royal decree I took in 2005 addresses part of the upstream sales chain. This is primarily about farmers (there are better defined conditions, etc.). This text has not yet been approved by my colleague in Budget but I have indicated in a committee that I hoped that the vote on the text today would give all the arguments for the other text, which is in fact a complement, to be applied.

Let us put things in order. We just finished the Easter holidays. We are all fresh and ready. I think we all want to start working constructively again. Let us vote for this text. I hope that my colleague, Minister of Budget, will also give us satisfaction on the royal decree.

The second question was asked by Mr. by Verhaegen.

We actually have a provision that is based, in part, on the constatation of abandonment of animals.

The figures are now more accurate than 13 years ago, as in the example he gave. Why Why ? Because simply, 13 years ago, we had no identification system. Today, ABIEC allows the identification of dogs – I also hope that tomorrow we will work on the identification of other animals, cats for example. I asked to look at this issue. The system of electronic chips on sold cats seems to me to be interesting for identification. This identification allows to quantify the animals sold today in the stores. The industry confirms these figures. This is about 40 thousand units of dogs and cats per year.

On the other hand, we do not yet have completely precise figures on abandonments but we have indications that come from shelters and animal shelters (including through identification). Although it is not possible to count them accurately, it is known that several tens of thousands of dogs and cats are found there each year.

Knowing these amounts and without striking on the unit or the ten units nearby, these numbers were sufficient for more precautions to be taken in this area.

I am very pleased with the compromise that has been made.

Mr. Verhaegen, you are given the word for a short response, not for a new presentation.

Mr President, very briefly.

I definitely have to react to colleague De Meyer when she speaks of “animal bulls”. I would say, we are animal friends. I will name that name clearly. We are animal friends because we know and are convinced – we have seen it with our own eyes – that those animals are properly cared for in those official animal specialties. Because these animals are well taken care of there, I say that we are animal friends.

I would like to make three small comments.

The animal shops I went to visit do not sell dangerous fighting dogs, as you suggest. I was told that the fighting dogs are primarily sold in private farming. These are mainly clandestine crops, which are grown on bites. Figures that want to do harsh, raise those dogs, but those fighting dogs you will not find in the official sale.

The largest supply in the animal shelters – which has also been shown from the hearings – appears, despite the fact that the figures differ somewhat, to consist of non-chipped dogs, i.e. from dogs that are not from breeders. The Minister spoke in his answer about a study by the Belgian Association for the Identification and Registration of Dogs to objectivize these figures. The minister says that the investigation is underway, that it is underway. But then I find it careless, colleagues, to take that decision now, tonight. The investigation is ongoing and I look forward to it with anxiety.

The last point is about impulse purchases. I also asked what the price label of those rash dogs is – because in the animal shops only rash dogs are sold. Well, for that money, no sweet, impulsive purchase is made. These are conscious purchases. People who come there also do so to consciously buy an animal. It is not about buying a small toy, but about a lot of money. The price is serious. Therefore, I have such my doubts about impulsive purchases of rash dogs in animal ⁇ .