Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and thank you to the witnesses for helping guide us through this study.
Dr. Ireland, I'd like to start with you. Welcome back to the committee.
As a counterpoint to the question that came from my colleague Mr. Barlow, I understand science-based decision-making is very important. Our committee has possession of a letter that was written by 20 experts—veterinarians who have many years of experience in animal welfare and veterinary medicine. I'm going to read their conclusion into the record:
While the Health of Animals Act and regulations provide some protection for horses during transport, they do not prevent horses from experiencing some of the most severe negative affective states during transit. Because there are significant stressors inherent in the transportation of horses from Canadian feedlots overseas for slaughter, it is not possible to continue this practice without causing significant animal suffering.
It is important to put that on the record. There are people with many years of experience in this field who are raising very legitimate concerns. That is based on their scientific assessment of the practice.
I don't want to focus too much on that. I want to go to your opening remarks where you said the CFIA was responsible for making sure that horses were meeting the export requirements of Canada but also the import requirements of the host country. It's my understanding that when the horses land in Japan, that's where our jurisdiction ends.
If, upon arrival in Japan, there is a discovery of injured horses—horses who obviously had medical distress—how do we collect that data? Are we depending on the goodwill of the Japanese? Do they take it from that point? I'm wondering how the oversight transition happens at that point.