I noted with some interest my colleague across the way a moment ago, who took some time out of our witness testimony today to suggest that the committee should report back to the House the number of signatures that he has received from people who are reacting to a different policy, that being a price on pollution. Perhaps we should table from this committee the 36,000-plus signatures we have received in relation to this piece of legislation. It seems to me somewhat contradictory to suggest that petitions are, in one instance, worthwhile when they support the position you're taking on one issue, but dismissed as emotional when they support another.
Ms. Semeniuk, I'd like to go back to you and then ask the same question of Ms. Cartwright: Can you tell us what evidence you have seen that helps explain the process by which horse welfare is taken into consideration once the horses have arrived in Japan through to the point when they're slaughtered?
Mr. Lawson, with all due respect to him, could not come up with anything beyond suggesting through anecdotal and second-hand conversation that he was confident that horse welfare was being looked after. In addition, a statement from the Embassy of Japan is hardly evidence to support that.
Ms. Semeniuk and then Ms. Cartwright, in about 20 seconds apiece, could you please just speak to what evidence you have seen to suggest that the horses' welfare is being upheld in Japan?