Honourable senators, I rise today to speak to Bill C-355, An Act to prohibit the export by air of horses for slaughter and to make related amendments to certain Acts.

It is important to emphasize — as Senator Dalphond, the sponsor in the Senate, already has — that this bill is not intended to put a brake on the consumption of horsemeat by those who wish to consume it. Rather, it seeks to protect these animals by avoiding a mode of transport that can be cruel and inappropriate.

Unlike Bill S-270, which was withdrawn from the Order Paper in March 2024, this bill focuses exclusively on exports by air, without prohibiting other modes of transport. At present, almost all horse exports by air are destined for Japan.

Before turning to the issues surrounding the transport of horses, let me briefly review the aims and potential impact of this bill.

The first part clearly prohibits the export by air of live horses for the purpose of being fattened and slaughtered.

The second part of the bill clarifies the prohibition on making a false or misleading written statement that the horse is not being exported for slaughter.

Finally, the third and last part of the bill provides for penalties in the event of non-compliance with the prohibition. These penalties should be sufficiently severe to encourage companies to comply with the legislation, while guaranteeing the safety of the horses concerned.

Bill C-355 presents itself as a solid legislative framework to protect horses. Its adoption could position Canada as a leader in the protection of animal rights and contribute to a significant change in our relationship with these animals.

Why is it so important to be concerned with the export of horses for slaughter? First, let's look at the current situation. There are several indications that this practice involves substandard treatment.

Two Globe and Mail and Radio-Canada articles made headlines last month.

The title of the Globe and Mail article says it all: “Live horses shipped to Japan for meat, dying and suffering on flights, report alleges.”

The authors of these articles have used documents from the Japanese Animal Quarantine Service to tell us the following facts.

Between June 2023 and May 2024, 21 horses shipped from Canada for slaughter died during transport or the following days.

Between July 2023 and January 2024, there were five deaths during three different flights from Edmonton to Japan that transported 184 horses.

Most of these deaths are due to dehydration, stress and pneumonia. More than 40 serious injuries and illnesses were also recorded.

The report consulted for this article indicates that on a flight from Edmonton on January 8, during the transport of 85 horses in crates to Kagoshima, four horses fell inside their crates during the flight. One mare was seriously injured and died as a result of the fall. On arrival in Japan, the three other horses found collapsed in their crates were suffering from shortness of breath. Two of them were so badly injured that they died shortly after arrival.

Studies have shown that horses subjected to prolonged stress can develop abnormal behaviour, such as the self-mutilation tic, a manifestation of stress and despair in the face of unbearable living conditions.

Also, according to The Globe and Mail, on January 16, a horse died from a fall on a plane during a flight. Several horses were said to have died during this flight. One of them collapsed in Japan and had to be towed and lifted by a forklift. The horse was unable to stand for days and died on the third day. Two pregnant female horses died a few days later after giving birth or having miscarried.

The biggest problem is that this information, although supposedly known to Canadian authorities, contradicts data from the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. At the Agriculture Committee meeting on February 29, 2024, a CFIA official stated the following:

As we have reported forward-facing on our website, since 2013 there have been five fatalities out of the about 47,000 horses that have been exported. That’s a mortality rate of about 0.011%. I’m not aware of other instances of significant injuries. The requirement for the regulated parties is to report mortalities and significant injuries.

That’s the crux of the issue. Our standards are no longer adequate, oversight is lacking, and incident reporting is poor.

Colleagues, you will no doubt have noticed that horses for racing, training, show or other activities will not be affected by the ban in Bill C-355. The work of the Agriculture Committee in the other place, which studied this bill, helps to better understand why this restriction applies only to live horses intended for consumption.

Dr. Mary Jane Ireland, Chief Veterinary Officer for Canada, stated in her testimony:

The rules for horses with respect to their movement, their transport, are the same regardless of whether the horses are destined for another country for whatever purpose. Whether it’s for show purposes, a competition or a feedlot, the same rules apply.

According to Dr. Ireland:

The feed, water and rest time, or the interval at which an animal must be provided rest, feed and water during transport, is 20 hours regardless of the outcome for that animal.

The regulations are the same for all horses and are not discriminatory. On the other hand, according to the witnesses, the transport conditions are not the same for horses intended for slaughter and for racehorses, those used for recreational riding and those sold to foreign clients.

Kenneth Serrien, Managing Director of Overseas Horse Services Ltd., came back to the major difference in handling when loading the animals on the plane. While the horses subject to the ban in Bill C-355 have not received basic behavioural training, other sport or companion horses are trained and are used to being transported by road or by air.

Honourable colleagues, a relevant aspect related to this question is the cost of the air transport of horses, which varies depending upon several factors. According to the company EMO Trans, prices for transporting a horse can range from $2,000 to $10,000 for a one-way ticket and up to $20,000 for a return flight. Several levels of comfort are offered, ranging from economy class to first class.

For example, horses taking part in sporting events are often transported individually or in small groups in small wooden crates that are specially designed to provide optimum comfort. These transport conditions exceed the standards, because paying special attention to details can contribute to the horses’ well-being during the journey. Upgraded transport conditions may include padding to prevent injury, increased headroom to allow for comfortable movement, fewer horses per journey to reduce stress, opportunities for attendants to check on the horses and handling techniques designed to reduce auditory distress.

Having more space inside the transport stall allows a horse to keep its balance during take-off and landing, and, according to bill sponsor Tim Louis, avoids exposing it to likely causes of injury. Private companies have already invested in high-tech transport systems that monitor the animals’ well-being using heat and stress sensors. However, as one might expect, these costly requirements designed to ensure the comfort and well-being of racehorses, show horses and the like, which may be worth between $250,000 and $500,000, are not used for horses destined for slaughter.

For cost-effective reasons, the same secure transport arrangements will not be adopted for horses destined for slaughter, which are often transported in precarious conditions, often starving, dehydrated and deprived of rest for prolonged periods.

This disparity raises ethical and practical questions about the way we prioritize animal welfare. Why apply high standards to certain horses and not others simply because of the purpose they serve? Are we saying that responsibility for maintaining the well-being of a horse is based solely on the animal’s economic utility or performance potential, whereas others fated to end up on high-priced menus are not worthy of the most basic compliance with standards?

This contrast between the conditions of transport of horses intended for slaughter and those for competition or show is not surprising, but, in the end, we must ensure compliance with minimum standards. Horses are sensitive beings, capable of feeling pain, anxiety and suffering. Exporting by air often poses significant risks, as demonstrated: precarious transport conditions, increased psychological and physical stress, lack of access to food and water and travel time, which can be excessively long. As you will have understood, the question of animal welfare is at the heart of this debate.

Passing Bill C-355 would be an important step toward recognizing these values. By prohibiting the air transportation of horses intended for slaughter, we would be sending a powerful message: Animal welfare is a priority in Canada and the time has come to rethink our approach to exporting livestock.

We also have to reflect on the impact that these laws may have on our international image. By implementing regulations that reflect our concern for the ethical treatment of animals, we strengthen Canada’s reputation. We would also follow in the footsteps of New Zealand, which prohibited the export of animals for slaughter in 2008 and, more recently, prohibited the export of livestock by sea. In May 2024, the British Parliament banned the export of animals for slaughter, and other countries are considering similar action.

Adherence to ethical standards has become essential in today’s global context. Organizations like the Office International des Epizooties, or OIE, today the World Organisation for Animal Health and the Codex Alimentarius set international nutritional standards and have issued guidelines for animal transport. For example, the World Organisation for Animal Health has highlighted that “animal welfare must not be neglected, even in the context of food production.”

By adopting Bill C-355, Canada is therefore harmonizing with several international conventions and recommendations.

Honourable colleagues, Bill C-355 must not be seen as just another piece of legislation. It can serve as a catalyst for broader reflection on how we treat all animals.

We have an opportunity to promote practices that favour animal welfare, use adequate transportation methods and ensure that horses are treated with dignity.

I hope, dear colleagues, that this bill will be referred to committee for in-depth study. Thank you. Meegwetch

Honourable senators, I rise briefly to speak at second reading of Bill C-355, An Act to prohibit the export by air of horses for slaughter and to make related amendments to certain Acts.

Let me begin by acknowledging the hard work and dedication of Mr. Tim Louis, Member of Parliament for Kitchener—Conestoga, who initiated this bill and has been spearheading this legislation through the legislative process.

These past few years, the issue of exporting horses for slaughter has garnered a lot of attention from the public and on social media; English Canadians have expressed their concern about this practice.

Thousands of letters sent to parliamentarians and the petition with more than 36,000 signatures presented at the other place by the member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford clearly show that many Canadians believe that horses are not being treated the same way as other livestock.

It is important to remember that Bill C-355 is firmly grounded in science and in facts. Substantial evidence exists to support the advancement of this bill through our process.

Earlier this year, the House of Commons Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food held four hearings on Bill C-355, with testimony from over 15 key stakeholders, including individuals from the horse industry, animal rights groups, veterinarians, pilots and Government of Canada officials. The committee heard and identified concerns and responded to them in a thoughtful, respectful and timely way. Based on input from witnesses, the committee passed an amendment to Bill C-355 by removing the requirement for pilots and Canada Border Services Agency officials with respect to dealing with the written declaration or other documentation.

They will not need to worry about processing additional paperwork, which will allow them to focus on their daily work, while ensuring the security of our borders.

The amendment also addresses the industry’s concerns by giving the minister the flexibility of allowing the use of other documentation in place of the written declaration.

Let me also make clear that this bill is not about the domestic slaughter of horses, nor is it about the consumption of horsemeat. It will not impact food security. This bill has a very narrow focus that addresses a concern expressed by many Canadians, which is the live export by air of horses for slaughter.

Some have claimed that horses being sent for slaughter by air are treated similarly to — if not better than — horses being flown for sport or recreation. This is simply not the case, as our colleague Senator Petitclerc clearly explained in her very illuminating remarks. The welfare of horses is the primary concern of this bill, and it is not, colleagues, the beginning of a larger intrusion on animal agriculture, as some critics of this bill have suggested.

In closing, I want to reiterate that the Government of Canada is fully supportive of Bill C-355. It is my hope this bill can advance to committee as swiftly as possible. Thank you very much.

Of course.

Thank you for the question. It’s clearly a very good question. I look forward to that being addressed at committee, where all the experts and officials relevant to this will be there to provide the answers.

I don’t want to make light of the question. There are too many good lawyer jokes that would — senator, I’m not dismissing the question. I’m simply saying to you that this bill was studied thoroughly and properly in the other place. As soon as others who want to speak to this bill do so, we have a chance to send it to committee where those and other questions will properly be addressed in the study, and I look forward to the study of that bill.

Since Senator Gold was happy to answer Senator Black’s question, I have two questions. Would he answer those as well?

I will answer two questions from you, Senator Plett.

Maybe it’s three questions. The first one is this: In a form letter addressing calls to ban the export by air of horses designed for slaughter, former agriculture minister Marie-Claude Bibeau said the following:

This complex issue touches on a number of key considerations, including legal obligations, international trade commitments and relations [and animal transport regulations] more broadly, and mechanisms for implementation and enforcement.

Senator Gold, did the government complete this work? If so, would you be willing to table all the relevant documents so that we can examine them?

Senator, I don’t know the answer to your question, but, again, I do encourage this and many other questions to be raised at the committee study, as I suspect — although I can’t say — they could have been and perhaps were raised in the House. The purpose of second reading debate is to address the principles of the bill.

Banning the live export of horses for slaughter was identified as part of the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food’s mandate letter. It’s a policy issue that the government supports. That is why I, as the Government Representative, have taken the opportunity at second reading to lend my voice in support of this bill as a matter of principle. The details of this bill and all of that are properly a matter to be studied at committee, as we do in this chamber.

I won’t bother asking this question: Why not make it a government bill and so on and so forth? I understand that you have this right, even if I may or may not disagree. I’ll leave that for my speech. But I will ask you a question that I would have liked to ask Senator Petitclerc, but she ran out of time.

There was much said, especially in Senator Petitclerc’s comments, regarding that there was no opposition to transporting racehorses, show horses and so on and so forth, because they are being transported in better conditions. I think Senator Dalphond actually alluded that they fly first class. First of all, I disagree with what was said, but, again, that’s for my speech later. Hypothetically, then, if these horses were guaranteed to be transported in as good a condition as a racehorse — because we’re not opposed to the slaughter of the horses, clearly. This is about transporting horses for slaughter, not the slaughter of the horses; Senator Petitclerc was clear on that. Also, we’re not opposed to transporting horses by air.

If there were a commitment made, and if everybody would agree that these horses would fly in as good a condition as the racehorses, would that satisfy us because that’s about regulations and enforcing the rules. Not one person — certainly not me — would be opposed to ensuring that these horses are flown there. I don’t like to use the word “humane” when talking about horses, even though Animal Justice might, but they would be flown in conditions where they would not suffer. Would that satisfy you?

Again, thank you for your question. As I a stated, and it’s my understanding, the focus of this bill — and I think you’re underlining that, Senator Plett — is clearly on the welfare of the animals in transport. My understanding is that the evidence clearly established not only that the conditions for travel for horses in sport are different and less harmful to those horses, but also the way in which horses are raised, trained and habituated to travel is very different. That also bears upon the impact of travel on those horses.

I’m not an expert in this area. I do believe and hope that these legitimate questions will be addressed at committee, and that so long as we keep our focus on the welfare of animals, based upon science and evidence and based upon current practices, I think we’ll be doing the right thing in this study by not only the horses, but by the industry as well.

Very briefly, you alluded to the fact that this was studied — I don’t know if you used the word “extensively” — at committee and in the other place, and so on and so forth. We had some sort of an obligation to move this along because of that.

Let me ask you this question then, Senator Gold: If the House decides to pass bills by margins of 320 to 1, should they then be passed in this chamber?

I’m slow but not that slow, Senator Plett. The position of the Government Representative Office, or GRO, has consistently been that bills that come to us should be properly studied. Not to point fingers at anybody else, but we in the GRO — the record will show — we don’t use our Rules to delay bills going to committee. Every bill is different.

There are times when I will make an argument that you have made about other bills, and when those bills are properly before the chamber or in committee, I will not hesitate to make them, and I will sometimes make the opposite argument.

It’s not to borrow a page from your playbook, but you have said in this chamber that you’re indifferent to where bills originate as long as they’re good laws. Of course, good laws are in the eyes of the beholder, and we may reasonably disagree.

But I think this bill, having come to us from the other place — and all bills that come to us, especially having been voted as they take priority on our Order Paper — should also deserve the respect of being properly studied in a timely fashion in this place. That, I believe, is a principle upon which I hope we can all agree, even though our Rules and practices don’t always necessarily fall into place.

In that regard, again, I support sending this to committee so it can be properly studied, debated and improved if that’s what the committee so feels, so chooses, and then debated further in this chamber.

Senator Batters, would you like to ask a question?

I would, yes. Senator Gold, today you stand to make a second reading speech about a private member’s bill. I guess it’s important for you to telegraph that the Liberal government supports this bill, just in case independent senators don’t know this was a Liberal MP’s bill announced in the House of Commons.

Even though you’re the Senate government leader, you deliver second and third reading speeches on government bills very infrequently thus depriving senators of a chance to ask you questions that have quite a bit of detail to them about government bills. I just did check this. Since the Senate returned in September, you have not delivered second or third reading speeches on any of these: Bill C-26, second reading; Bill C-40, second reading; Bill C-76, second and third reading; Bill C-49, third reading; Bill C-64, third reading; and Bill C-20, third reading.

Senator Gold, you haven’t made a second or third reading speech on a government bill since last February 27, on Bill C-62.

Senator Gold, why don’t you find it to be an important part of your job to deliver speeches on government bills so that senators can then ask you important questions about the government’s reasoning and key details?

Thank you for your question, Senator Batters.

Before I answer your question, which I shall do, let me remind the chamber that I have made interventions on government bills and private members’ bills on many occasions, including Senator Batter’s private member’s bill from the other place, Bill C-291, that you sponsored here in the Senate. I spoke in favour of that bill and was delighted it received Royal Assent. Let us be clear that I, like your leader, focus on the quality of the bills and not their provenance.

We in the GRO are three senators. We rely upon the experience, expertise and willingness of senators, beyond our small numbers, to accept, if they so wish, the sponsorship of government bills. Every government bill that comes forward to this place has the support of the government. Therefore, it will be no surprise to know — and no one needs to listen to me to talk to know — that I, as a Government Representative, support a government bill.

We have been blessed in this chamber with tremendous quality of sponsors of bills over the many years that this office has been operating.

Furthermore, when bills go to committee, ministers appear to defend the bills and answer on behalf of the government; officials appear before the committees to answer questions of technical and other non-political matters. So I make no apologies for sparing you my remarks when we have capable, able, well-briefed and experienced senators often, if not always, with greater understanding and background in the subject matter of the bills than I could possibly muster.

Senator Gold, your Government Representative Office does have a sizeable office budget, $1.5 million, in that realm. Plus you have the resources of the government to assist you, both to prepare your speeches and to brief you properly so you can answer our questions on behalf of the government. It’s your government’s choice to have a very small group that answers questions and handles things on behalf of the government.

Meanwhile, when we have independent senators who are sponsors of bills, they may do a very capable job as they’re able to, but they don’t have the resources of the government that are behind them and they don’t have the proper briefings that are allowed to you to be able to answer on behalf of the government. That’s the important thing about ensuring that government bills have the government leader frequently speaking on behalf of them, so that we can get questions properly answered. Too often, independent senators don’t have those resources, so can you understand that that’s why it’s an important thing for you to give speeches on a regular basis on government bills?

Thank you for your question. It gives me the opportunity, perhaps — how to put this gentlemanly — to correct what is clearly a misconception that you have.

We have a budget that supports an important and very capable, relatively small team that supports us. I do get briefings, but Senate sponsors get the same briefings as I would get on a bill. Anybody who sponsors the government bill has the same access to not only the briefings, but whatever support that I would otherwise provide.

Because this will come as no surprise to you, depending on the bill, either myself or one of my two colleagues and members of our staff will also follow carefully the progress of each and every government bill.

So it’s simply not true that the sponsors who agree to sponsor government bills — and for which we are very grateful — do not have access to the same resources that we do, including briefings and follow-up briefings, as they would require. Again, I want this chamber to rest assured that when a government bill is before us, whether it’s at second reading, certainly at committee or at third reading, those who speak on behalf of the bill, whether, at times, it is myself or one member of the Government Representative Office, or GRO — because we’ve all sponsored government bills at times, as you know — or the sponsors who have graciously agreed to help us, are able to answer the questions as best as they can and as we can.

Senator Gold, wouldn’t you agree, though, that those independent senators are not sworn in as Privy Councillors, so they don’t have the same access to that level of briefing that you do and they also do not attend, as you do, meetings of the Cabinet Committee on Operations? They are just not able to get, because of the level of clearance that you have, the same level of briefing that you get from the government; isn’t that correct?

Again, respectfully, let me perhaps either correct a misconception you have or perhaps underline the possible difference between how this government operates and previous governments.

I’m a member of the King’s Privy Council, which gives me certain access to cabinet confidences and information. None of that is relevant to how we present, defend or promote a bill in this chamber. The briefings that I get on bills do not require security clearance. I don’t get any additional briefings on Bill C-40 or any other bill that are distinct, different or greater than a Senate sponsor will get. That’s point one.

Point two, I’m certainly not going to share the nature of the information that I may get in my interactions with cabinet colleagues; that’s why they’re called confidences. But I can say this much: They don’t bear upon the policy rationales or defences of any of the legislation that is brought forward. They deal with different matters that are not germane to the advancement of the legislative agenda, such as is carried by the sponsor of a bill or a speaker to the bill from any one of the three of us here in the GRO.