Agriculture Committee on April 18th, 2024

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 100 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-food.

I have a few reminders, colleagues. We know that this meeting is taking place in a hybrid format. As you know, during the proceedings, those who are speaking will be the ones who are broadcast.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Wednesday, January 31, 2024, and the motion adopted by the committee on Thursday, February 8, 2024, the committee is proceeding with its clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-355, an act to prohibit the export by air of horses for slaughter and to make related amendments to certain acts.

We have a number of witnesses here today who can be called upon if needed. From the Canada Border Services Agency, we have Graeme Hamilton, acting director general of the traveller, commercial and trade policy directorate, and Cathy Toxopeus, director general of the commercial programs, commercial and trade branch.

From the CFIA, we have Dr. Mary Jane Ireland, who is no stranger to the committee and is the executive director of the animal health directorate and the chief veterinary officer for Canada.

From the Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food, we have Marie-Noëlle Desrochers, executive director, supply management and livestock policy division, and from the Department of Justice, we have Guilton Pierre-Jean, senior counsel in legal services, and Shela Larmour, who is counsel in legal services.

There are a number of people you can call upon, colleagues, if needed.

I'll turn to my annotated agenda. I've already introduced our expert witnesses, the folks who can help. We do have our procedural and legal folks here as well.

Pursuant to Standing Order 75(1), consideration of the preamble and clause 1, the short title, is postponed.

Shall clause 2 carry?

(Clause 2 agreed to on division)

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

Shall clause 3 carry?

(Clause 3 agreed to on division)

(On clause 4)

That's ultimately something that has to be called. I have amendment CPC-1, if you'd like to call it, Mr. Barlow.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We do have an amendment on clause 4. I think everybody has the amendment in front of them.

It was quite clear from the testimony of most of the witnesses who spoke as part of the study for this proposed legislation that the end use of the animals going to Japan wasn't their concern; their concern was animal welfare during the transportation of those horses to Japan. When witnesses were questioned by members of this committee about their concerns with horse slaughter in Canada or for horses being food in other parts of the world, that didn't seem to be a concern. Our questions were around why the focus of this legislation isn't more on transportation and on improving the regulations around the transportation of those horses.

If the impetus of this bill is to improve the health and safety of animals in transportation, which I think all of us would agree should be paramount, we should have animal welfare top of mind when we're doing regulations. This should be for all horses that are being transported by air. Dr. Ireland, who is here, was quite clear in her testimony that:

The rules for horses with respect to their movement, their transport, are the same regardless of whether the horses are destined for another country for whatever purpose. Whether it's for show purposes, a competition or a feedlot, the same rules apply.

That is a quote from Dr. Ireland's testimony.

I know that there were comments in the preamble, which we will get to, about being cramped, which I don't feel is wording that should be used in legislation, but there has been no alternative proposed in this legislation as to what exactly should be used.

If indeed the focus of this legislation for Mr. Louis is to address animal welfare and the transportation of horses to Japan or any other destination, the focus should be on all horses, not just horses for slaughter, although I think that is a misdirection. I think that if that's indeed the focus, then it should apply to all horses being transported by air, not just for slaughter.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

Thank you, Mr. Barlow.

As all colleagues around the table would know, as part of our due diligence—I say “our” as the chair—I am guided by our legislative clerk and our deputy legislative clerk to see whether or not the scope of the amendment is in order.

Mr. Barlow, you talked about the “impetus” of the bill. Again, I'm actually quite sympathetic to the argument you're making around trying to “improve” the situation, but I have had to rule on this bill. I have taken some guidance from the legislative clerk.

Ultimately, Bill C-355 provides for the ban of the exportation by air of live horses for the purpose of being slaughtered. The amendment proposes to allow for the exportation to happen under certain conditions, which is contrary to the principle of the bill as adopted at second reading at the House. House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, states the following on page 770: “An amendment to a bill that was referred to a committee after second reading is out of order if it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill.”

I'm of the opinion that for the aforementioned reasons, the amendment is contrary to the principle of the bill and is therefore inadmissible. I can be challenged on my ruling.

Again, I want to make sure that the record shows, Mr. Barlow, that I'm actually quite sympathetic to the suggestion you're putting forward, but I am guided by what has to happen procedurally in this place. I have been advised by our legislative clerk that it is inadmissible.

There is some flexibility for a chair. On Bill C-234, for example, I did not take the advice, but I think this is too far outside the scope of the advice I have been given, so I have to rule that this amendment is inadmissible.

As I would say, colleagues, I am subject to be challenged, but that is the advice I have been given and that's the ruling I have made thus far.

Go ahead, Mr. MacGregor.

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

I have a question, Chair. Maybe the clerk can help answer this.

Just hypothetically, if a committee ever did challenge a chair who had made a ruling on the admissibility of an amendment because it was outside the scope, and then that bill was reported back to the House, would the Speaker then be compelled to intervene, ruling that the committee had strayed past its mandate and had ignored the second reading will of the House?

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

Mr. MacGregor, this committee is well within its right to challenge the procedural ruling that has been made thus far. The only way in which a Speaker would then intervene would be subject to a member of Parliament raising a point of privilege and suggesting that the committee had gone outside its scope. The Speaker then would seek procedural counsel, wherein what I'm ruling right now would probably be upheld. I think that would be the case.

It really depends on whether any member of the House would choose to use parliamentary privilege if I were successfully challenged.

Go ahead, Mr. Steinley.

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

As we saw on Bill C-234, we can challenge the chair's ruling. Let's put it to a vote so that we can have it on record that we have had a common-sense amendment put forward. I think you're right; it is appropriate to have this conversation. I would like to have a vote on the ruling and see where it lands.

Thank you very much for your comments. They're appreciated.

Mr. Barlow has a comment as well.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

I have Mr. Drouin first, and then I will go to Mr. Barlow.

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

I'm just saying that we can vote, but the outcome will be the same in the House. Even though we challenge it, the Speaker will uphold the ruling anyway.

I understand where you're coming from, but the outcome would be the same. The amendment would be ruled inadmissible in the House of Commons by the Speaker, I think, from what I understand, but we can vote on it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

Go ahead, Mr. Barlow.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

I have a procedural question. I'm looking at Monsieur Perron's amendments, BQ-4 and BQ-5, which also make some changes in terms of adding to the scope of the bill with regard to feeding and watering horses during transportation as well as having an attendant on the flight.

Chair, if those two amendments were passed, changing the scope of the bill because they are specifically on those points, would that change the position of our amendment? Do you understand what I'm saying?

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

Without giving out future surprises down the line, basically the way it was framed to me from a procedural side—and, again, I'm sympathetic to the idea of trying to allow the transportation under certain conditions—was that the scope of the bill, in the way it is drafted, is that it's all or nothing. This bill is to prevent horses from being exported for slaughter for any reason. The amendments that are being considered in the package allow that to happen under certain conditions.

You mentioned in your remarks, Mr. Barlow, that the impetus of the bill is to try to improve their travel. The bill is not drafted in a way that allows for any provision of travel, so it's quite black and white.

As I said with regard to Mr. Steinley's point, in other times that I've chaired there has been a bit more discretion, but in this case the legislative counsel has been quite clear that this would be outside the scope of the bill. I would be really stretching the bounds of my procedural authority in this committee.

Although I am sympathetic, a number of amendments that talk about having adjustments and conditions attached, including Mr. Perron's proposed amendments, are ultimately going to be ruled outside of procedural order.

Some of what you have put forward, Mr. Barlow, will be in order, particularly the adoption of when this would come into force. However, with regard to the elements around trying to allow horses to still be exported with certain conditions or further parameters, the advice I've been given is that it is outside the scope of what is contemplated by the bill.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

I appreciate your diligence, Mr. Chair, but I still want to challenge your decision on this, just as a matter of principle.

Clearly the witnesses who were brought forward by the proponent of this legislation were very adamant that this was not about the end use of the horses but about the safety and welfare of the animals. I think the misdirection of this legislation is what frustrates us.

For that reason alone, I want to challenge the decision and put it to a vote.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

Yes, it is well within the right of every member of this committee.

Again, Mr. Steinley talked about Bill C-234 and others for which I've been allowed some discretion where it's been a bit more grey. This one is a bit more cut and dried, based on what has been said by the procedural experts who have advised me.

I will go to Mr. MacGregor.

There is not usually much room for debate, but this committee does operate quite well, and we will go to a vote afterwards.

Go ahead, Mr. MacGregor.

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

I have a question, because sometimes the wording of what we're voting on can be confusing.

Is this voting to uphold the chair's ruling? Can the clerk just explain what a yea or a nay vote is in this case?

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

This is on whether the decision of the chair shall carry. Mr. Barlow would like to challenge the chair.

As I understand it, if you're voting in favour, it's to maintain the decision of the chair. If you're voting against, it's to overrule the procedural decision that I've given and to move on in a different direction.

Madam Clerk, I'll have you call the vote in favour of the chair or not.

(Ruling of the chair sustained: yeas 6; nays 5)

Ultimately, the chair's ruling is upheld by the committee.

Unfortunately, Mr. Barlow, your first amendment is inadmissible.

Colleagues, now that CPC-1 is ultimately defeated, CPC-4, CPC-5, CPC-6, CPC-8 and CPC-9 cannot be moved, as they are consequential to CPC-1. They are inadmissible.

Go ahead, Mr. Perron.

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

Regarding amendment CPC-9, you are saying it is not admissible. If however we adopt the new Bloc Québécois amendment that you received this morning and that replaces amendments BQ-4 and BQ-5, I think amendment CPC-9 would once again be relevant.

Is that correct?

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

Yes.

Okay. I believe it's in our package. We'll now move to the first amendment from the Bloc Québécois, numbered 13016781.

Colleagues, I can repeat the ruling, but it's very similar. As I've already outlined—

I'm sorry, Mr. Perron. Would you like to move your amendment?

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

Yes, if I understand correctly, you want to discuss amendment BQ-1.

Amendment BQ-1 would amend clause 4 of Bill C‑355 by deleting line 12 on page 2.

Line 12 on page 2 refers to the pilot….

I'm sorry, I don't seem to have the right amendment.

Let me start over. I am talking about amendment number 13016781, which was provided at the last minute this morning. It replaces amendments BQ-4 and BQ-5, which become moot.

Apologies for submitting the amendment late, but we think it is more likely to be admissible in this form and at this place.

I propose that Bill C-355, in clause 4, be amended by replacing lines 5 to 12 on page 2 with the following:

4 (1) It is prohibited to export a horse from Canada by air unless the exporter has, in the form and manner specified by the Minister, provided the Minister with a written declaration that, as the case may be, (a) attests that, to the best of their knowledge, the horse is not being exported for the purpose of being slaughtered or fattened for slaughter; (b) if the horse is being exported for the purpose of being slaughtered or fattened for slaughter, (i) attests that the horse will be accompanied on board the aircraft by a person who is trained to, among other things, feed, water and provide care to it during transport, and (ii) includes a detailed plan for the care to be provided to the horse during transport. …

This amendment will address the problem relating to transport conditions, which differ according to the ultimate purpose of the animal's transport. This is in keeping with the concerns and testimony the committee has heard.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

You have the floor, Mr. Drouin. Please be brief.

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

I have just one question and it is for the clerk.

If Mr. Perron's amendment is carried, and please correct me if I am wrong, wouldn't that make my colleague's amendment, which would amend lines 13 to 27, inadmissible? Would it mean we would be amending a line more than once?

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

You just have to let me get there, Mr. Drouin. Yes, just in terms of....

First of all, I will rule on the admissibility, which is going to be a problem, but yes, if this were to be adopted, LIB-0.1 could not be moved as a result of the line conflict.

Thank you very much for your amendment, Mr. Perron.

As with Mr. Barlow's amendment, your amendment would make it possible to include a provision regarding the export of horses, with conditions.

The opinion from the procedural clerks is very clear: The amendment exceeds the scope of Bill C‑355.

As I said to Mr. Barlow, I'm sympathetic, Monsieur Perron, to what you're saying about trying to have further conditions to make sure there is adequate care for the horses, but on the similar principle that I just read out for Mr. Barlow, the advice I'm being given by the procedural clerks is that this is outside the scope, because the bill was very narrow in the way it was drafted, and it is black and white. Either you allow the export of the horses for slaughter....

I'm sorry, but there is no room for conditions. There is no room for improving the way in which the horses.... It is a very clear legislative bill that says this activity just cannot happen, regardless of whether or not there are other measures that can be taken.

Unfortunately, this amendment—I'm going to rule in the same manner—is inadmissible. I can read the text, but it follows the exact same procedural elements that Mr. Barlow's amendment had.

I can be challenged, and I invite you to do so if you'd like. I don't know if it will change based on the last vote, but you can challenge it if you like.

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

I do not want us to vote three times on the same thing, but I have a question for legislative counsel.

According to our analysis, since we wish to retain the provisions that prohibit the transport of horses for slaughter in the first subsection, we thought this might strengthen the bill.

Perhaps I am a bit naive since I am not a lawyer, but I thought the amendment would be much more admissible since it would strengthen the bill rather than contradict it.

Was I mistaken? Perhaps you can convince me not to challenge the chair's decision.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

The principle and first clause of the bill are very clear. They completely prohibit the export of horses for slaughter.

Unfortunately, based on the advice of the procedural clerks, I think the amendment exceeds the principle of the bill.

That's the advice.

I was asking similar questions. As the chair of the committee, yesterday I asked about a number of different ways, but I have to be guided in part. No matter how sympathetic I might be to the amendment that's being moved, I have an obligation to follow the procedural elements of this House and follow parliamentary procedure.

The advice I'm getting is quite clear. There are other times when I've had a bit more discretion—when it's been a little less black and white—but unfortunately, this is the one that I'm being told would be precedent-setting.

I am willing to be challenged based on the advice I'm given, but I don't know if the vote will be any different.

What would you like to do next, Monsieur Perron?

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

I will not make you vote on the same thing two or three times.