Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join the debate on the bill introduced by my friend and colleague, a bill dealing with horse slaughter.
The Liberal Party just wants to make slaughter a better thing, a safer thing. The bill, for all intents and purposes, would end slaughter in this country.
That may have been the unintended consequence of the bill, because while the bill actually says that horses have to be raised for slaughter and have a passport, in this country we really do not have anybody who raises horses for slaughter. There are some who are on the edges of it, but it is unlike the beef industry, in which that is the entire industry. There are some who do some slaughter, but primarily horses are not raised for that. Most are raised for other purposes, whether for racing or for recreational use. Quite often kids get involved in riding horses, and sometimes adults get involved in racing horses later on in life.
There is an industry in this country. There are concerns about bute, and those are legitimate concerns. In fact, the CFIA takes those concerns very seriously, to the extent that bute is listed as a controlled substance. It has made sure it is not allowed. The evidence on bute is clear. No one argues that. I do not think anyone in this House would argue that.
People are basically saying that those are the rules, and it should not happen. There are some folks who may not be complying, and at the end of the day the authorities and the regulatory bodies are supposed to make sure they catch them. They are supposed to look at the industry to make sure that it does not happen.
The general accounting office in the United States has done a study. The U.S. did not actually ban horse slaughter. Quite often those in Canada who oppose horse slaughter say that the U.S. has banned horse slaughter, but it actually did not. What Congress did was withdraw funding to the USDA for inspections. Consequently, since the industry did not have a federal inspector, it could not export the meat, which is similar to this country.
Therefore, since the market for slaughtered horsemeat was primarily an export market and not an internal market, the facilities were shut down. It was not because it was banned, and it is still not banned in the U.S., but simply because it had to be done somewhere else, so then the horses were transported here.
The general accounting office in the U.S. did a study in the last while that examined horse welfare across country from the time the slaughterhouses closed until now. The study came to the conclusion that it has gone into decline. There are more horses being abandoned. There are more horses that are simply mistreated and are not being fed as much.
Those horses that are now being abandoned would have gone to a slaughter facility. I recognize a lot of folks do not necessarily like that the end of a horse's life, which may not be its natural life, is in a slaughter facility. I think one has to understand that there is a bit of cycle to this when it comes to horses, and indeed this has been going on for a long time.
The proponents of the bill, those who defend it, are saying it is a health and safety concern. There is no question that legislation is in place already about health and safety concerns. We still have regulations about transport, about how horses should be slaughtered, and about the types of drugs being used and whether they are or are not allowed.
Ultimately, this industry exists in this country and is regulated under the CFIA. People are engaged in this industry. In some folks' eyes, it may not be a particularly nice thing that is happening. I would suggest that if people have ever been to a slaughter facility, they would know that most of it is not nice. Their sensibilities probably would be upset by it, and correctly so. However, at the end of the day we do slaughter animals.
The Canadian equine association is the major umbrella group for horse owners, whether their horses are shown in an arena jumping or used for commercial purposes or for horse racing. The Canadian equine association opposes the bill, and I think correctly so.
It does not believe that it enhances the value of existing legislation for food safety. It does not believe that the welfare of horses in Canada will improve, and it thinks there are serious implications for Canadian horse owners who move horses interprovincially. Clearly, the group that is engaged with horse owners and the horse industry across Canada is saying that this is not a helpful bill. I think they are right. I think they are headed in the right direction.
Yes, we can always do better with inspections to make sure that horses in auction houses have correct documentation that is lined up properly so that the CFIA and inspectors can ensure that we do not get another story like the one we saw in the paper, because they are always the one-offs. Thousands of horses go through the system. There is always a one-off, such as a horse being purchased only 24 hours or two or three days earlier, when the owner has attested to a six-month certificate. When those folks are found out, their licences have to be removed. If they are caught egregiously breaking the law and the rules, they have to be dealt with. There are things in place to make sure that actually happens.
Ultimately, this is a bill that for all intents and purposes would end horse slaughter in Canada. Unfortunately, when one reads the restrictive practices in the bill, it says “must” be this and that. In other words, it must be only horse slaughter they are raised for and they must have a passport. It does not say “or”. If it said “or”, perhaps there would be an opportunity. However, it does not. Therefore the majority of horses that have been used in some sort of commercial activity or recreational activity would be abandoned over time, because folks would say that they do not want that horse anymore. If no one wanted to buy it, they would abandon it.
Horses are expensive. Many people buy horses thinking that they are nice animals, and they are. Many of us look at them and think they are majestic. They almost seem to feel what we are thinking. There is that closeness with a horse that perhaps one does not have with a chicken. Then again, the mayor of my municipality many years ago judged bantam chickens. He loved those multi-coloured bantam chickens. He loved those animals, much more than many of us in the House or across the country would think.
Folks' attachment to animals varies greatly from one group to another. For some, it is domestic cats or dogs. For some,it is snakes, and for others, it is horses. I can sympathize with the sensibilities around horses, but one cannot lose sight of what we are trying to attain. The end result of this bill would be to end horse slaughter. It would not be an unintended consequence. It would be the intended consequence. The GAO in the U.S. has said that the unintended consequence of shutting down the facilities, not banning them, is that for horses, life has become worse.
I find myself in a strange position, as the critic for agriculture on this side, having to disagree with my good friend from British Columbia Southern Interior. I will not be able to support the bill at second reading.
