Agriculture Committee on April 18th, 2024

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

I don't think it's necessary. Monsieur Perron is satisfied. He was asking the question, of course, because Monsieur Perron also has similar amendments to try to remove the obligation to pilots. That will be satisfied by Mr. Louis's amendment, so that's why yours, BQ-1 and BQ-2, will not be necessary. It's because of this.

Also, G-1 cannot be moved because of a line conflict.

Seeing no debate, shall amendment LIB-1 carry? We can ask for a recorded vote, or would you like to do it on division?

[An hon. member]

On division.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

(Amendment agreed to on division [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Go ahead, Monsieur Perron.

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

I would like to go back to amendment G-1. I had not understood that the proposal would eliminate this amendment. If you are amenable to that, it is fine with me.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

Mr. Drouin, would you like to speak on G-1 and whether or not there's a necessity to move that? Obviously there is a line conflict.

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

I'm not moving G-1, so I'm not going to speak to it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

Okay.

Unfortunately, Mr. Perron, it can't be moved, because there's a line conflict.

What I heard was “on division”, and we always work quite well in this committee on consensus, so we'll move forward. LIB-1 has carried.

We will now go to BQ-3.

Mr. Perron, you have the floor.

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

My earlier doubt has just been confirmed.

Amendment BQ-3 is essentially designed to further free the pilot from responsibility.

I propose therefore that Bill C‑355, in clause 4, be amended by adding after line 27 on page 2 the following:

(5) A pilot in command of an aircraft with a horse on board in respect of which the chief officer of customs did not receive a copy of the declaration is not liable if they were authorized to take the aircraft on its flight.

According to the testimony we heard during our study on this subject, primarily from people representing pilots, the pilot is first responsible for safety and the schedule, among other things. We do not want to also make them responsible for checking documents.

That is the reason we are putting forward this amendment. A pilot who has been cleared for takeoff could not be held responsible if it were proven that a prohibited export of a horse for slaughter had occurred. It is a kind of insurance policy to free the pilot of responsibility.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

Mr. MacGregor, please go ahead.

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

First, my assumption is that since we have removed subclauses 4(2), 4(3) and 4(4), this would be renumbered as subclause 4(2), if adopted.

Second, if we were to adopt this, would it make sense to add it to the bill if none of the other stuff is still in there? Would it just be floating by itself? That's my question, from a legal standpoint, to a jurilinguist. Does it make sense to add this section if we've removed the preceding three subclauses?

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

Mr. MacGregor, what this contemplates is the declaration, which still does exist in 4.1. You're correct that it would now become 4.2 in a logical sequencing, if you follow me.

There's 4.1 in the bill....

Go ahead, Mr. MacGregor.

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

I'm sorry. You said “4.1”. We're still on clause 4.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

I meant subclause 4(1).

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

This would be subclause 4(2).

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

Are you satisfied?

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

I'm satisfied, but because we have deleted the previously existing subclauses 4(2), 4(3) and 4(4), my question is this: If we were to add this and if it were renumbered as subclause 4(2), would that make sense, given that we have deleted the preceding sections, or would it just float there on its own because we have removed references to pilots?

That's what my question is.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

Yes, there has absolutely been a removal. That's probably a question for some of our experts in the department.

I'll let you speak, Mr. Barlow, before we go there.

Ultimately, it's a discussion we can have among lawmakers at the committee. If we're removing the obligations for the pilot, we don't have to contemplate the pilot's liability, because nowhere else does it say that a pilot would actually necessarily be involved in this process.

I'm going to go to Mr. Barlow first, and then I'll come to you, Mr. Perron.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Thanks.

Maybe this is for some of our experts here. I'm not a transportation expert, but because we are leaving in the declaration subclause—“No departure without declaration”—and we removed the reference to pilots, I would like to ask a question of our clerk.

Does any liability remain with the air traffic controller or the marshaller, or does that have to be specified? If that “No departure without declaration” subclause remains, and because an air traffic controller or an air marshaller would technically be giving permission for that flight to leave, is there any liability on them, and does that have to be specified in here?

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

I'm going to let our witnesses contemplate Mr. Barlow's question.

I am going to go to Monsieur Perron. I think it's an important point, because it says “a person” is prohibited. The question becomes if “a person” includes some of those officials you mentioned, Mr. Barlow?

Monsieur Perron, please go ahead.

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

That is very similar to what Mr. Barlow said. Since we kept subclause 4(1), which says that a horse may not be exported without a written declaration, in view of the concerns stated by pilots association representatives, I think that is a necessary clarification.

A law can never be too clear. If it is not specified, I think a pilot could still ultimately be affected as a representative of the airport or any other entity. The amendment must be retained, unless I receive an opinion to the contrary.

[Guilton Pierre-Jean]

Further to the amendments put forward by Mr. Louis, subclause 4(1) reads as follows:

4 (1) It is prohibited for a person to export a horse from Canada by air unless they have, in the form and manner specified by the Minister, provided the Minister with a written declaration attesting that, to the best of their knowledge, the horse is not being exported for the purpose of being slaughtered or fattened for slaughter as well as with any other documentation that the Minister may require.

My understanding is that the new subsection formally prohibits the export of a horse for slaughter unless the minister receives a written declaration or other satisfactory document.

By eliminating subsections 4(2), 4(3) and 4(4), there is no longer any reference to the pilot or any other person. In my opinion, however, the formal prohibition applies to the exporter. So it is the exporter who would be in violation of the law if he exported a horse for purposes of slaughter. It does not create an obligation for anyone else.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

Go ahead, Monsieur Perron, and then I have some thoughts.

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

Thank you for your reply, Mr. Pierre‑Jean. It is clear.

I just want to make sure I understand this correctly. Are you saying that amendment BQ-3 is entirely unnecessary and that pilots would not be affected by the act, or should we change the way the amendment is worded?

I'll read it out again.

(5) A pilot in command of an aircraft with a horse on board in respect of which the chief officer of customs did not receive a copy of the declaration is not liable if they were authorized to take the aircraft on its flight.

Would it be wise to include this for the sake of clarity or do you think it is entirely unnecessary?

[Guilton Pierre-Jean]

Thank you for the question.

The way I see it, since subclause 4(2) has been deleted and the pilot is not mentioned, the exporter is the only one who has an obligation: He must provide a written declaration that the horse is not being exported for slaughter or another document satisfactory to the minister.

The pilot is no longer mentioned. Previously, subclause 4(2) made the pilot responsible for receiving a copy of the declaration. Since that subclause has been deleted, the pilot's obligation has disappeared.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

The way I look at it, colleagues—and I will go to you, Mr. Drouin—is that including Yves' proposed amendment would actually open the door to contemplating people beyond the persons responsible for exporting who would be required to get a permit or authorization or to submit something to the ministry. If you leave that part in about the pilot, it opens up the door to who else could be potentially liable.

I would agree with Mr. Pierre-Jean's proposition that if you read subclause 4(1), it is the person who is expected to export the horse who would have to get permission. Essentially, the person would have to provide it in a form or manner specified by the minister. However, if we leave in the piece on the pilots, it opens up, to Mr. Barlow's point, other elements of people who are involved in allowing the plane to take off, which is far beyond the scope of what we intend to do.

You guys ultimately have the vote, but my advice as your chair is that you should just keep subclause 4(1).

Perhaps we should drop the amendment, Mr. Perron.

Obviously, in all the blues and the testimony of this committee, if there were ever a challenge on the legality of this part, it would be very clear that we were intending not to include other elements of the air travel supply chain, so to speak, in permitting the plane to take off otherwise.

Go ahead, Mr. Drouin.