Summary#
This bill, the Horse Protection Act, amends the Health of Animals Act to ban the export of live horses and other equines from Canada for slaughter, including exports for fattening prior to slaughter (Health of Animals Act s. 19.1(1)-(2)). It also amends the Agriculture and Agri-Food Administrative Monetary Penalties Regulations to treat violations as “Very serious” under the existing administrative monetary penalty system (AMPs Regs, Schedule 1, Part 1, Div. 1, item 15.1). No other parts of animal agriculture are changed by this bill.
- Bans exporting a live horse or other equine if the exporter knows or should reasonably know it is for slaughter or fattening for slaughter (Health of Animals Act s. 19.1(1)-(2)).
- Applies across all equines, not just horses (Health of Animals Act s. 19.1).
- Makes violations subject to administrative monetary penalties, classified as “Very serious” (AMPs Regs, Schedule 1, Part 1, Div. 1, item 15.1).
- Takes effect on Royal Assent, since no delayed coming-into-force clause is included (Bill text).
- Does not address domestic slaughter; the measure targets export only (Bill text).
What it means for you#
- Households and horse owners:
- You cannot export a horse or other equine if you know or should reasonably know it will be slaughtered or fattened for slaughter outside Canada, once the bill is in force (Health of Animals Act s. 19.1(1)-(2)).
- Workers:
- People employed in breeding, handling, or transporting live equines for export to slaughter markets will see that export channel close on Royal Assent (Health of Animals Act s. 19.1).
- Businesses:
- Exporters, brokers, and carriers cannot ship live equines abroad for slaughter or fattening for slaughter. Doing so may trigger “Very serious” administrative penalties under existing regulations (Health of Animals Act s. 19.1; AMPs Regs, Schedule 1, Part 1, Div. 1, item 15.1).
- Firms involved in export logistics (e.g., transporters, freight forwarders) will need to ensure consignments are not for slaughter or fattening for slaughter, given the “knows or should reasonably know” standard (Health of Animals Act s. 19.1(2)).
- Federal regulators:
- The Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) gains a clear prohibition to enforce at the border and through its AMPs process, with the violation categorized as “Very serious” (AMPs Regs, Schedule 1, Part 1, Div. 1, item 15.1).
- Provinces and municipalities:
- No direct new duties are created. The bill regulates export only (Bill text).
Expenses#
Estimated net cost: Data unavailable.
- No explicit appropriations or spending authorizations are in the bill (Bill text).
- Potential AMPs fine revenue: Data unavailable.
- Federal enforcement or administrative costs (e.g., CFIA): Data unavailable.
- No official fiscal note identified: Data unavailable.
Proponents' View#
- The bill sets a bright-line ban on live equine exports for slaughter and for fattening for slaughter, which proponents say reduces opportunities to evade a slaughter ban through staging in another country (Health of Animals Act s. 19.1(1)-(2)).
- The “knows or should reasonably know” standard is designed to prevent export on the basis of willful blindness or false labeling, improving enforceability (Health of Animals Act s. 19.1(2)).
- Classifying violations as “Very serious” under the AMPs regime signals higher penalty exposure and, supporters argue, a stronger deterrent without lengthy court processes (AMPs Regs, Schedule 1, Part 1, Div. 1, item 15.1).
- A single federal rule avoids a patchwork approach and gives CFIA a clear basis to intervene at points of export, which proponents say simplifies compliance checks (Bill text). Assumption: that clarity improves compliance; no quantitative enforcement data provided.
Opponents' View#
- The ban could reduce income for breeders, exporters, and transporters who rely on live equine shipments for slaughter markets. Scale of impact: Data unavailable.
- The “should reasonably know” standard may create legal uncertainty for carriers or brokers about end use after export, increasing compliance risk and potential disputes (Health of Animals Act s. 19.1(2)). Assumption: end-use visibility is limited in complex supply chains.
- Immediate effect on Royal Assent may disrupt existing contracts and bookings, with no transition period in the bill (Bill text). Assumption: some shipments are planned months in advance; Data unavailable.
- Enforcement may be challenging if exporters or foreign buyers misstate the purpose of export, shifting the burden onto Canadian firms to verify end use. Assumption: verification mechanisms are not specified in the bill; Data unavailable.