Thank you, Mr. Chair, for the invitation to speak to this committee today. I'm here on behalf of the Canadian Equine Exporters Association.
First and foremost, we want to bring to your attention our industry's belief that we have not had enough meaningful consultation with industry stakeholders on this bill, including exporters, producers, multiple first nations communities and airline pilots, prior to its being introduced in Parliament.
While some members of this committee did agree to take meetings with us, 45 minutes is not nearly enough to gain true insight into the economic impact this bill would have on Canadian farm families or to understand its immense implications on animal welfare.
Proof of this is the complete and utter misconception that these horses are only 18 months of age when they are exported. We have no idea where the government heard this, but it is not accurate at all. Export contracts today state that horses must be between the ages of 24 and 36 months old prior to arriving in Japan.
The removal of the revenue from these specific, purpose-bred draft horses would be detrimental to the Canadian economy and to these families.
Mr. Chair, this would cause a huge animal welfare issue for the nearly 13,000 purpose-bred draft horses that are involved in this market.
What are these breeders supposed to do with these mares, stallions and foals that they have invested in to feed their families? Nowhere in this bill have we seen any mention of compensation for these farmers. As of last week, buyers of domestic slaughter horses were offering to buy these animals at less than 8% of the current fair-market value of the foals that we bring to our customers.
No one at this committee wants to talk about the colts that are produced as a result of pregnant mares' urine production in western Canada. For those who do not know, the PMU industry is a source of pharmaceutical ingredients that are highly sought-after in today's modern medicine.
My next point, Mr. Chair, is about the well-funded animal activist campaigns that have sought celebrity endorsements to promote their cause to the public based on falsehoods and inaccurate depictions of the facts. This agenda pulls at the heartstrings of many Canadians, but it does not represent the actual facts.
For example, it has been said in Parliament that the United States has banned this practice. That is 100% false. Today, export charts to Japan from the U.S.A. can still be issued by the USDA.
This is not an animal transportation issue; this is an animal end-use issue. We have heard from independent professionals at the CFIA, and from animal welfare expert Jennifer Woods, who has witnessed this first-hand right before and while we were loading these animals on the farm. They have witnesses and have both come to the conclusion that we are exceeding the current standard set out in the Health of Animals Act and the health of animals regulations. These are the facts, Mr. Chair, and facts don't care about your feelings.
Has anybody at this committee taken the time to visit the manufacturer of these boxes that we load these animals into? Has anybody at this committee taken the time to witness, in live action, these horses being loaded onto the airplanes?
All we keep hearing about is the cramped conditions that exist. However, the facts are that CFIA, animal welfare experts and industry professionals all agree 100% that this is not the case. Why are we still hearing this point again and again?
Is it because the people of this committee have chosen to turn a blind eye to the science and the evidence and to believe a celebrity endorsement campaign?
Their ultimate goal is to stop animal agriculture altogether. If you don't believe me, listen to this quote from the Canadian Horse Defence Coalition, which is one of the major stakeholders in this debate and a central player in the petitions and emails that we are hearing so much about.
On their website, under the frequently asked questions section, they state, “If society and our lawmakers can agree that we shouldn’t [export,] slaughter and eat horses, then logically the next step will be to examine the welfare of all animals used for food.”
There you have it, Mr. Chair. Make no mistake: This is the tip of the iceberg. Animal agriculture is a Titanic, and if this legislation passes, we all know what the result will be.
If we want to talk about public policy, public signatures and public outcry, before this committee is a letter signed by over 20 internationally recognized Canadian farm organizations, like the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, the Canadian Cattle Association and the Canadian Meat Council, just to name a few. These farm organizations represent almost 200,000 farm businesses and farm families that oppose this bill. Letting an animal's end use and extreme animal activism dictate agricultural policy in this country is a mistake.
We, as Canadians and as industry, ask the government to follow the science and facts presented by the animal welfare experts and CFIA, who have audited this process first-hand.
We can discuss and debate opinions, but we can not dispute the facts.
Thank you for your time. My colleague, Mr. Shore, and I will welcome any questions the committee may have for us.