Agriculture Committee on April 9th, 2024

[Dr. Trevor Lawson]

Well, only, I think, in very broad strokes, that the animals are well cared for and that the farms where they're held are quite close to the airport, so there's a very limited transport distance following their arrival in Japan.

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

Is the proximity of the horse to the airport in Japan the basis through which you feel comfortable establishing that the welfare of the horse is taken into due consideration once arriving in Japan?

[Dr. Trevor Lawson]

I believe it's part of the picture. There's not a long transport after a long trip, so that is very helpful.

The conditions that have been described and shared with us regarding the Japanese experience would be, I think, very equivalent to, or better than, what we're seeing here on Canadian soil.

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

Mr. Lawson, what are those conditions beyond the proximity of the airport?

[Dr. Trevor Lawson]

Basically, being well fed and having spacious pens and the ability to move. It's satisfying the five freedoms of animal welfare. I think that's the basis of the judgment that we don't believe there's a decline in care upon arrival in Japan.

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

Do you have any evidence that you could submit to the committee that establishes that?

[Dr. Trevor Lawson]

No, but I believe Jennifer Woods would be able to offer testimony or offer additional input to that, as she has travelled on these trips and witnessed the space.

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

I understand that, Dr. Lawson, but you are here as the president of the CVMA, representing 8,000 vets, and you're telling us confidently, if I understand your position correctly, that you believe the welfare of horses is looked after in Japan, but you've come to this committee testimony without any evidence that you can provide to support that position.

I want to move on to the next question.

Are you here today, Dr. Lawson, stating the official position of vets in Canada in relation to Bill C-355?

[Dr. Trevor Lawson]

I'm here to state the official position of the Canadian Veterinary Medical Association that we cannot support this bill as written in its current form.

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

Can I ask you this, Dr. Lawson? The CVMA states that it represents 8,000 vets across Canada. Your website very clearly states the process by which you conclude an official position. Your website, the organization you represent, states that it can take “months of work” and multiple iterations before a draft position is reached. Your approval process references that “All feedback on the draft position is taken into account when preparing a final draft...for CVMA Council’s approval. Final draft versions of positions are reviewed by Council, and approved position statements are then posted on the CVMA website.”

I don't see a position on the website. Can you tell us the internal process whereby you concluded that the CVMA, in that rigorous consultation process that you abide by, as listed on your website, took into consideration the views and perspectives of at least some of those 8,000?

I'll repeat that: What was the process by which you consulted your membership to derive the position that you've brought forward today?

[Dr. Trevor Lawson]

As stated in my testimony, we have done an evidence-based review and we have consulted with subject matter experts, including those on our animal welfare committee, to form this opinion.

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

What was the process through which the 8,000 vets represented by your organization had an opportunity to provide input on the policy position that you've reached? Was that policy position drafted with respect to the overarching protocols and procedures that you have listed on your website? Was this months' worth of development and consultation, as you describe on the website?

[Dr. Trevor Lawson]

I believe there's a little confusion regarding the position statement development and our testimony here today.

The position statement development that you have quoted from our website very much involves stakeholders on a regular basis, including membership. We have worked on this testimony here today exclusively through subject matter experts, our animal welfare committee and those with first-hand experience—including me—in visiting the feed yards in Alberta and seeing that part of the process.

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

Dr. Lawson, can you speak to us about any of the animal welfare positions that have been taken by some of the 8,000 vets you represent?

Some of my colleagues across the way tried to diminish the legitimacy of those views by virtue of how often they're working with certain types of animals. However, you have heard, no doubt, some in your organization who have taken an opposing view. Can you share with us what some of the opposing viewpoints would be?

In other words, what are some of the reasons that you're hearing are of concern to vets in that group of 8,000 that are different from the position you've taken today?

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

We're at time, but I'm going to give Dr. Lawson the opportunity to quickly reply in 30 to 45 seconds.

[Dr. Trevor Lawson]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I think the concerns we've heard are often raised based on emotion and on the high value of a horse in our society. I think those concerns are fair and well understood, speaking especially as someone who practices with horses on a daily basis.

With that said, I do not believe that allows us to have our judgment of the facts to be skewed based on emotion. The position we have brought forward to committee today is based on the facts and on consultation with subject matter experts.

Thank you for your time.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

Thank you, Dr. Lawson.

Thank you, Mr. Carr.

Mr. Perron, over to you for six minutes.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses for being here today.

Mr. Chair, I want to start by apologizing to my colleagues and to the witnesses. At our last meeting, on Thursday, March 21, 2024, we ran out of time to finish adopting a motion I had given notice for. I checked with my colleagues before today's meeting, and, if you seek it, you will find unanimous consent to adopt the following motion, after which we can continue the round of questions with the witnesses. Thank you.

That, given the lack of any response from Loblaws and Walmart since we last communicated, and given that the negotiated adoption of the code of conduct seems seriously compromised, it is agreed that the committee will summon the members of the interim board of directors of the code of conduct, and the members of the steering committee for the negotiations on the code of conduct, to testify before the committee on the status of the situation, with a view to providing accurate information on the situation and better guiding the committee's potential recommendations to the government.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

We'll see.

Colleagues, I think Mr. Perron is referencing this motion that I think was distributed and shared. Do we have unanimous consent to adopt the motion that Mr. Perron has brought forward?

(Motion agreed to)

There you go, Mr. Perron.

You have four and a half minutes left.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Ms. Demianowicz, I apologize again for the interruption.

I would like to hear your comments on animal transportation regulations. Several witnesses who appeared before the committee mentioned the poor conditions in which horses are transported for slaughter. However, we have heard conflicting testimony from veterinarians and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency indicating that transportation conditions are relatively decent. Of course, each of us must make up our own mind. Both sides have also shared images.

Do you think that stricter animal transportation regulations could be an alternative to Bill C‑355 ?

[Ewa Demianowicz]

I don't think regulations are the way to go; that's been explored already. Consultations were held and amendments were made to the live animals regulations just a few years ago. Absolutely nothing has changed since then with regard to the transportation of horses to Japan for slaughter. On the contrary, as was mentioned earlier, it appears some regulatory requirements have been removed so the industry can continue to carry out this type of transportation without breaking the law.

Since this type of transportation began in the past decade, there have been clear violations of the regulations regarding separation of horses and head clearance in crates. Those two provisions were removed. We wonder why that is. The only reason appears to be that it helps the industry.

I don't think changing the regulations will improve conditions. We've already tried that, and it didn't work. Instead, transportation of horses should cease. That is the only way to improve the welfare of these horses.

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

Thank you very much.

Canada has several types of livestock operations that export live animals, and some people are concerned that ending this type of transportation for horses would set a precedent that would extend to the transportation of other animals. People have also suggested that this has more to do with the social status of the horse than with the actual transportation of the animals.

Could you comment on that?

[Ewa Demianowicz]

We hear that argument anytime new animal welfare legislation is on the table, so this is nothing new.

In the past, bills on similar issues have not made it to the committee stage. The reason Bill C‑355 has made it this far is that it seeks only one thing: to end a specific practice. I don't see how this bill could allow anything else to be done. If other provisions are proposed in the future, they'll have to go through the same stages as Bill C‑355 and may not make it this far.

Let's not avoid passing an important piece of legislation that will save horses' lives just because people are afraid that other legislative measures will be put forward in the future. I don't think that's how we function as a society.

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

Some people are concerned that, once we set a precedent protecting horses specifically, the next step may be to ban the slaughter of horses.

Culturally, many people in the country value this animal more than other animals, but that doesn't mean people don't care about other animals. However, there are also cultural differences. For example, I know that people in French Canada, especially in Quebec, consume more horsemeat than people elsewhere, although it is consumed everywhere.

How would you respond to those concerns?