Canada’s Live Horse Exports: Fighting for Animal Transport Law Enforcement w/ Camille Labchuk

And I don't think most of our listeners are, since we don't really focus on Canadian law. But, this is a great case and this is a case that everybody should be familiar with because it involves some issues that I think no matter where you are, you wanna know more about.

And our guest today is, once again, Camille Labchuk. I think she was on in 2016, uh, was the last time. So welcome back, Camille. And, um, Camille is an animal rights lawyer and the Executive Director of Animal Justice, which is Canada's leading legal advocacy organization for animals. And she's been, uh, she's been doing this for 15 years and she's actually working to transform how Canada sees and treats animals.

And I think she's been having some success. This is a fascinating case involving an animal that I think everybody cares about, horses, and I can't wait to get into it.

Just before I do, just a quick reminder about the Our Hen House podcasts. Rising Anxieties comes out on Tuesdays, The Hen Report on Thursdays. The long form interview, which is this, on Fridays and bonus for Flock members, comes out on Monday where podcasts we're on YouTube. Please subscribe and hit like wherever you listen. And now, welcome, Camille.

Camille Labchuk: Mariann, it's great to be with you.

Mariann Sullivan: It's great to be with you. It's been too long, way too long. And I'm glad we're gonna be talking about this case.

I actually, it's very lucky because when I first heard about this case, I thought it involved... I was trying to create a connection to the United States where, you know, it's a legal program, so most of our listeners are in the United States. And uh, and, and I thought it had to do with all of the American horses that we ship to Canada for slaughter.

And you corrected me and said, No, no, no, this is a whole different thing. But then when I found out about it, I'm glad that I made that mistake because I really wanna hear about this case. And just let's start with the facts. Can you just tell us about the horse export industry in Canada?

Camille Labchuk: Yeah, absolutely. So it's an industry that most Canadians have no idea exists because it's quite small, it's quite niche. There's only a handful of exporters who send horses outside of the country for slaughter. Uh, but when people do hear about it, they're appalled. And as you just mentioned, horses occupy a really special place in people's hearts and their psyches, and we have a really long shared history as humans with horses. They've been by our side through industrial processes, through wars for a long time, and I think most people feel that they really deserve a lot better than what they're getting. So what's happening is we've got about four to five exporters in Canada who purpose breed horses, so these are essentially factory farmed horses.

They're not bought from auctions, they're not shipped across the border from The States. They're purpose bred to go into the farming system. They're raised on feedlots in Canada and once they reach a couple years of age, they're shipped in large cargo planes, packed tightly into tiny wooden crates, two or three at a time. You know, first they're transported from the feedlot to an airport. The shipments go these days either from the Edmonton airport or from the Winnipeg Airport, and they load them into these crates at the airport. They, you know, put them in with cargo devices inside the planes. And then they endure these really grueling hours-long journeys, you know, 14 hours or more in the air to Japan. Once they land, they repeat that process. They're unloaded, um, onto trucks. They're shipped to quarantine facilities where, where they spend some time in quarantine, and then eventually they go to a feed lot where they're fattened up. And they're prepared for slaughter. And they're slaughtered, um, their meat is eaten by rich Japanese people who consider it to be a delicacy.

It's called basashi, and it's essentially a form of sashimi, and it can fetch a very, very handsome price, hundreds of pounds. And, you know, just one shipment of horses for, um, you know, a Canadian exporter, they can sell that shipment of around a hundred horses for over a million dollars, so it's very, very lucrative.

Mariann Sullivan: Yeah. I, I had actually never heard that, uh, they, they ate horses in Japan. I mean, I never heard that they didn't, but it was not a thing I was aware of. So why are they shipped live?

Camille Labchuk: Well, the ship live because Canadian exporters are in the business of raising these horses, and it seems to be that there's an efficiency for, for Japanese slaughter houses that want to sell them. Um, yeah, it's, it's a little bit strange why they wouldn't do it in Japan, but, you know, that's the industry we've got.

And so we've got these horses who are enduring these really, really tragic, terrible journeys where a lot of them suffer horrific injuries. Many of them die en route or shortly thereafter. And the other thing that's really tragic about this is, uh, well, two things. We know, first of all that a lot of these shipments go well over the 28 hour time limit allowed under Canadian transport law.

And we'll get into that because that's really one of the big issues in this case.

Mariann Sullivan: That's a big issue. Yeah.

Camille Labchuk: Yeah, but we also know that they really do suffer horrific injuries that are often unreported to Canadian authorities. So Canada kind of washes its hands of this industry. It says, once the horses land in Japan, that's no longer their responsibility.

So they stop tracking the time it takes for them to get to the feedlots. And we determined through access to information records from some Japanese groups that we've worked with, we've determined that many of these shipments are going well, well over the time limit, and that when horses land and they're taken to quarantines and feedlots, many of them are suffering from fevers, from pneumonia, from serious injuries, many have fallen in the crates, and you know, probably around a dozen or so horses per year actually die as well. And none of these deaths or injuries are reflected in Canada's records.

Mariann Sullivan: Yeah. It's so interesting that, I thought you were gonna have an answer to why they are shipped live. But the reason is basically is 'cause that's, that's how the industry kind of got developed. And there was an opportunity and somebody grabbed it and this was the easiest way to do it. And I thought you were gonna tell me they had to be, you know, the Japanese insisted on them being slaughtered in Japan.

Like, it's crazy. These, this could at least, I mean, not that I'm in favor of them being slaughtered at all, but uh, they could either be slaughtered in Canada and the meat shipped, or they could be raised in Japan and, uh, slaughtered there. It's just people just do things the easiest way and don't even pay any attention to so many of the implications.

Alright. So there is a legal regime and you mentioned, which I think is interesting, that Canada does have responsibility for the horses, some kind of responsibility, until the plane lands. It's not like the Canadian responsibility totally ends when they get on the plane. It, it is until the, the plane lands in Japan.

So can you tell us a little bit about the legal regime covering these horse exports? Um, it's, it's covered by basically regulatory laws that cover the transport of animals, right?

Camille Labchuk: Yeah, that, that's right. Mariann. So what's interesting to me about working on this case is that we're very used to farmed animals, just not having any laws that apply to them. Their entire lives on farms are just left unregulated. In Canada, we don't have a single regulatory statute that says anything about the welfare conditions they should experience. But transport is a different area. There actually are animal transport laws. Many people would say they're insufficient, I'm one of those people, but they're quite detailed and there are some requirements that have to be met. Now, one of the most basic requirements is that you are not allowed to transport horses for more than 28 hours without food, without water, or without rest.

That's a really fundamental obligation, and it exists because we know that the risks to horses go up the longer they're transported. They risk dehydration, they risk hunger, they risk disease and injury from long duration journeys. So those rules exist for a good reason. One of the other fundamental obligations that transporters have, and that's the real crux of this case, is that they have an obligation to have a contingency plan to cover the entire journey that a horse, or any other animal who's being transported, has to take. So what's a contingency plan? It's a document designed to deal with unforeseen but foreseeable delays. So you look at what could possibly go wrong during a journey, and you as a transporter are supposed to plan for that. So if there is transport by truck, maybe the truck breaks down. What do you do if the truck breaks down?

Do you have another truck that can be called in to pick up the animals and take them to an appropriate location? If you are transporting animals by air, what do you do If there's a delay with an airport closure en route? And that's what happened in this case, and we'll get into that. But that's the nature of things that the contingency plan is supposed to cover. So there are really fundamental obligations that you have to follow if you're transporting animals.

Mariann Sullivan: So who enforces these laws? Tell us about the Canadian agency in charge of, I guess not just these kinds of exports, but a, a variety of different, uh, different issues regarding animals.

Camille Labchuk: Yeah, so they're called the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. And because most of your listeners are probably in the states, they're equivalent essentially to the USDA. They oversee farmed animal issues, they oversee food safety, um, they have a really significant role in animal and human health as well. And they're the ones in charge of enforcing these transport rules. And they actually have inspectors that are fairly closely involved in a number of different levels of horse transport. So the Japanese government has requirements that must be met before horses are transported. They need blood tests, they need health assurances, there's a variety of documentation that exporters are supposed to provide to Japan. And the CFIA kind of intermediates this process. They go do those tests, they're paid by the exporter to do that. And that information is shared with Japan. And when the horses are actually taken to the airport, and I'll, I'll refer to Winnipeg 'cause we're talking about a case out of Manitoba, which Winnipeg was the airport of question. When the horses are transported from the feedlot to the Winnipeg Airport, they're there at the airport as well. And ostensibly, their job is to ensure that transport laws are being respected and that all the boxes are being ticked and the transport is complying with the regulatory requirements. Now, the CFIA, um, I'm sure like the USDA, uh, is vulnerable to criticism. We don't believe that they do a very good job.

Mariann Sullivan: It's nicely put.

Camille Labchuk: Yeah, nicely put, uh, we don't believe that they've done a very effective job of enforcing these transportation regulations or many other regulations for that matter. But we'll, we'll get into that a little bit more as well.

Mariann Sullivan: Yeah. So who pays? I mean, you mentioned that the exporter has to pay for tests that the CFI A conducts, but, but this is a pretty expensive proposition to do all these inspections. I I understand they even go on the planes. Is that, is that correct? And who's paying them? Is it the Canadian citizens or are there, are, are there fees to the exporter that they have to pay for all of this work done by the CFIA?

Either way, there's a problematic situation, I think, but so tell me the way it really is.

Camille Labchuk: I think what you're identifying, Mariann, is what we think is the problem with the CFIA. As is the case with many regulatory agencies, which is regulatory capture.

They work so closely with the industries that they ostensibly oversee. They develop personal relationships with the people that they're overseeing. And I think that really interferes with their ability to enforce laws properly. That's at sort of the micro level, and you can see that play out potentially with this farm. But at the macro level as well, they're an agency that works within the department that's both, both tasked with agricultural promotion. They're supposed to assure the health of the industry. They're supposed to facilitate the industry doing exports, but they're also supposed to oversee the industry. They're supposed to police it and make sure it follows the rules. And I think with that conflict of interest, you get a situation where, you know, there's regulatory capture and the CFIA ends up working for the exporters rather than the public interest and the interest of the horses, of course, which is what we care about.

Mariann Sullivan: Yeah. And even if there were, there was distance and, and they had an antagonistic relationship, then it would be that the Canadian citizens were paying for this, uh, for this horse export examination, government behavior, which would be a boon to the industry anyway. It seems like there's no good way to do this, which there isn't.

Camille Labchuk: No, it is an inherently, uh, cruel activity.

Mariann Sullivan: So, um, is it, am I right that they travel with the horse? They get on the plane and go to Japan.

Camille Labchuk: No, they don't travel with the horses themselves. There is supposed to be an attendant that is hired by the exporter

Mariann Sullivan: I see. Okay.

Camille Labchuk: company or the airline. Um, the CFIA doesn't actually go on the journey. They have gone on journeys though. Um,

Mariann Sullivan: Maybe that's where I got it. It was somewhere in the papers I saw something about, uh, something about...

Camille Labchuk: Well, there's an interesting story about this actually. So, Animal Justice, apart from this case, um, we have been working on the issue of live transport for quite some time, live, live horse transport. And on one of the occasions where we obtained a bunch of Japanese government records that contradicted the CFIA's claims that horses weren't dying, this became a really big news story.

The CFIA decided it had to respond in some way. So it said it was going to take this more seriously and investigate these troubling allegations. And so what it did is it actually sent its Chief Veterinary Officer and another individual on one of the flights to Japan in, um, 2024. And what I thought was so interesting about it is we've got these records where, you know, we can see their travel plan, we can see their itinerary, and the records are like, Okay, all right, so we've got a two hour drive to the airport, making sure you have plenty of snacks, plenty of water.

And then on the plane itself, they're like, All right, you're gonna be upstairs in, you know, not the cargo area where the horses are, so don't worry, it's gonna be climate controlled. We're gonna make sure one of you who needs a special meal has that meal.

Mariann Sullivan: Oh my God.

Camille Labchuk: Also referenced to after they land, um, they actually use the word, the trauma of the flight. They wanted to make sure their schedule that first day after they land wasn't too heavy to account for how traumatic the long flight must have been.

Mariann Sullivan: Yeah.

Camille Labchuk: You just see the real disparity between this, how the CFIA is treated versus how the horses are treated who are shoved in a cargo hold in non climate controlled area with no food, water, or rest.

Mariann Sullivan: Yeah, that is, that is the part that I read, and I just misread it as something that happened all the time, and not in this, but it, it really was, the irony of it was unbelievable. Um, okay, I I, I'm digressing too much. Let's get back to this specific incident in December of 2022. Whose horses were involved? What was the original plan, and then what happened to interfere with that plan?

Camille Labchuk: Yeah, so the exporter that operates out of Manitoba is called Carlisle Farms Limited, and Carlisle Farms was set to ship 97 horses to Kagoshima, Japan. So they started their journey, uh, in the afternoon of December 11th, 2022 from a feedlot. Their feedlot's located in Swan River, Manitoba, which is about a five or six hour drive from the airport. It's a fairly long journey.

So they, they loaded them probably around 4:30 PM into the truck. So that's when the clock starts ticking for the purpose of the 28 hour law, starts ticking around 4:30 PM. They arrive at the airport, late that night. You know, the notes say that they start loading them onto the cargo plane around 11:30 PM and that that loading is done by 2:00 AM. And during that load-in period, that's when the exporter learned that their stop off point along the way in Anchorage, Alaska was no longer possible. There was a snowstorm, the Anchorage airport was closed. They could no longer stop there.

Mariann Sullivan: I mean, who could have guessed, snow in Anchorage, Alaska, in December? I mean, it's practically an act of God. I mean, I guess it is an act of God. Yeah,

Camille Labchuk: If only there was a contingency plan to deal with this.

Mariann Sullivan: Seriously. But you know, how could you possibly have known?

Camille Labchuk: Yeah, yeah, yeah. So, so they learned that the airport's going to be closed. They can't make the journey as originally planned. And the exporter, according to the evidence at trial and what we've heard from, um, you know, statements that he made before the trial, he gets on the phone and there's a decision made that they'll reroute the shipment through Seattle instead. But the problem, Mariann, is that the plane was supposed to depart at 5:00 AM from Winnipeg, and it didn't leave until after 9:00 AM from Winnipeg. And then it stopped in Seattle and then it went on to Japan. So when this decision was made, everybody knew that the journey was gonna go well over 28 hours.

And in fact, it was projected to go at least 30 hours. So that's where we start.

Mariann Sullivan: And even on the original routing, I mean, the timeline was pretty, at least close, right? Even maybe a little, uh... these shipments are, I mean, they're, if they're five hours away from the airport, it's a very long flight. And presumably you just don't arrive at the airport and load your horses like within five... like in every one, they're gonna be cutting it close to this 20 hour limit, 28 hour limit. There's not a lot of room for, um, fooling around. Right?

Camille Labchuk: That's exactly right. There's not a huge margin of error in these cases. And, you know, this is a little bit of a sidebar, but we, um, subsequent to this in 2024, we worked with a great group in Japan called Life Investigation Agency. They actually went to Japanese airports and they investigated with us how long it took to unload the horses from the planes once they landed, how long it took to get them to the feedlots.

And that was information that was previously a bit of a black hole because the CFIA wasn't really tracking that, and we didn't really know. And based on that calculation, it takes many, many hours once they arrive. We determined that it was probably impossible in any case, for any shipment from Winnipeg to comply with a 28 hour law.

So, you know, not only were they probably operating on a razor thin margin, they were probably always violating the law as it was.

Mariann Sullivan: So the 28 hours is supposed to end when the horses are unloaded, fed, and watered, right? Like it's not just touchdown, it's not just the plane touches down. They, you have to be able to get the horses out of their carriers.

Camille Labchuk: Exactly. And the CFIA was only really looking at the period where they they landed, but they weren't accounting for them, you know, between four and six hours, typically, of additional time.

Mariann Sullivan: Yeah. And I mean, anybody who's taken an airplane knows that, uh, sometimes things take longer than you think they're going to.

Camille Labchuk: Usually they do.

Mariann Sullivan: I think that we should make the point too here, that 28 hours, which is the same amount of time in US law, is already insane, right? I mean, this is still way too long to leave horses like or other animals without food, without water, and really it packed in, packed in packing crates.

Camille Labchuk: Yeah. You know, and I think that the, the data about how poorly these horses do during transport that we got from Japan really backs that up. You know, we've seen dozens of deaths. Um, know, one year of data that we just recently got. 20, uh, 24 to 2025 showed 290 horses with illnesses and injuries. These are, you know, horses who've fallen down in crates. Horses who are dehydrated have pleuropneumonia , which is a, a risk of transport. It's an illness. And, uh, you know, horses with hooves who've fallen off, horses who are lame, horses with, um, serious injuries. Uh, you know, these are all things that are completely expected.

And that's, uh, 28 hours, like you said, is still an insane amount of time to ship an animal. And going beyond that makes it even worse.

Mariann Sullivan: And just a, as an historical reference for people who don't know, the 28 hour law in, in, in the US was evolved when, when cattle were shipped by train from like Texas to Chicago, or mostly Texas, but you know, other places as well. And along the route, they had these whole stations where the train would have to stop, all the cattle would have to be unloaded, and they would have to be fed and watered.

And that was a long time ago. And you would think that we would've gotten a little better at how we treat animals. But it was all very planned out that 28 hours was the absolute limit, and the trains had to stop. And, and they built stations where they would, where they would be cared for, and then they had to be loaded back on the trains.

Camille Labchuk: Yeah, I mean, these transport laws are not based on the science and the evidence about the welfare effects that animals experience after a certain duration. Uh, you know, interestingly, Canada's transport laws actually were updated in 2019 after, you know, four decades. They were first created in 1976, and it was a huge disappointment.

We got, you know, access to information documents from the government that showed that they directly ignored evidence about the welfare effects. Like, for instance, spent hens. We know transporting spent hens, who are hens, who've spent their entire

Mariann Sullivan: Yeah, they're very ill. Yeah.

Camille Labchuk: Very ill, brittle. They've been laying eggs, their bodies are completely depleted. Their welfare starts to suffer during transport after eight hours. And the CFIA originally proposed, Oh, we should do a 12 hour limit on these guys. But because of industry pushback, they went with 24. So it's, it's 24 now. So we know that they just completely ignore the science.

Mariann Sullivan: Yeah. Uh, not surprising, but still disappointing. And I mean, other, other country... I mean, I, I think in Europe, the transfer regulations, which aren't always followed, but are, they're, they're considerably stricter.

Camille Labchuk: They're significantly better. Yeah. The, the limits for transport are lower. They also have requirements for climate control inside vehicles. Um, you know, so in like Canadian and American winters and summers, which can be absolutely brutal in either direction of a temperature extreme, um, animals in Europe who are being transported, there are requirements to keep them within a certain temperature range, which is better. There's, uh, you know, a lot of other rules as well that we just don't have over here in North America.

Mariann Sullivan: Yeah. And I, I just wanna point out, uh, without going into it 'cause we, we need to cover this case, but you had mentioned that the overall view of CFIA enforcement is, is that it's very poor. And there were other situations about disease testing, about consideration of, um... there was a, an email about the shipment being worth $3 million, which is really not the CFIA's concern, how much this should, you know, whether that should not be entering into. So this is part of, it's not just transport, it's a part of a whole, as you were pointing out, uh, this whole hand in glove kind of, uh, relationship between regulator and regulated, right?

Camille Labchuk: Yeah, that's right. And you know what the heart of this case is about effective enforcement of the laws that we do actually have. To our knowledge, and, and we've received government records from, you know, really all the shipments of horses that have gone in the last number of years, the CFIA, despite the very clear law breaking that we've uncovered, they've never charged a transporter. They've never held a transporter to account for going over the limit, for any other unlawful conduct, for not having a contingency plan. And I think that's really troubling for an agency that purports to uphold animal transport laws. They simply aren't doing it. And that's really what we thought was important about bringing this case.

Mariann Sullivan: So how did you find out about, uh... well, I mean, I know that you filed a complaint that was your first step, is that right? With the CFI...CFIA. And, um, how did you find out what happened here?

Camille Labchuk: Well, so we track these shipments. We usually have a heads up in advance, um, by, you know, some information that comes from, um, people maybe that work at an airport, that shipments are about to leave. And so we, we know. My colleague Kaitlyn Mitchell actually lives in Winnipeg. She's fantastic. She's our Director of Legal Advocacy, and she goes to the airport when these shipments are occurring to see what she can see. You know, there's a public viewing area where you can sort of see the horses being loaded in. Um, subsequently they've tried to put tarps up to block people's sights and they've had security guards come and hassle people, of course.

But, um, Kaitlyn has regularly gone to the airport, so we were aware of the shipment. Obviously, it was taking off, you know, you know, the, the loading in was happening in the middle of the night, and it was taking off first thing in the morning, or so we thought. And when she woke up in the morning and looked at, um, flightaware.com to track the flight, it hadn't left yet.

And we were really troubled by that. So we thought, what's going on here? And when it eventually did leave and stopped in Seattle, we, you know, knew immediately that the journey was going to break the law. So we wrote to the CFIA, and we explained to them our concerns around this and asked them to enforce the law.

And we of course filed an access to information request as well, which is like an FOI, um, you're equivalent. What we learned is that the CFIA, um, did send a warning letter to Carlisle Farms telling them that this transport, um, you know, was troubling and reminded them of their obligations, but they chose not to take any legal action against the transporter.

Mariann Sullivan: Everybody's on tenterhooks now to find out what happens next, and I'm gonna take a step back, and before we go any further, I. I wanna go over the whole question of private prosecutions in Canada because we really need that background to find out what happened next.

Um, and it, when I first read about this, I was like, oh my God, this is amazing. And then I found out there were some caveats that it wasn't as amazing as I thought. But, uh, let's go into all of that. Anybody can bring a, can prosecute anybody for anything in Canada, right? Isn't that how it works?

Camille Labchuk: Yeah. Yeah. It's, it's a, it's sort of a little known right that originates in the, you know, the British common law, so. To back way up, Mariann, way before there were such things as police or public prosecutions. If I stole your wheelbarrow in the UK, in say the 16 hundreds, you would bring me to court.

There was no agency that you could go to and say, this person stole my wheelbarrow. Please bring a charge and get the wheelbarrow back.

It was a responsibility that people had on themselves to privately prosecute someone. And so that's how the criminal laws sort of originated. And over time, um, of course, we developed police agencies and public law enforcement authorities, but the right to privately prosecute remains, and it's quite robust in the UK. Uh, we imported that from Canada because, of course, we were a British colony at one point, and the right remains in our criminal code, although as you pointed out, it's been attenuated over the years. So technically I can bring a charge if I believe on reasonable and probable grounds that somebody has broken the law.

I don't need to be a direct witness to those events. I just need to have information and be able to, um, show that I have a reasonable belief that it occurred. Now, what the downside is, of course, and especially when it comes to animal prosecutions, is that the Crown, the Crown Attorney, which is how we refer to prosecutors in Canada, uh, they still have the right to intervene in that proceeding and to oversee it.

And that exists so that you don't have people just, you know, going ahead with private grudges against their neighbors or against other folks that they don't like. Uh, you know, I think there's some good policy reasons for, um, you know, public oversight over these prosecutions. But, uh, you know, essentially the crown can do one of three things.

They can. You know, they, they're, they're entitled to know when someone has tried to file private charges. They can decide to just stay out of it, let the case proceed, and they might keep an eye on it, or they might not. They can decide to take over the case themselves if they think it has merit. They can look at it and say, well, we think an offense is being committed, and we're going to prosecute this. Or they can decide to stay the case. And that's what happens in the vast majority of cases, is they look at it and they determine it's not in the public interest or there's no reasonable prospect of conviction. And so they intervene, and they stop the proceeding.

Mariann Sullivan: Yeah. By stay the case, you don't mean temporarily, you mean it's over, right?

Camille Labchuk: It's done. That's right.

Mariann Sullivan: Yeah. Um, so that we can now see can be a big problem in animal cases. Uh, but there are other problems as well. I mean, we should mention, in addition to this fact that the government basically has this kind of veto power, I mean, you mentioned that you had brought, um, access, access to information, um, uh, is that the name of the statute?

Camille Labchuk: That. Yeah, that's right, FOI equivalent.

Mariann Sullivan: And, and yeah. So you can find out some evidence that way, but you basically, you don't have many of the powers of, of the prosecution to investigate and find out what really happened. So already you're, you're in a much more difficult place than a governmental prosecutor, right?

Camille Labchuk: Yeah. Yeah, that's exactly right. And you know, especially when you think about the regulatory context, regulatory offenses are often heavily document based. There are documents that are kept within the, the, uh, you know, possession of a regulator or an accused person. Um, they're not documents that are usually in our possession.

And we were able to get many documents through access to information requests. But there are often redactions and access to interview witnesses as well is something that we didn't really have.

Mariann Sullivan: Yeah. Yeah,

Camille Labchuk: know, we'll get into that in a little bit, but we, we definitely are at a disadvantage compared to an enforcement agency that wants to bring a prosecution.

Mariann Sullivan: Yeah. I mean, it's important to remember that. Nevertheless, here we are. So what's the first step for a private party who, who wants to be allowed to bring charges that the, that, that they think are real, but they, the government is not doing anything?

Camille Labchuk: Yeah, so the first step is you swear in information. So in this case, I was actually the private informant and uh, we went to the Winnipeg Courthouse. We swore, um, well, you know, essentially we attempted to lay three charges, initially. So there were two federal charges under the Health of Animals regulations.

The first, those two included, um, violating the 28 hour law and failing to have a contingency plan. We also tried to lay one provincial charge under Manitoba's Provincial Animal, um, Welfare Act. And that charge was essentially for causing distress to animals, which we believed had occurred based on the, um, you know, going over the time limit. And we know that actually at least three horses collapsed on this flight as well. Um, so we go to the court house, we swear that information, and then the next step is scheduling what's called a Pre-Enquête hearing in front of a judge or a justice of the peace. So that involved, um, you know, it's a bit of an unusual process.

I won't say private charges are common in Canada, so there was a little bit of confusion among court staff and judicial officials and figuring out what room we needed to be in when the hearing was...

Mariann Sullivan: What room you need to be in is the hardest thing about being a lawyer, I swear.

Camille Labchuk: I know, especially if you're in a courthouse that you're not familiar with and you're trying to sort through the ins and outs, it's, it's a big deal.

Mariann Sullivan: Yeah, no, that stuff is so much more difficult than, than it gets credit for. Yeah. So I appreciate at least you were dealing with other people. Well, that can go one way or the other, when the people in charge don't know what's happening either, either they can be cooperative and understand that, or they can just get very difficult, um, and wanna pretend that they really know.

Camille Labchuk: Yeah, I'll say the nice thing about doing this case in Winnipeg is that Manitoba is known as the friendliest province, and it's true. People there are lovely.

Mariann Sullivan: Manitoba is the Canada of Canada.

Camille Labchuk: It's the most Canadian Canadian province.

Mariann Sullivan: Alright. Just to clarify, so you have provincial charges and state and federal charges. Just to clarify, who, so who was the prosecutor that wasn't bringing charges? Did you have to, do you have to notify the prosecutor who would be otherwise? And was it actually two, two separate parties?

Camille Labchuk: Yeah, that's right. That's right. So the way Canada works actually is that federal charges are prosecuted by a federal prosecutor and provincial charges at that level. Um, so we actually had to provide that information to both prosecutors and then they both independently and I guess they're allowed to speak as well, but they're allowed to determine what they want to do with those charges. And so after we, um, swore that information and before we had our Pre-Enquête hearing, um, you know, much of the situation was trying to figure out what those prosecutors wanted to do and if they were going to let us proceed on those charges, and it took some time for them to make that decision. Ultimately, the Provincial Crown Attorney determined that we would not be allowed to proceed on that charge because their concern was the offense was probably committed, if there was an offense, somewhere in the air, not inside the jurisdiction of Manitoba. So, you know, that's a bit of a tricky issue. Um, that charge was not, uh, you know, we couldn't proceed on it.

Mariann Sullivan: And the other two charges, it was up to the federal prosecutor. And

Camille Labchuk: Right.

Mariann Sullivan: does that decision get made before the Pre-Enquête hearing or during the Pre-Enquête hearing or after?

Camille Labchuk: It could be made at any time. Sometimes I, you know, I've, I was involved in one other private prosecution earlier in my career, and at, in that one, the prosecutor told me that he wanted to see what happened at the Pre-Enquête hearing and what the evidence actually was.

Mariann Sullivan: That's fair.

Camille Labchuk: In this case, the evidence wasn't really contentious, it was documents.

Mariann Sullivan: Documents.

Camille Labchuk: Everybody knew what, um, had occurred. And, um, so we were able to get a decision from that Crown attorney beforehand. That Crown attorney, the Federal Crown, uh, chose to let us proceed on the contingency plan charge, which, um, was great, but felt that for the other offense of exceeding the 28 hour time limit, that Carlisle Farms would have the defense of something called officially induced error. And so that's a defense where, you know, essentially as an accused person, you're saying, well, the government told me it was okay. And the reason that the Crown in this case thought that defense could apply is that when, you know, recall Carlisle's loading the horses into the plane and gets this news about the delay, and they get on the phone to try to figure out what to do, the CFIA was there and the CFIA was sort of part, in some way, of that decision. Like the CFIA veterinarian, Dr. Max Popp, was there on the ground, having conversations, and although it's not their role to approve or disapprove of a shipment in that way, he was kind of in on the decision. So the Crown attorney thought that because the CFIA had essentially consented to letting this shipment go, that Carlisle could have that defense in this case.

I, I don't think I agree with that, but that was his decision.

Mariann Sullivan: So, so there are these rules and the defendant knows about the rules, but somebody from the government at least implies it's okay if he breaks them, so then the defendant is off the hook, but the government doesn't get in trouble either. Is that, is that how that works?

Camille Labchuk: Well see, that's why I don't think this defense applies, it's not that government can just give you the permission to break the rules, it's that there has to be like an honest mistake of what the rules are based on what a government official told you. So we just don't have evidence about what those conversations were.

And I think if you put forward evidence that the CFIA had said, No, no, you're compliant with the rules with the shipment, maybe we'd be in a different story, but there was no evidence called at trial, and we don't have evidence that there was ever any like official, you know, approval of it on the basis that it was lawful.

Mariann Sullivan: Yeah.

Camille Labchuk: You know, essentially what you said is right. He can break the rules and nobody gets held to account through this theory.

Mariann Sullivan: So, I mean, I assume I know the answer to this, but that decision of the prosecutor to stay one of the charges is not an appealable order, I take it.

Camille Labchuk: Generally no. Barring some evidence of what we would call abuse of process, it's' not possible.

Mariann Sullivan: Okay.

Camille Labchuk: I'll note, yeah, like private

Mariann Sullivan: if you found out that the prosecutor got paid to, to, to do this, you could you,

Camille Labchuk: Yeah.

Mariann Sullivan: Something like that.

Camille Labchuk: Yeah. So, you know, it's essentially an unmeetable There would, there would never be any way to prove abuse of process in this case, 'cause you don't really know what the prosecutor is taking into account. But, you know, here they gave us reasons that we may not agree with, but are intelligible and coherent for that decision.

Mariann Sullivan: You know, I'm, I'm gonna go back a step because I forgot to ask things, something I wanted to ask. Um, the, the Manitoba charge, is that, was that like part of the cruelty statute? I mean, you know, was the, the, maybe not specifically the cruelty law, but was that, was that the kind of law that you were charging, um, was broken there, uh, and and were trying to bring a private prosecution?

Camille Labchuk: Yeah. Yeah, that's correct. Every province has a provincial animal welfare statute. It's more regulatory in nature.

Mariann Sullivan: Yeah, I just, I just wasn't sure of that. So that's interesting. Do you know of other ca I mean, does this happen very often? I guess it doesn't. I mean, nobody knew how to do it.

Camille Labchuk: No, no. I would not say this type of case happens very often.

Mariann Sullivan: Yeah. Interesting. I mean, obviously there are a lot of opportunities, but obviously there are also a lot of roadblocks in being able to do this. Um, it's just so interesting you have this. All right, let's see, where am I? I, I'm, I'm all over the place now. Um, alright. So we're talking about the Pre-Enquête hearing.

Uh, you have one charge left that you might be able to bring, and, um, did you have to have the, I mean, in the Pre-Enquête hearing, I assume this involves the judge, you, is the prosecutor there? And the def the defendant is, is not there? The, the farm is not there. This isn't any of their business, right?

Camille Labchuk: That's, that's correct. It's, it's a, an in-camera proceeding and, and it's ex parte as well. So it's us that's there. The crown has the right to attend. They don't have to attend, but they have the right to attend. And there's a judge. And what the judge has to decide is essentially whether we've presented some evidence, which if believed on all the elements of the offense, could constitute the offense.

So there's no weighing of the evidence, there's no evaluation of credibility and veracity. It's just have they shown that if these facts are made out.

Mariann Sullivan: We call a prima facie case. I dunno whether that's the same term.

Camille Labchuk: Yeah, essentially a prima facie case.

Mariann Sullivan: Yeah. Um, so did the prosecutor choose to attend the Pre-Enquête hearing?

Camille Labchuk: The prosecutor was there. That's correct.

I was the only witness. They didn't examine me. Um, the evidence, you know, as, as we've discussed, was relatively uncontentious. It was fairly clear. Uh, so the judge determined at the end of the hearing that we had met the bar and that, uh, process would be issued on the charge of failing to have a contingency plan.

Mariann Sullivan: And the, the court decided that you were allowed to go ahead, is that right?

Camille Labchuk: That's correct. So we were, we were allowed to proceed. Process was issued. The next step is that the, um, courthouse via the police actually serves the accused person, or in this case corporation with notice to come to court and answer to the charge.

Mariann Sullivan: And, uh, what was the next step? The next step was, was to bring them to trial? Was there a long gap between, between being granted permission to bring the charge and the trial?

Camille Labchuk: It was about a year before we got a trial date, which is not atypical. Uh, there were preliminary conversations, of course, with defense counsel. And to set a trial in Canada, I'm sure it's similar in The States, you need to have a trial estimate.

So you need to decide how many witnesses you're going to bring, if there's going to be an expert involved, if there's any pretrial applications or motions, um, sort out all those matters so you can get an accurate trial estimate. So by the time we did that, we determined that we needed two days for the trial and we were able to set that trial date.

And I think that we set the trial in February of. Last year, so 2025. And the dates that we were able to secure were actually for May. So there was a, a fairly quick turnaround. But when we showed up in May for the trial and we were prepared to proceed, defense counsel brought an adjournment motion and was successfully able to delay the trial.

Mariann Sullivan: You actually showed up before they sought the adjournment.

Camille Labchuk: That's correct. There was no notice of the adjournments, um, which was surprising.

Mariann Sullivan: That's annoying.

Camille Labchuk: It would not have flown in a Toronto courthouse, but...

Mariann Sullivan: Yes. Uh, that, that is annoying. I mean, I'm sure Winnipeg is lovely, but you know, that's a, it's a bit of a trip as far as I, as far as I know.

Camille Labchuk: And the basis of the adjournment request was a claim that we had given late disclosure in the case. Um. It's interesting stepping into the role of prosecutor. I'm a former defense lawyer. My colleague Ali Pester, who was a big part of the case, is a former defense, uh, lawyer. Our external counsel, Dan Stein, also defense counsel.

We did learn a thing or two about the position that the prosecutor's in and some of the intricacies and difficulties. Um, I would not say there was any late disclosure in this case. The claim was about a couple pages of notes from one of the prosecution witnesses who was a veterinarian from the CFIA. That was another, you know, thing that we had difficulty with. We spoke earlier about the challenges of collecting evidence as a non-state actor. And one thing we had to do to get the CFIA officials involved in the case to talk with us was actually get subpoenas issued to have those conversations. Um, so we did end up speaking with them and we subpoenaed them to come to court as well.

But, um, it took some time and so there was a conversation that happened, you know, later in the process and they said that that disclosure was too late. Um, I don't think it was, but at any rate, the trial was delayed.

Mariann Sullivan: Yeah, but you have now had the trial and you know, usually when I have, when I, I have some background information on things that I can ask questions, but I don't really. The, the trial is, I have no idea what happened. So start at the beginning and tell us the whole story.

Camille Labchuk: Yeah, so the trial took place February 12th and 13th in the Winnipeg Courthouse, and it was a two day trial. We had three witnesses on behalf of the prosecution. The first two were CFIA veterinarians, and the third was a CFIA manager. The evidence was essentially what we expected. Uh, it, it was fairly clear in this case what had happened.

The facts were not really in contention, but the first witness was Dr. Erika Speck. She's a CFIA vet. She was involved in doing the blood samples of the horses to test for disease and infirmities before they went to Japan. And her evidence was that she had received a copy of Carlisle's contingency plan.

So they did have one. The problem with the contingency plan is that it did not cover the airline portion of the journey. It stopped at the airport, and she told us in court that she warned them that somebody had to have a contingency plan for the air portion of the journey. Now, maybe that could be, um, you know, the cargo transporter, which is called Sea Air.

That could be Korean Air, which was the airline company. But she said somebody has to have a plan, and she was concerned that there was no plan for the airline portion. So that's witness number one. Witness number two is Dr. Max Popp. He's the veterinarian who was onsite at the airport and inspected the horses as they were being loaded into crates.

And he's the one that was, you know, sort of, involved to some extent in the decision to allow the horses to go to Japan despite the delay and despite everybody knowing that would take them outside the time limit. Um, and then, you know, his evidence was that there was no further contingency plan filed.

There was nothing to indicate that there was a contingency plan for the air portion of the journey. Finally the last witness was, um, a CFIA regional manager who worked out of the office there. And she was the one who sent the warning letter to Carlisle Farms, reminding of them of their obligations to have a contingency plan that covers the full portion of the journey. Um, so that was it. And then that was all day one and day two we did closing submissions.

Mariann Sullivan: And, uh, we don't have a verdict yet, right? Though we're expecting one quite soon.

Camille Labchuk: Yeah, that's right. We're expecting one on February 27th, um, which may be the day this podcast is published and...

Mariann Sullivan: February?

Camille Labchuk: Oh, sorry, March 27th.

Mariann Sullivan: Okay. You almost got me. I was like...

Camille Labchuk: It still feels like February in Toronto right now 'cause we've had such a miserable winter.

Mariann Sullivan: Yeah. Yeah. Um, all right, so March 27th, which, uh, yes, so the day this, this podcast goes up, people can look in the papers and search and find out what the, what the verdict was. Did you get any sense of what the court was concerned about? Uh, were there any particular, um, notable...? I didn't realize there was that much evidence about them having been warned that they had to have a contingency plan.

Camille Labchuk: Yeah, that's correct. That's correct. So there's a few legal issues that we think the judge is going to be grappling with.

Um, I'll say the judge took the case very seriously and had some questions for us and for defense counsel. The main issue is I think about who has to have a contingency plan and what the form of the contingency plan has to be.

So the statute says very clearly that there must be a contingency plan by anyone who's involved in transporting horses. And our view of that, of course, is that would cover Carlisle Farms, which is the originator of the horses. They initiated the export, so obviously that would cover them. It would cover the logistics company they worked with, which is called Sea Air. It would cover Korean Airlines, which did the actual, um, you know, flying of the horses. It covers everybody. The word everybody occurs in the statute, and that's what we think applies. Carlisle essentially tried to blame everybody else and said, Well, someone has to have a contingency plan, but that doesn't necessarily mean us. Korean Air should have one, Sea Air. We transferred the horses to them, and at that point they need to. I don't think that argument flies because the plain language of the statute says that everybody involved needs to have one. And if you were able to simply pass off the horses and point a finger at someone else, well we'd result in this absurd situation where, you know everybody but ostensibly nobody has to be responsible for these horses. Mariann, there's a helpful case as well from the Federal Court of Appeal about this, where a company shipping, uh, broiler chickens to transport in very cold and wet conditions, and 67 of them died. They tried to blame the shipping company and the court said, No, that doesn't fly. Even though you might have transferred the care to them, you still had an obligation to oversee their wellbeing during the transport and protect them from death. So we think that same rationale applies, um, in this case.

Mariann Sullivan: Are there a lot of other cases that referenced this, uh, this section of the statute vis-a-vis animals?

Camille Labchuk: For the contingency plan per se? Not really, no. It's, it's not something that's commonly prosecuted. There are a lot of different cases involving animal transport in general. Um, so interestingly the way, the way that animal transport regime works in Canada is there's two tracks. So the CFIA can issue what's called an administrative monetary penalty, which is essentially a traffic ticket, um, as a, you know, a penalty that the exporter or you know, transporter would then have to go to a tribunal to fight if they want to contest it. Or if they want to just pay the fine, they can just pay the fine. Um, so there's a number of cases where they go to this tribunal called the Canadian Agricultural Review Tribunal, and they contest those, um, traffic tickets essentially.

So there's a lot of case law there. And those cases can also be, um, heard by the Court of Appeal and the Federal Court of Appeal as well. Um, yeah, so the Federal Court of Appeal rather. So, uh, there is some case law, but not specifically really about contingency plans.

Mariann Sullivan: And the contingency plan, I mean, it's not just to meet the 28 hour regulation, it's for, is it for anything that, that might foreseeably go wrong and put the animals in some kind of harm's way, uh, during transport?

Camille Labchuk: That's right. It's, it's supposed to be a fairly comprehensive governing document that oversees all aspects of the transport. So that could be, what if a horse gives birth on a flight? What if a horse falls in a crate and has some pretty serious medical issues? What if we stop in Anchorage, Alaska and can't take off again?

What if, um, something happens to the plane in the middle of the flight? Like it is supposed to provide for these that are not specifically foreseen, but are foreseeable that could happen. Um, and so the CFIA actually has some fairly detailed guidance on what should be in those contingency plans.

And it's very clear that they have to cover the whole journey. And, you know, if you think about what happened in this case, uh, you know, the transport from the farm to the airport for which there was a contingency plan, that covered maybe five or six hours of the journey.

Um, but the rest of the journey, the, you know, and we think this journey ultimately lasted probably close to 32 hours.

The rest of that journey was not really subject to a contingency plan. And that is just really contrary to the plain language of the statute.

Mariann Sullivan: And the export, the, the main issue then is going to be whether the exporter could just wash his hands of, of the whole requirement after, uh, he got to the airport?

Camille Labchuk: Yeah. And just point the finger at Korean Air

Mariann Sullivan: They should have done it. Yeah.

Camille Labchuk: Their problem, not mine.

Mariann Sullivan: I was wondering what the defense was going to be because I couldn't figure it, figure it out. Um, so, uh, you mentioned that the potential... what are the potential penalties? Are they just fines?

Camille Labchuk: Yeah. I mean, there, there's certainly fines are possible. Um, technically jail is on the table as well. Obviously that wouldn't be something we'd be interested in if we succeed in the case.

Mariann Sullivan: I'm interested if they, if if they wanna ask me, I, I'd be happy to send them to jail. Prob, they probably don't. All right.

Camille Labchuk: I, I, I'm not aware of any case law in Canadian history where somebody has been jailed for a transport offense.

Mariann Sullivan: Yeah, no, that would, that would be, uh, extraordinary. Well, I, I mean, I'm on tenterhooks, uh, to find out what's gonna happen. This, this seems to me to be a very important case, um, because of the kind of, uh, precedent it would set and because it would, it would put a little bit of fear of God into, into these people who are just passing it off to, um, passing the responsibility to care for these horses off to somebody else.

And, um, is there anything that I didn't ask you about that I should have before we get onto a... you know, 'cause I, I, I wanna talk about the broader context in which this particular case fits in. But before we get to that, is there anything about the case specifically?

Camille Labchuk: Well, that I think covers the case. So maybe I'll share one more interesting, you know, fact about how this has all gone down is that sort of a little bit separately from the case, but related is that once we determined, as I mentioned, that probably all of the shipments from Winnipeg were going over the time limit, um, there was a change made and we actually think that change has made things even worse.

So what the exporter is now doing, is he's bringing the horses to an interim feedlot on day one that's some distance outside of Winnipeg, but closer than his feedlot farm where the horses are raised would be. So he takes them there on day one. He unloads these horses into this unfamiliar feedlot. and then on the second day, they take them to the airport.

So they're essentially resetting the clock. They're stopping, they're resting them for at least eight hours, which is what's required under the statute to reset that clock. And then they're having the journey continue. Um, we actually don't think this is better. In fact, it might be worse because the research and the evidence from experts shows that what's really stressful about this is the loading and the unloading process.

You know, it's not just the deprivation of food, water, and rest, but if you're loading and unloading horses, and especially into unfamiliar locations, horses are, you know, very fearful animals.

Mariann Sullivan: Yeah. Yeah.

Camille Labchuk: That can be hard for them. interestingly as well, the man that owns this feedlot, um, has been charged previously with assaulting, um, somebody who was making a film once about um, horses in the past.

Mariann Sullivan: Nice. Sounds like a great guy.

Camille Labchuk: Yeah, great guy. He actually has a sign outside, um, that, you know, says basically if somebody is concerned about...I'll quote from it, Warning, if anything on this ranch offends you, sorry. I just don't give a fuck.

So that's where the horses are being transported in the interim.

Mariann Sullivan: Yeah. And I mean, especially when taken into account, the, the fact that the 28 hour law is like ridiculous, as we were saying before. I mean, this manages maybe to get them in under 28 hours, maybe, um, by doing this whole rigamarole. And then all you've got is like this law that is inadequate to start off with because 28 hours is... without food, water, or rest is ridiculous.

Camille Labchuk: Yeah. Yeah. No, it really is. It really is. But you know, at the very least, if these laws exist, they should be enforced.

It is so offensive that the CFIA has completely failed to take enforcement action against any of these exporters for many, many years.

Mariann Sullivan: Yeah. Well, I mean, one of the reasons it's important to do this is also to bring attention to this fact, which you were mentioning on it. It was a question I was gonna ask, but you asked, answered it before I asked it, that, you know, are, are people aware of this? And, um, it sounds also like. Canadian culture vis-a-vis horses is pretty similar to, to the culture in The States that, you know, they're, they're seen perhaps more as pets than as, as food, which is not true in every country.

And you know, like we eat other animals. And I'm not saying that makes us better than anybody, but it does mean that, that this story is something that, that really, if it reaches people, it could, uh, it could result in change because people are horrified by these things being done to horses. Um, and that's something that you've also been trying to do.

And in a broader context, not specifically about this case, you have this cruel cargo report. Um, can you tell us a little bit about, about what it found about the more general picture of the, um, horse transport issue?

Camille Labchuk: Yeah. Yeah, that's right. So the cruel cargo report, we, we just put out this month, March, 2026. Um, it's a new look, a fresh look at new data from the Japanese government and from the feedlots and the quarantine facilities where the horses are taken once they land in Japan. And this is a report that, um, found, you know, once again, just massive suffering.

Massive suffering and significant deaths that the CFIA simply wasn't, um, tracking. We found that at least nine horses died and at least 29 collapsed on flights. And 290 other horses suffered serious injuries and illness. And, you know, the exporters from Canada were responsible for sending these horses to Japan, they reported none of these deaths or injuries. We actually show, you know, at least two horses were euthanized shortly after landing due to leg injuries. So this is all Japanese data that the Canadian government hasn't been tracking. And Mariann, when you look at the whole picture, it really leads you to one conclusion, which is that this is an industry that's inherently inhumane.

It is inherently cruel to be doing these exports, and there's probably no way to, you know, get the welfare to even a basic acceptable level, even leaving aside the question of whether we should be killing horses for meat the first place.

Mariann Sullivan: But is this a legal issue? Like, are, are they legally obligated to track what happens after the horses reach Japan? Or is this more something that you're just informing people is what's really happening here?

Camille Labchuk: Well, I think it is a legal issue like their, their responsibility for, you know, animal transport laws covers the entire duration of the journey. It doesn't stop once the horses, um, take off in Canada. It doesn't stop once they land in Japan. The obligation of the part of the CFIA stops when the horses are unloaded and have access to food and water or rest. Um, otherwise the 28 hour law still does apply. So there's that issue of whether the, the time limit is being met and we say that in many, many cases it's not being met. And then there's a separate issue, which is perhaps less of a legal issue, but still definitely a moral one, which is what happens to the horses after they land.

So if horse dies two days later from shipping fever, which occurs regularly, it's after the horses have land and been unloaded in Japan, the CFIA just washes their hands of that and says that's not our responsibility and we're not going to track those deaths. Um, we don't think that's appropriate because of course this entire industry is what you have to look at.

You can't just look at the narrow, like, you know, minutes during under which they were under CFIA jurisdiction. And so that's why we say that this industry, you know, there, there's no way to do it appropriately.

Mariann Sullivan: Yeah. And it comes right around to what you were saying at the very beginning, that, uh, the CFIA and other agencies like it in other countries, they're not... their concern isn't are Canadian horses being cared for properly? Their concern is, is the Canadian horse export industry? Uh, at, I mean, at best, their concern is are, are we, are we enforcing these rules to the minimum amount necessary?

Um, and even that, there's flaws on, but their, their concern isn't the big picture.

Camille Labchuk: Yeah. And you know what? There's actually a, there was a really interesting moment with one of the witnesses at the trial, the veterinarian who inspected the horses beforehand. We asked her on the stand why it was that she wanted to make sure that the horses were healthy before the journeys. And we expected that she would say because she did, you know, wanted to ensure that they wouldn't suffer unlawfully under the statute. And her response was actually that she wanted to make sure that future journeys could occur. So she viewed her job, according to her, as facilitating the export of these horses. She didn't mention that part of her job was to protect animals.

Mariann Sullivan: Yeah, and she's a veterinarian. Yeah, it's pretty troubling. Wow. This is a crazy case and a lot's riding on it, and we will be looking forward to hearing what's happened. What, what happens. Uh, we're, we're recording this, um, I guess a week before you, you're expecting the verdict. Um, there's also a bill pending that would ban live export.

Is that right? And is, um, is that something you're supporting?

Camille Labchuk: There was a bill. There is not currently a a bill. So, the history on this, you know, a number of years ago this started to become an issue that Canadians viewed more prominently. There was an expose on a, a big, you know, TV news magazine show called an investigative journalism show called CTVW five. people were really, really shocked to learn about this.

And that led to a 2021 platform commitment in, um, the, from the liberal party, which was governing at the time and won the 2021 election. So under Justin Trudeau, the liberal party promised it would ban live exports. He directed his Agriculture Minister to do that, and then they kind of sat on their hands for a long time and didn't do so.

Eventually a liberal member of Parliament put forward something called a private member's bill, which is of their own initiative, not a government bill. Government bill would've moved much more quickly, and that bill did move and it made its way through the Agriculture Committee. My colleague Kaitlyn Mitchell testified about it.

It passed the House of Common. It got to the Senate, which is the next step, and in the Senate it was delayed by, um, conservative Senate leader Don Plett. He has since been forced to retire. He aged out of politics. He reached his 75, um, year old birthday, which is when you have to retire.

Mariann Sullivan: We didn't know it was possible to age outta politics here in, here in the United States of America.

Camille Labchuk: Feel like you guys could use that, but

Mariann Sullivan: What an I, what a thought!

Camille Labchuk: Yeah, so, uh, he was able to delay the bill. Don Plett has a very long history of delaying any animal protection bill that he can. He almost blocked us from passing a ban on whale and dolphin captivity, but we eventually overcame. And in this case, he was able to delay the bill long enough that when Mark Carney then took over the liberal party leadership and became our Prime Minister, and there was an election, that Bill hadn't passed through the Senate and it died.

Mariann Sullivan: Okay.

Camille Labchuk: So now we're in this phase of trying to get Mark Carney's government to pick this up again. Obviously they've been dealing with a lot of priorities, um, dealing with your president and the relationship with Canada and the US.

Yeah. So, um, but we are optimistic that's still going to happen.

Mariann Sullivan: Oh, good. I'm glad to hear that there's some optimism. Tell us what else is happening at Animal Justice. You're not just working on, on, on, uh, horse shipments.

Camille Labchuk: No, no, we're working on a lot of things. Um, you know, in Canada... you know, farmed animals are a top concern for all of us here, uh, as they are for you, I know, and, and lawyers everywhere.

They have no laws protecting them in, in Canada, from, you know, uh, there's no regulatory standards providing for their standards of care.

So that's one thing that we're working on. We're coming out with a big report very soon with some other organizations.

Mariann Sullivan: Interesting. Interesting.

You know, people always think because they think Canada, you know, is so much more progressive than, than we are, which is very, very often true. They always think that Canadian, regulations regarding particularly farmed animals are gonna be so much better than ours. But I, you know, they're not.

But maybe you'll, you'll pull ahead here.

Camille Labchuk: Well, it's so funny, right? I always say our national pastime is feeling morally superior to you guys. Um, but when it comes to animals, we are significantly further behind.

Mariann Sullivan: It's very disappointing. It really is. Everybody always thinks you're better but...

Worse, really? I don't know whether you could be worse, but...

Camille Labchuk: No, we, we are worse. We are worse. Like our, one of the interesting things about Canada, I've only really come to appreciate this now somewhat recently, is we just don't pass that many laws. Compared to, say, the state of New York or the state of California, which probably passes a thousand bills per year.

Mariann Sullivan: California, they, they're on it. Yeah. They,

Camille Labchuk: Or

Mariann Sullivan: they like to pass laws. Yeah.

Camille Labchuk: Yeah. Other, other states that are considered to be like, you know, passing fewer laws. It just eclipses us so badly. So, you know, Canada, each province passes probably a dozen laws per year, or a couple dozen, I should say. Um, so you know, one of the other bright spots in Canada right now, Mariann, is last summer Animal Justice helped expose a hospital dog testing lab. There was a secret lab in a hospital in London, Ontario that was performing gruesome cardiac experiments on dogs, and it led the lab to close. The public outcry was on the front pages of newspapers. The lab was forced to close, and Ontario's premier, Doug Ford actually announced that he was going to just ban cat and dog testing for medical research. So there is a bill to do that that's moving forward. That'll be pretty exciting and definitely a really big first for us.

Mariann Sullivan: Interesting, interesting. Well, I, I mean, I want you to pull way ahead so that, uh, we have to catch up. Uh, and I mean.

Camille Labchuk: On it.

Mariann Sullivan: Yeah, I, I know you are. And is there anything else specifically going on at Animal Justice you'd like to tell us about before I let you go?

Camille Labchuk: A, there's a, there's a million things. Maybe the other one that some of your listeners might be aware of, I'll just flag this one, is the Marineland animals.

Mariann Sullivan: Of course.

Camille Labchuk: So, Marineland still has 30 beluga whales. That's, um, you know, because we actually did pass a ban on whale and dolphin captivity in 2019. They can't breed them any longer, and they tried to export them all to China 'cause Marine land's about to close. It's, um, you know, defunct at this point because no one wants to watch sad whales in tanks. And our government denied the Chinese export permits, which was really good because it was a very shoddy facility with, um, poor standards.

And now it looks like those whales might end up going to US facilities. So that's another thing to keep an eye on.

There's been a really big push to get a sanctuary developed for the whales off the coast of Nova Scotia, but Marineland so far has not,

Mariann Sullivan: Boy, The Marine land fight has been going on for a long, long time, and a lot of great Canadian activists have worked on that issue over the years. It's kind of unbelievable. It's gonna close. Very sad to hear.

Camille Labchuk: Sometimes that's what it takes.

Really decades of pushing on an issue to to, win.

Mariann Sullivan: Well, there's a lot going on, a lot to keep track of.

I am looking forward to finding out what happens with this case and, and maybe some more private prosecutions, uh, in, in your future. Do you see them?

Camille Labchuk: Yeah. Well, you know, anyone who's worked in animal law knows that one of the major problems we face is enforcement.

It's great to have a law in the books, but if agencies aren't willing to do their jobs, the law's essentially meaningless. So I do see private prosecutions as a really potentially powerful tool to hold those agencies to account and make sure that lawbreakers don't get away with it.

Mariann Sullivan: Yeah, and I mean it's true in The States as well. Of course, it, it's just much more complicated 'cause we don't have this global sense that private prosecutions will always be allowed. And then the caveat that, but we can stop them whenever we want to. Um, it's just that each state has its own different issues regarding, you know, maybe you can bring prosecutions and, but there have been a number of interesting, uh, interesting things going on in that, in that area.

And I think it's a really, really important thing. And I love that you're doing it here and I hope there will be more in the future 'cause I think it's a very powerful tool. Thanks for, um, thanks for telling us about it, Camille. And thanks for joining me today.

Camille Labchuk: Oh, it was such a pleasure to chat with you Mariann. Thanks for having me.

Mariann Sullivan: All right, everybody. Don't forget to tune in to Rising Anxieties, The Hen Report, the interview, and we will be seeing you soon.