Agriculture Committee on April 9th, 2024

[Don Anderson]

I can't provide certainty on that.

What I can share is that within our entire portfolio, as I stated earlier, is that $198.9 million that FCC finances is outstanding within the entire equine industry.

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Was FCC consulted at all by the sponsor of the bill before this bill was brought forward to the House of Commons and to this committee?

[Don Anderson]

FCC is not involved in policy development. We interpret policy and we work within policy. We feel that is our role within the industry.

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

FCC recently wrote that indigenous agriculture opportunities could boost GDP by $1.5 billion. We've heard that about 40% of horses being exported are from indigenous breeders and that 25% of producers are indigenous. We've also heard from a Métis producer that this legislation would destroy their livelihood.

Is it not within the FCC mandate to increase indigenous participation in agriculture across the whole country?

[Don Anderson]

Absolutely. We are focused on growing the impact of the indigenous community, not just in agriculture but for the full spectrum of the industry and not specifically in the equine area.

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Would horse breeding not be within the agriculture industry? Would this piece of legislation not be contrary to the FCC's mandate as given by this government?

[Don Anderson]

I'm not sure how to respond.

At the end of the day, we're supporting indigenous agriculture across the country and we'll continue to do that. It's a focused area as we go forward. I can't specifically say how much of the play would be to the equine industry within that.

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

We know there's $198 million outstanding to FCC in loans from the horse industry. Would you say that this piece of legislation could affect the finances of FCC?

[Don Anderson]

This would not have material impact on FCC's overall portfolio.

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

How would those loans be repaid if these people don't have livelihoods to repay the loans?

[Don Anderson]

It's part of financing.

We look at any customers who are impacted by aspects outside of their control. FCC proactively works with those customers to find the best resolution to their situation. We'll offer up any means possible, including payment relief, deferrals, counselling, advice and our knowledge services—whatever it is—to support these customers in transition.

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

I appreciate that answer, Mr. Anderson. Thank you very much.

If these loans cannot be repaid by the industry that took them out, who then would pay back the loan, or who would then be responsible for those outstanding monies?

[Don Anderson]

Ultimately, the customer is responsible for their obligations to FCC, but FCC will work with those customers to find the best optimal resolution for each specific situation.

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Thank you.

If these loans are unable to be paid, Mr. Chair, I'd say that ultimately the taxpayer would be responsible for these loans, based on this legislation.

Private members' bills cannot influence government spending or have monies attached to them. I'd ask the chair to make a ruling that if FCC is out money because of this piece of legislation, it affects the taxpayers' dollars, and taxpayers are on the hook to pay the monies to FCC.

Does this piece of legislation have a royal recommendation attached to it?

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

Thank you.

We'll look into that, because I'm not in a position to be able to make that decision today. You know that, Mr. Steinley, but we will work that up the line to see whether or not there is precedent on that, or whether or not FCC, as an agency of the Crown, is close enough.

I'll now turn to Mr. Louis. You have up to six minutes.

Mr. Steinley, just so the record shows it, we will investigate, and I will report back. Thank you.

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

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you to all the witnesses here, in person and online.

Just to step back for a second, in having full understanding of this bill it's important to highlight what this legislation does not do. I propose that this is a stand-alone bill for a specific purpose, which is to ban the export of live horses for slaughter by air.

I have been assuring our hard-working farmers and ranchers, and I will continue to assure them, that Bill C-355 is specifically aimed at banning the export of live horses for slaughter and is not affecting any other sector. Our farmers continue to put food on Canadians' tables, and I'll continue to support them.

In my riding of Kitchener—Conestoga and here in Ottawa, as I did as recently as a few hours ago, I hear from agriculture stakeholders on a regular basis. All Canadians appreciate their contributions to our nation's food security.

To Ms. Cartwright, thank you again for being here from Humane Canada.

You mentioned that you are a founding member of the National Farm Animal Care Council. Their goal it is to implement a comprehensive and strategic approach to farm animal care in Canada. You work together with industry and also give direct input on agricultural policy to federal, provincial and territorial levels, so I appreciate that.

Some other organizations that I believe are on the care council are the Canadian Cattle Association, the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, the Canadian Meat Council, the Canadian Pork Council, the Canadian Sheep Federation, the Chicken Farmers of Canada, the Turkey Farmers of Canada and Equestrian Canada, among others.

Can you let Canadians know what our committee has heard time and time again about how working together throughout the agriculture sector with organizations like yours at all levels of government can benefit Canada's food supply?

Can you tell me how you collaborate with the organizations I mentioned previously to help shape those policies and share best practices?

[Barbara Cartwright]

That's a big question. I'll do my best.

Yes, we are the founder of Canada's codes of practice with regard to on-farm animal welfare, and my organization is a founder, one of many, that founded the National Farm Animal Care Council. I was not with the organization at the time; however, I have been very involved with the National Farm Animal Care Council, because we are one of two animal welfare organizations that sit on the National Farm Animal Care Council. Until mid-2015 we were the only one, so we have to sit at every single code negotiation table. It's a lot of work, but we think it's very important because of what you just mentioned, which is that many voices come to that table, and we all negotiate. It really is a negotiation.

Unfortunately, animal welfare has one seat, so we don't have as much of a voice, but I will say that we do try to come to consensus. However, that consensus is usually what can we all live with. One of the ongoing jokes is that if everybody is unhappy, then we probably came to something decent.

That is why I think it's important to stress that the codes are not the highest animal welfare codes of practice because of that, and because industry has a very strong voice there.

We continue to collaborate in other ways with industry, because we believe that they are in control of hundreds of millions of farmed animals and their welfare and we want to be in partnership to advance animal welfare in Canada.

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

Thank you, and thank you for the work you're doing in collaboration.

You've heard the first hour of testimony and you've seen other testimony, I'm sure. There are those who are still in support of exporting horses live by air for slaughter. They claim that the bill to ban this practice is based solely on emotion and not science. Their claim denies that the horses that are shipped live for slaughter experience suffering in various forms, including anxiety, pain, fear, exhaustion, thirst, hunger and panic, yet we've heard testimony from experts, including veterinarians, that highlight strong scientific evidence regarding the risks posed by these conditions in which horses are exported overseas for slaughter.

I want to give you some time to expand on the differences in the treatment of these horses versus, let's say, sports horses or racehorses. Would there be any way that those could be misconstrued?

[Barbara Cartwright]

No, I don't believe there's any way they can be misconstrued with the way that sport horses are flown, as the committee has heard multiple times. What I hear often in the testimony is the conflation of that with how animals are being shipped for slaughter overseas. We heard that today too. They were talking about all horses moving on transport truck, so it is important that the committee stay focused on air transport.

At the end of the day, I personally believe that horses were not made to fly. We've heard ample testimony. I did hear this morning from the CVMA that they believe the horses are able to have their five freedoms. I will just remind everyone of what those are. I'm going to read them off here.

The five freedoms, which have been in place since the sixties as a way to measure whether an animal is experiencing a high level of welfare, include freedom from thirst or hunger—we know that's not happening, because they're not getting access—freedom from pain, freedom from injury, freedom from fear or discomfort, and freedom to express their normal behaviour.

Clearly horses that are being put on an aircraft are not able to express their normal behaviour. For us, that's the red line right there. It goes back to what humane slaughter is, and this cannot meet a “humane slaughter” definition because it does not minimize fear and anxiety.

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

This is my last minute.

We heard that seven out of 10 Canadians are against this practice. We've heard many people reaching out to us to say that this practice shouldn't happen. Can you tell me and all parliamentarians your thoughts on what you've heard in terms of Canadians' reactions when they have heard about this?

[Barbara Cartwright]

Absolutely. Canadians are shocked that it's going on, that we would be shipping live horses overseas for a delicacy does not align with Canadian values.

I would also like to speak about my members—humane societies and SPCAs across this country, from the smallest volunteer-run rural organizations in Happy Valley-Goose Bay all the way up to the largest on the continent, the BC SPCA. All of them agree 100% that this practice needs to be banned. We are all aligned.

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

Thank you for your time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

Thank you, Ms. Cartwright.

Thank you, Mr. Louis.

I'll now give Mr. Perron the floor for six minutes.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses for being here today.

Ms. Martellani, you said that horses have unique physiological characteristics. However, horses are transported for reasons other than slaughter. I wanted to ask you why transportation should be prohibited only for horses intended for slaughter, which you touched on earlier when you said they're not treated the same way. So here's the question I often ask: Can we solve this by requiring better transportation conditions for horses for slaughter?

[Erin Martellani]

Thank you for the question.

As mentioned earlier, we tried to improve overall transportation regulations in 2019. That only made things worse for horses exported for slaughter, except that transit time is now slightly shorter. However, as I was saying, horses' physiology is unique. They're ill-suited to air transportation in particular because of their high centre of gravity and their sound sensitivity, which is well known. We believe that there is no way to improve this practice and that it should be banned. However, that does not prevent anyone from improving all other modes of transportation.