Agriculture Committee on April 18th, 2024

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

Then we'll move forward to LIB-0.1.

That's you, Mr. Louis. Would you like to move that amendment that you have put forward?

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

Thank you, Chair. Thank you to everyone for being here.

This is LIB-0.1 It's a very small change, but it's something that we heard from a number of stakeholders.

It just adds the phrase, “or any other document that is satisfactory to the minister”.

It's a small change, but it amounts to a policy difference and it's going to give flexibility. We heard of the need for that kind of flexibility.

Horses being transported by air for racing or equestrian events or recreation reasons already have documentation that could be supplemented easily. This, in effect, will help reduce red tape and any unintended consequences.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

Thank you, Mr. Louis.

Go ahead, Mr. Steinley.

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

I have a couple of questions, Mr. Louis.

One is this: What do you mean by “any other document”?

We showed cattle our whole lives and we had registration forms and things like that. Would a registration form from the breeder showing that it's going to a show...?

Could you give some examples of some of the documentation? It's pretty vague, and I think if we're going to put this in legislation, it has to be a bit more clear.

That would be a question I have off the top of my head. A couple of examples would be helpful to see where we're at.

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

Thank you. That's a valid question and that's why I left the flexibility of anything that is “satisfactory to the Minister”.

When we talk about horse racing, the horses actually have passports that can be somehow amended.

When we talked to Equestrian Canada—I've had many meetings with them—they have a lot of documents, and it would simply add another box to it. Instead of a declaration, it's just adding a box to an existing document or something down the road. I didn't want to pigeonhole it into a specific document.

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Would that be a list in the regulations afterward? A person is not going to send the registration or the document to the minister, and then the minister says, “Yes, okay”, and sends it back. That's a lot of red tape. Are you thinking there'll be a list In the regulations of what would be acceptable?

I'm just saying that you're not going to make it so that basically the minister has to see the documentation first and then approve it. Would there be a list of things that would be approved, and then they could show it at the airport?

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

Go ahead, Mr. Louis.

For what it's worth, I'm not in a position to fully satisfy that question, but usually when the minister.... We're contemplating, obviously, public officials and what that would....

I think you're right, Mr. Steinley, that it would follow some type of regulatory authority under the legislation that would allow....

We do have officials here from Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. Would that question be better directed to the officials?

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Yes. Perhaps we could have a couple of examples of what the minister would consider official documentation so that the transportation documentation is not more burdensome on the breeders or on the officials at the airports. We heard from the pilots that it will be much more strenuous for them and will give them more roles and responsibilities—roles and responsibilities that they don't want, I might add.

What would that type of documentation look like?

[Graeme Hamilton, Acting Director General, Traveller, Commercial and Trade Policy Directorate, Strategic Policy Branch, Canada Border Services Agency]

Mr. Chair, the CBSA is responsible for administering over 100 acts at the border. Many of them include very similar vague language. For example, under IRPA, which allows Canadians and foreign nationals to enter Canada, people with the right of entry into Canada do not need to show a passport. What they need to be able to do is establish their right of entry into Canada. They give you that through a variety of different ways. Obviously, the one that is most familiar to everyone is to just show your passport, but perhaps you lost your passport while you were travelling in the States. If you can satisfy a border services officer that you are in fact Canadian by showing a driver's licence or some other type of documentation, they will then rule on your admissibility into Canada.

Similarly, in the amendment that's being advanced now, the CBSA would be looking at the different documentation that's being provided. We would probably lean in to our CFIA counterparts to ask them to help us determine whether the documentation that's being provided is in fact satisfying the requirements under the legislation that we're enforcing at the border. We would call over to our CFIA colleagues.

As we heard in the previous testimony, as live horses are exported from Canada, they are accompanied by inspectors from the CFIA. We would engage with them in order to make a determination about whether or not the documentation that's being provided satisfies the requirement in the legislation.

I hope that's clear. I'm happy to answer any other questions you may have.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

Go ahead, Mr. Barlow.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Chair, I just want to make sure I'm clear on this.

Mr. Louis, the concern that folks raised on this additional step was that there would have to be a declaration to the minister. In my opinion, you're making this more vague rather than more specific. I would have preferred that you got rid of this additional step entirely. We certainly heard, from our conversations with the Calgary Stampede, Spruce Meadows and groups like them that this will be an onerous process for them to go through. Now it seems to be more vague.

I'll ask you this, Mr. Louis. Let's say this amendment passes and then we go to LIB-1. If you're removing the whole declaration of detention clauses on the pilots, why aren't you doing the same thing with the steps you're asking the exporters to take on the declaration in this one? Is that a fair question?

We certainly heard from the pilots about the onerous step or the onerous responsibility that you're going to remove, and I think that's a good decision, but we heard similar concerns from those organizations that are transporting horses not for slaughter. You're not giving them the same respect, for lack of a better word, that you are to the Air Line Pilots Association, who talked about their responsibility with this being imposed on them. You're still imposing similar responsibilities and red tape on the transporters who are not moving horses for slaughter. They're still having to go through this declaration process.

I would prefer if we just got rid of that entirely, rather than adding to it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

It's over to you, if you'd like, Mr. Louis.

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

I know that we have some experts here. We just want to make sure that there's basically a tracking of horses, which exists already. There needs to be a process in place. This offers flexibility down the road. I think if we vote on this, when we get to LIB-1, those two will work together.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

Go ahead, Mr. Steinley.

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

I appreciate the conversation back and forth, respectfully, but the question is this, Mr. Louis: If we're going to ban the export of horses for slaughter, and there are already processes in place for other transportation of horses, and that part is gone already, why the extra step? That's what I'm saying.

As Mr. Barlow said, you're taking away the need for the pilots to do extra documentation. If the ban on horses for slaughter goes through, there are already processes in place for horses that are being shipped for other reasons. Why the extra step? Shipping horses for slaughter is already done, then, and that process is there. I don't think we need it. It's just adding to a process that's already in place. Do I have that correct?

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

It's just to say that this is there for enforcement and tracking.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

Okay, so assuming there are no other comments, I'm happy to ask the question of whether or not LIB-0.1 shall carry, and we can have a recorded vote.

Go ahead, Madam Clerk.

(Amendment agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Thank you.

We now turn to LIB-1. Would you like to move that, Mr. Louis?

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

LIB-0.1 and LIB-1 work together. LIB-1 will change the declaration from a requirement—which we heard concerns about, tying things up for any horse shipped by air—to a reporting mechanism, so LIB-0.1 and LIB-1 work together. It's a reporting mechanism that can be followed up for enforcement and tracking reasons. It's what the pilots, Equestrian Canada, Racetracks of Canada and many of these organizations were asking for, so I believe this solves a lot of the problems on which we heard good testimony from many stakeholders and good questions from our panel.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

Colleagues, for your benefit, if this amendment is adopted, then BQ-1 and BQ-2 will become moot and will not be able to be moved and G-1 will not be able to be moved because of a line conflict.

Go ahead, Monsieur Perron.

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

As long as we achieve the desired result, we don't mind if our amendments disappear. I would however ask the legislative counsel to guarantee that we have achieved our purpose, which was to free the pilot from responsibility for the paperwork.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

I think that question on whether that obligation is removed would be for some of our experts here. This is more procedural.

To your question, Monsieur Perron, about whether or not, if LIB-1 is successful, it satisfies the concerns about eliminating the obligation to pilots, I'll maybe let one of our....

Do you have a question directed at any particular agency there?

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

In my opinion, yes, because the amendment removes the same lines. So it should work.

[Guilton Pierre-Jean, Senior Counsel, Legal Services, Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food and Canadian Food Inspection Agency, Department of Justice]

Mr. Chair, thank you for the question, but I would like to see a copy of the amendments before I answer.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

Do you think that is necessary, Mr. Perron?

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

It's not necessary. The goals of my amendments are included in lines 11 to 22. I was asking as a precaution, but we can go ahead and vote.