Agriculture Committee on Feb. 13th, 2024

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

Again, this is not about horsemeat consumption. It's not about the sale of horsemeat, or even raising and breeding horses for consumption here. This is simply ending the cruel practice of exporting live horses to another country to be eaten raw as a delicacy.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

It's 16%.

In your bill, you're worried about the time that horses are transported by air.

Do you know the hours that we're allowed to transport cattle in Canada?

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

We've had that discussion. It's 28, I believe.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

It's 33.

How many hours of air transport for horses does the law allow?

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

It's 28.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

What was the average air time that horses were in the air going from Canada to Japan, for example?

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

We'll have witnesses who will come and talk about that. There were some that were under, and there were some instances where it went over the 28 hours.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

There was one instance where they went over 28, and that was for weather. There was a stop in Seattle.

The average is 23. Again, they're below industry standards. The fatality rate is zero. The injury rate is less than 1%.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

Mr. Barlow, I apologize. We're out of time, and I want to make sure we have enough room.

Thank you, Mr. Louis.

We'll now turn to Mr. Carr.

[Ben Carr, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Thanks very much, Mr. Chair.

I want to take the opportunity to begin here by thanking my colleague for bringing this important piece of legislation forward.

We often live in and talk about the Ottawa bubble. That means there are issues here that sometimes consume a lot of our energy, our time and our focus, but are disassociated from the things that people on the ground really care about.

Our colleague, Mr. MacGregor, received over 36,000 signatures on a petition in support of the objective of this legislation. I'm told that in my constituency office, we are getting 30 emails about every minute right now, which puts us over 10,000 in the course of the last couple of days.

I know that my Conservative colleagues like to refer to this as pandering to activists. I do take some exception to the demonization of activists as somehow being flawed in their pursuit of better treatment of animals, but that aside, I don't understand how we can characterize the voices of tens of thousands of Canadians that have been expressed through the democratic process as simply being chalked up to some form of extreme activism.

The job of a member of Parliament is to reflect the views of their constituents back to folks that do business here in Ottawa. I respect the fact that Mr. Barlow and my Conservative colleagues are, I think, genuinely doing that—reflecting concerns raised by those they represent. I'm doing the same thing, as I believe Mr. Louis, Mr. MacGregor and others are.

When I campaigned during the by-election we held in Winnipeg South Centre in June of this past year, I heard about this issue more than any other that was raised by people at the door and in my office who wanted to see action on something that mattered to them. In part, that is because my riding is not too far from Richardson International Airport in Winnipeg where, as we know, a large number of these horses are sent for slaughter.

I do also have a couple of concerns or perhaps just curiosities about the rationale used by my Conservative colleagues in particular in opposition to this bill. I did hear my colleague, Mr. Barlow, talk about the fact that no rules were broken, so therefore, why bring forward legislation?

I'm not sure that the purpose of legislation is always to respond to a broken rule. Conservatives are bringing forward legislation as it pertains to a price on pollution. I'm not sure that's breaking any rule, but they brought forward legislation that they want to see bring changes to that.

I'm also not really hearing Mr. Louis or others talk a lot about broken rules as much as I'm talking about the core of this issue, which is that these are sentient beings under current regulations, even if rules are not being broken, that are not in line with the values we believe we should have as Canadians.

I also don't quite understand the point raised about death and always coming back to minimal numbers of death. Of course, assuming that the statistics are true—I've read them and I have no reason to believe that they're not—that's a minimal number of deaths. That's like saying, if somebody hits a dog but the dog doesn't die, we don't need to worry about it. If somebody abuses a child emotionally, but there's no physical or fatal consequences as a result of that abuse, it's not something that we should be talking about. The point I'm simply raising is that just because the horses aren't dying in transport does not justify that the provisions currently in place are good.

I know that my Conservatives colleagues, much like many of us, like to be rooted in evidence. The evidence certainly suggests, Mr. Louis, that this is a priority for many Canadians. I don't depreciate the significant concern that is coming from some folks that my colleagues represent. That does not mean that there aren't tens of thousands or millions of people across the country who feel differently. I think, sometimes, that's being left out of the conversation.

I do note that in a comment made by our colleague from Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa during debate on this not too long ago, he accused the Liberals of attempting “to score cheap political points” on the basis of this legislation.

With the 30 seconds I have left, Mr. Louis, can you tell us why you brought this bill forward and why you believe, if you do, that the feedback you and we have received from tens of thousands of Canadians is legitimate?

Thank you.

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

I appreciate the opportunity to answer.

The Winnipeg Humane Society has been a strong advocate for banning this practice. I have to say thank you, because when we have those conversations your name comes up as someone who is behind this, so they're lucky to have you and I appreciate that.

The vast majority of Canadians, in all provinces and all political stripes, want to see this practice.... I just recently heard from someone in Foothills, Alberta—Mr. Barlow's own riding—who wants to ban this practice. This is not some niche issue. This is not urban versus rural. This is not about going against agriculture. This is about banning a practice that's already been banned in other countries, and more countries are working toward this.

It's about banning a cruel practice of shipping horses live, by plane and across the world, to be eaten as a delicacy. I take offence to the member's description...being called niche. This is not niche; this is compassionate and Canadian. We're getting people from all across the country asking us to stand up and do the right thing, and I think that's what we're doing.

[Ben Carr, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Thanks, Mr. Louis. I appreciate that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

Thank you, Mr. Carr.

Thank you, Mr. Louis.

Mr. Perron, you have the floor for six minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Louis, thank you for your availability. I know that you're here all the time. However, this time, you have a different role.

I gather from your bill that you're concerned about the conditions in which horses are transported for slaughter. You consider these conditions inadequate.

Mr. Barlow asked some good questions earlier about the regulations, which supposedly aren't being broken. Wouldn't the best solution have been to review the transportation conditions?

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

Thank you for your question.

I would like to respond in French, but I can't yet.

I need time—next time, I promise.

I appreciate that concern. We'll bring in witnesses. We'll talk to people about the condition that the horses are in, from being raised in those feedlots all the way up to transportation. The conditions for these horses, or companion animals, differ from other livestock, and certainly they are not treated the same as horses for racing or any other causes. This is a niche market that can be improved, and there are examples of injuries and death.

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

What are the differences between transporting horses for slaughter and transporting race horses or horses simply sold to customers abroad?

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

The horses raised for sport are trained and habituated to travel, whereas these horses are not. Those horses that are raised for sport are supervised during the flight itself. These horses that are raised and exported for slaughter are definitely not. The horses that are raised for sport are also given more space to move within their crates, to correct their balance during takeoff and landing, and that's one of the primary...most possible injuries.

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

You're saying that the transportation conditions aren't quite the same. Horses transported for purposes other than slaughter are supervised and have more space. You spoke of race horses, and I gather that measures have been implemented.

This raises two questions. First, wouldn't the best solution simply have been to make the conditions for transporting horses destined for slaughter more like the conditions for race horses?

Second, when a horse is sold for purposes other than slaughter, but not for racing, what are the transportation conditions?

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

I imagine we would have to ask the exporters if they would be willing to improve those conditions. That's a question for them. I did have meetings with the exporters themselves. We had good conversations and I heard their concerns. That's what we're here to do: We're here to hear each other's concerns.

I imagine it comes down to cost. When you're talking about race horses, those are high-end horses that are treated much differently from, basically, the way these horses that are exported for slaughter are.

As far as the second question, I'm trying to keep up....

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

You're saying that experts will provide a response later. That's fine.

In your bill, you specify the need for written confirmation from the exporter that the horse isn't being exported for slaughter. Right now, your bill bans only the export of horses for slaughter. Many people consider horses noble and highly valuable animals. It's also necessary to consider the far‑reaching impact of bills.

Your bill specifies the need for written confirmation from the exporter that a horse is being transported for purposes other than slaughter. How will this be done? Have you considered the administrative burden? Have you thought about the airline that must prove all this? What happens to the horse once it reaches its destination? Does this mean that the horse's owner can never slaughter the animal when it reaches the end of its life? How will you monitor this, given the potential length of time involved?

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

Thank you for your important question.

I've reached out and spoken to many stakeholders, and we want to minimize any of those unintended consequences related to any changes in this policy or law.

Most of the groups that I spoke to, the racetrack associations and those others, understand the bill and are behind the spirit of the bill. These are groups who are primarily concerned with making sure that there's no correlation between their industries and the exporters sending horses for slaughter. These are two completely different industries.

We're going to make sure that we minimize any extra burden on those industries, and we want to hear from them, and we want to work within this committee to see if we can come up with solutions, but right now, I believe that this is a solution, a stand-alone bill that will not affect any of the livestock. It's also a bit of a reverse onus saying that, if you're proving that you're not sending this horse for slaughter, which is a vast difference, there's not much difference between one horse's getting on a plane that's travelling for a show or over to England for a coronation versus these horses that are crammed in crates and flown over to be—

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

Thank you, Mr. Louis.

Thank you, Mr. Perron.

We'll now turn to Mr. MacGregor for up to six minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Welcome, Mr. Louis. You're taking a different seat at the committee this time.

As Mr. Carr mentioned, petition e-4190 received 36,175 signatures. It certainly did generate a lot of interest in my office, too, given that I'm the NDP's agriculture critic. We are receiving a considerable amount of correspondence on this bill and this measure. It is clear that there is a considerable amount of interest among the Canadian population in this measure.

I'm curious, though. When we started this parliament, we did have a different Minister of Agriculture, the Honourable Marie-Claude Bibeau, and her mandate letter had a clear direction from the Prime Minister to enact this kind of policy. During the times she had appeared before our committee to defend the estimates of her departmental spending, I took that opportunity to ask her a number of times how she and her department were progressing on that mandate letter from the Prime Minister. Her constant refrain was that they were working on it and that more consultations were needed.

Similar to Mr. Carr's question on the journey that led you to developing this PMB, I'd like to know a little bit more about that and what kind of collaboration have you had with the department. Have they offered you access to the consultations they provided? I know there's a considerable difference between the resources of a member of Parliament and those of an entire department.

Have you been able to piggyback on AAFC's consultations on this particular policy item?

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

You've been a big part of getting it this far. Public opinion on this is such that once people know about this cruel practice, they don't want to see Canada take part in this. A big part of the grassroots movement in that was to have voices heard. Your sponsoring e-petition 4190 brought it to the forefront, and there have been advocates who are saying that.

The fact that you and I sit on the agriculture committee also, I think, shows that this is not any kind of attack on livestock farming or on the agriculture sector as a whole. This is a specific bill, and that's why I did it as a stand-alone bill, not to in any way encroach on other legislation. This is a very specific bill for a specific process.

As far as why I took this on, as you and I know, and I would say for those listening, we end up with getting a lottery number for a private member's bill. In the previous parliament, I had one that wasn't worth looking into. This one I did, and it took a little while, and this was something that I wanted to do, and I heard from people.

I have been in touch with the department. They didn't just hand over a file to me and say, “Here's where we're at.” I know that they were working toward that. I just want an opportunity to get this done faster, and there's no difference between a private member's bill or a government-sponsored bill. The legality of it is the same, and I would still love any input from anybody.

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

Sure.

I was just curious about the process involved. It's good to hear that you've been in consultation with the department. I think we're going to have a chance to hear directly from them as well.

There's another thing I also want to be clear on. On a close reading of your bill, am I correct in thinking that this bill is not about stopping the raising of horses for human consumption? This is really just targeted at the mode of transport.