Agriculture Committee on June 17th, 2008

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Let me respectfully, through you, ask Mr. Mayers to keep his comments as brief as possible, and then we can all get a round. I appreciate his being here today.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Okay. His written statement has been circulated.

Mr. Mayers, if you would be kind enough, give us your brief opening comments and introduce the person you have with you.

[Paul Mayers, Acting Vice-President, Programs, Canadian Food Inspection Agency]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

With your indulgence I'd like to introduce my colleague, Ms. Cathy Airth, who is the associate vice-president for operations at the Canadian Food Inspection Agency.

Mr. Chairman, I recognize that your time is short. I do have opening remarks. Perhaps I can quickly run through them and we will move from there.

In my remarks today, I would like to describe what we are doing to modernize our regulations so that all animal transport within, into, and out of Canada is conducted in a humane manner.

I would like to start by acknowledging that most producers and transporters in Canada are committed to the humane transport of animals and are interested in seeing stronger, modernized regulations.

Canada's existing animal transportation regulations were developed in the 1970s. Since then, of course, farming and the farm animal industry have changed dramatically. The number and diversity of animals that are transported have been steadily increasing and an increasing number cross international borders.

Scientific information and observations arising from CFIA surveillance inspections have deepened our knowledge of how transport affects animals. New transportation vehicles and equipment have become available. The economic and competitive landscape, transportation practices, and international standards have changed.

Canadians' views on animal welfare have clearly grown stronger as well, as we've seen through recent media coverage on many issues.

It is clear that our rules and regulations must keep pace with these changes.

Since 2003, we have discussed amendments to our animal-transportation regulations with farming associations, trucking companies, animal-welfare advocates and other stakeholders.

We have analyzed research and considered feedback from interested parties to determine which amendments would be the most appropriate. In June 2005, a new amendment helped address one of the most urgent animal-welfare issues.

Canada became the first country in the world to ban the loading of an animal if it is unable to stand or walk without assistance, unless the animal is being transported for veterinary diagnosis or treatment.

Now, we are reviewing humane transport regulations so that they reflect the latest science, international standards and industry practices.

We want these regulations to meet the expectations of Canadians and we need them to be practical, effective, enforceable, and science-based.

Currently there are differences in how our transportation regulations are interpreted and applied. The proposed modifications would provide clarity and consistency in how farm animals across the country should be treated during transport. The modernized regulations would make it clearer what are and what are not appropriate humane transportation practices. The proposed changes would improve our ability to inform and educate those involved in animal transportation of their responsibility to effectively enforce the regulations and would contribute to continued care of Canadian farm animals when they are transported beyond our borders.

Modernized regulations would need to focus on outcomes and therefore take into account the contributing factors such as extremes of weather and not just prescriptive time allocations. This outcome-based approach will allow for greater flexibility and will improve our ability to take effective enforcement action if rules are broken.

In Canada, the protection of animal welfare is a shared responsibility. Everyone has a role to play, and we rely on farmers, farming associations, trucking companies, animal-welfare groups and the Canadian public to provide feedback and information. We have already identified many industry and stakeholder groups and consulted with them about the changes to regulations.

Additionally, in April 2006 a consultation document was posted on CFIA's website. We received more than 130 submissions in response to the document, and the feedback we got supported a review and update of the regulations based on scientific knowledge and current industry standards and practices. Canadians across the country will of course have another opportunity to comment at the time of publication of proposed amendments in the Canada Gazette, part I.

We believe Canada can lead the way in humane transportation of animals. And if we continue to work closely with interested stakeholders, including industry organizations, the veterinary profession, researchers, and animal welfare groups, we can accomplish that.

Mr. Chairman, I do have a few more comments, but in the interest of time I will stop there.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Thank you very much. We appreciate your brief remarks.

Mr. Easter, you have the floor first.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Mr. Mayers.

I don't want to get into the horse slaughter issue to a great extent, just the transportation side of it. But there has been some pretty damning coverage on the transport in, and slaughter of, horses slated for slaughter for human consumption—horses coming in from the United States and meat exported out of the country to other international markets.

So I want to deal with the transportation side of that, and to begin, I'd say that CBC documentary was not good stuff. I was shocked by it, and it's a pretty damning documentary. But off the top, I want to say that I would expect that plant was the exception and not the rule, because what I know of CFIA is that you do good work in terms of human health and safety and in terms of care of animals, as a rule.

So I have two questions. First, in terms of the water and feed to those horses coming from the United States, were they watered and fed according to the rules?

Second, as a spinoff question to that, we ship a lot of livestock from Prince Edward Island now to the U.S. and to Ontario, long distances. What happens in terms of feed and water for that livestock in shipping? What's the timeframe in terms of when they have to stop and feed and water them?

My third question is related to the horse documentary. We're told that some of those horses were shipped on double-decker livestock trucks, which would mean that the horses did not have headroom, which is required under the regulations, at least when they hit the Canadian border. I understand they can be shipped in the United States as feeder horses without headroom. Did the truckers change the designation of the horses when they hit the border? Give us the background on what the trucking regulations really are related to horse shipment, and were they met in that particular case?

[Paul Mayers]

Thank you very much, and thank you for the complimentary remarks related to CFIA.

You've raised a number of issues. Let me start in terms of the transportation.

Canadian regulations do currently permit longer periods without feed, water, and rest than prescribed in the standards of other countries. That is one of the reasons we have undertaken the work that I mentioned in terms of a review.

We believe it is necessary to strike a balance between an outcome-based goal and a prescriptive regulatory approach. Importantly, it is our view that specific timeframes may be problematic. Instead, we would prefer to focus on the desirable outcomes in terms of the physiological effect on animals when transported. The modifications that we aim at are to address those physiological impacts as opposed to specifying a particular timeframe for transport, recognizing that in extreme weather a specific timeframe may still be too long to allow for the humane treatment of the animal.

In terms of the specifics of your question related the current regulations, if the chair would permit, I would like to invite one of my colleagues, Dr. Martin Appelt, to speak to some of the specific requirements in current regulations.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Please.

[Martin Appelt, Human Transportation of Animals Specialist, Foreign Animal Diseases, Animal Welfare, Canadian Food Inspection Agency]

Mr. Chair and committee, in answer to your specific question about the transport times for horses entering Canada from the United States, slaughter horses actually are the only species of animal where regulations exist in the United States with regard to humane transportation. They carry a time limit of 28 hours without feed, water, and rest in transit. Canada currently allows 36 hours for horses and other monogastric animals, such as pigs, without feed, water, and rest. So depending on the origin of the horses arriving at this particular plant, it is likely completely legal that they did arrive without having been fed, watered, and rested in transit.

We do have regulations in place with regard to slaughter that stipulate that those animals have to be given water, feed, and rest at the plant, and evidence exists that this was in fact the case.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Monsieur Bellavance, the floor is yours.

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good day ladies and gentlemen.

Last winter, Radio-Canada broadcast a show called Enquête—this is probably not the same show that Mr. Easter was talking about—on animal transportation and related problems. According to this show, of the 600 million animal slaughtered in Canada last year, over two million died during transportation. Of course, these kinds of shows always focus on the more lurid details and problems. I am not saying that we must not condemn this situation, but the fact remains that 598 million animals were alive upon arrival. So we have to put these figures into perspective.

Whatever the case may be, I am pleased to note that you are looking at this issue and making amendments in order to ensure the greatest possible respect for animal welfare. Everyone wants this, of course. Farmers don't want to hurt their animals, on the contrary. They make their living off those animals.

Perhaps some things need to be changed in the trucking industry. You talked about the number of hours in transportation, which was something that was also reported in the Enquête show. Current regulations allow hogs to be transported by truck for 36 consecutive hours and 52 hours for livestock and ruminants.

Mr. Mayers, you seem to be saying that these figures will not change and that's really not what we should be looking at. Could you tell me why exactly? Did I understand correctly what you said?

[Paul Mayers]

Thank you.

I'm not suggesting that won't change; what I am saying is that rather than changing to simply establish a new specific time limit, what we would prefer is to pursue an approach that recognizes the physiological requirements of the animal. As opposed to establishing an artificial maximum time limit, we would instead focus on the actual condition of the animal, meaning that an animal that is dehydrated in transport would not be acceptable.

For example, in extremely hot conditions, rather than holding to an artificial time limit, those who are transporting animals would instead be required by the regulations to pay attention to the physiological effects of that transport on the animal and therefore provide feed, water, and rest before any of those negative physiological effects on the animal can occur.

That's the difference in an outcome-based approach. We would focus on positive health outcomes for the animal as opposed to simply establishing new time limitations. But that's not to say we would retain the existing time limitations; instead, it would be to ensure that animals, when transported, do not suffer the negative physiological effects.

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

So, it would be the transporters' responsibility to verify the condition of animals and check the weather conditions. You were talking about very hot days, but it could just as easily be extremely cold days. So standards would be established regarding the mode of transportation in such conditions. Is that correct?

[Paul Mayers]

That's correct. What the CFIA would do through the regulations is establish the outcomes. Then, through education and guidance, we would assist the transportation industry in determining when negative physiological effects are approaching and therefore what actions are appropriate to take to avoid those effects.

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

The show also raised the issue of sanitary conditions. It said that the trucks weren't always properly washed between trips, nor were the unloading zones at the slaughter houses always very clean, which could lead to contamination. We are talking about pieces of slaughtered animals lying around, excrement, and so on. The show said that there could a risk of contamination and that this could affect human health.

Do you intend to look at this? Do you already have an idea of the obligations we need transportation companies to respect to ensure that the animals are being transported in the cleanest trucks possible?

[Paul Mayers]

The issue of the cleanliness of the animals impacting on potential food safety considerations is beyond the scope of humane transportation alone, but is an important element, of course, of CFIA's overall mandate in terms of both animal health and human health. So issues related to the potential for cross-contamination at slaughter are indeed addressed in the requirements from the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. However, they are addressed under a different part of our responsibility, and that's in terms of our Meat Inspection Act and regulations as they relate to addressing the ultimate safety of the food supply. Indeed, these issues are important, the control of potential for cross-contamination and contamination at slaughter, but they are separate from the issue of humane transportation in our regulatory oversight.

Would you like to add to that?

[Catherine Airth, Acting Associate Vice-President, Operations, Canadian Food Inspection Agency]

I was going to say that in terms of activity by our operations staff across the country, we spend a lot of time...we conduct blitzes, we look at inspection at auction marts, along with livestock yards, the transporters. A lot of our activities are involved in educational efforts to train people so they understand that those are not proper conditions.

The other thing we recognize from working through various stakeholders is that truckers change. People change jobs. They carry one commodity one day, and they carry something else the next day. It's a constant effort, and you can never get away from that educational aspect. We certainly take more punitive action when we're able to, but because it's an education issue.... It's constant. I guess that's what I'd like to indicate. It may be beyond the scope of the actual regulation, but it's part of our continuing efforts on the part of operations branch to make sure that we're continuing education efforts with truckers and other stakeholders.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Thank you.

Mr. Miller.

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Mayers, and your colleagues, thanks very much for coming today.

There's a couple of things I need to point out and emphasize--some things you had in your written material. One is that most producers and transporters in Canada are certainly committed to the humane transport of animals. That goes without saying. For farmers in general, livestock is their livelihood and they have a deep respect. I think I can speak to that pretty honestly, being a farmer myself.

You pointed out that new transportation vehicles and equipment have become available. But the key words you didn't have in there, Mr. Mayers, are “better” and “improved”. If anything, the equipment that's used is far better than it was years ago.

As I read through your notes here, one other thing that really bothers me is that you never miss an opportunity to emphasize animal welfare advocates. Although their comments are important, we have to keep in mind that there are some groups out there--I'm simply going to say that--that are so far out in left field that it's not reality. As for where you need to be doing your consultation, by far the large majority is within the industry--the producers, the haulers, that kind of thing. I think you need to stay in that.

To keep it brief, you talk about cross-contamination. Cross-contamination of what?

[Paul Mayers]

Thank you for your comments.

I simply note that of course the CFIA takes account of the voices of all interested parties who provide comments to us in our consultations. We have benefited tremendously from the input of non-government organizations who have contributed to the consultation process that I described.

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

I'm sure, Mr. Mayers, but I'd like you to talk about cross-contamination.

[Paul Mayers]

On the issue of cross-contamination, our particular interest is strongest, of course, in the prevention of pathogenic microorganisms that may be present in the gut of animals and through contact with, for example, excrement on the hide of an animal, avoiding in the slaughter process what is making its way to contaminate the final meat product. That's an important part of the controls that we oversee in the slaughter process, to prevent that contamination of a food that will ultimately be served to Canadians.

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

I fail to see where the transportation part of it comes into what you are talking about.

[Paul Mayers]

That's why I characterized our controls in that regard as under the Meat Inspection Act and regulations, separate from the issue of humane transportation. You're correct.

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

I probably don't agree with that statement or see anything as any different from what it has been for a long time, but we just disagree on that.

Another comment you made in here was that everyone has a role to play. Of course I touched on farmers associations, trucking companies, and of course you come back to the animal welfare groups again. As long as you're treating them, I guess, with the proper respect and not basing everything....

You have 130 submissions from groups. How many of those 130 submissions are from animal rights groups, and how many are from the industry? That should be easy—

[Paul Mayers]

I don't recall the breakdown. I don't know if my colleague would be able to give general input on the breakdown.