Agriculture Committee on March 23rd, 2017

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Welcome, everyone, to our meeting on amendments to the health of animals regulations regarding humane transportation.

Today we have with us for the first hour, Mr. Jaspinder Komal, executive director and deputy chief veterinary officer, animal health directorate, Canadian Food Inspection Agency.

I believe you have a five- to seven-minute presentation, so we'll give you the floor.

[Dr. Jaspinder Komal, Executive Director and Deputy Chief Veterinary Officer, Animal Health Directorate, Canadian Food Inspection Agency]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good morning.

My name is Jaspinder Komal and I am the executive director of the animal health directorate at the Canadian Food Inspection Agency.

It is a pleasure to be here. I appreciate the opportunity to participate in this study and to provide you with an update on the CFIA's work on proposed changes to part XII of the health of animals regulations.

As this committee is aware, the CFIA is a science-based regulatory agency dedicated to safeguarding plants, animals, and food. Our work promotes the health and well-being of Canada's people, environment and economy.

With respect to animal welfare, I would like to emphasize that in Canada this responsibility is shared among federal, provincial, and territorial governments, industry, and the public.

First and foremost, the responsibility for animal welfare automatically lies with whoever has care and custody of the animals. However, provincial and territorial governments have the primary regulatory responsibility for protecting the welfare of on-farm animals. Federally, the requirements for humane transportation of animals in Canada are specified in the health of animals regulations. The CFIA is responsible for establishing and enforcing these regulations, which were developed in 1977, and few amendments have been made since then.

The CFIA has recognized for some time that updates are needed to reflect today's science and industry practices and to better align with international standards. For the past 10 years, the CFIA has been consulting with stakeholders, such as transporters, producers, processors, animal welfare organizations, and the general public, on how best to amend the regulations.

In 2006, the CFIA began consulting on proposed amendments. Industry groups and the public were invited to provide comment on parts of the regulations that were being considered for modification. These consultations indicated that the majority of stakeholders largely agreed to the proposed changes.

In the fall of 2013, the CFIA further consulted on the proposed amendments to reconfirm stakeholders' expectations regarding the same elements presented in 2006. The CFIA also sought additional input on specific proposals to amend the regulations regarding such things as time intervals during which animals can be transported without access to food, water, and rest. In addition, the CFIA distributed two questionnaires in 2013 and 2014 that consulted businesses to collect data on the potential economic impacts of the proposed amendments. The first questionnaire targeted commercial transporters. The second one was very broad and reached over 1,000 stakeholders, including producers organizations, auction markets, assembly yards, processors, and those involved in commercial animal transportation.

In May 2015, the CFIA sent out a questionnaire to be completed by those who responded to the economic impact surveys to validate the data. These efforts led to the publication of the proposed amendments in part I of the Canada Gazette on December 3, 2016. The public comment period closed on February 16, 2017.

The changes being proposed to the health of animals regulations are intended to improve the well-being of animals during transportation, address public concerns, and better align Canada with major trading partners and international standards. Let me explain a bit further.

The proposed amendments would reduce the total time intervals during which animals can be transported without access to food, water, and rest. They would establish clear end results so that industry and transporters could better understand the requirements, and they would better reflect animals' needs and current industry practices and better align with standards set out by Canada's international trading partners and the World Organisation for Animal Health, also known as OIE.

The proposed amendments would provide clarification by adding clear definitions, such as those for compromised and unfit animals. As there are diverging views on animal transportation, we do not expect all stakeholders to support the proposed amendments. The CFIA's objective is for the regulations to strike a balance among the needs of animals during transport, the realities of transporting animals in Canada, and public concerns about animal welfare.

We have made real progress here, but there is more work to do. Since February 16, CFIA officials have been analyzing all the comments received to evaluate any potential changes to the draft amendments before the final regulations are published. I am pleased to report that the CFIA received input from close to 11,000 respondents, and the individual comments number in the tens of thousands. The comments come from many areas of expertise and interest, including academia, researchers, animal welfare organizations, industry groups, producers, transporters, government, veterinary associations, and individual Canadians.

I would like to note here that, while no mechanism exists to extend the comment period once it has concluded, the CFIA welcomes any recommendations that this committee may wish to provide on the issue before May 1. As part of implementation, the CFIA is proposing that the final regulations come into force 12 months after they are published in part II of the Canada Gazette. This will provide regulated parties with sufficient time to adjust to the new requirements.

Before I close, I want to point out that, while the CFIA plays an enforcement role, it also plays an educational one. The CFIA works closely with all interested parties to educate them about animal welfare during transportation. To this end, the CFIA has published an interpretive guidance document that accompanies the amended regulations to provide further direction and information to the regulated parties. The CFIA is committed to the humane treatment of animals during transport and takes the issue of animal welfare very seriously.

I would like to thank you again for this opportunity to provide an update on the CFIA's work with regard to part XII of the health of animals regulations. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Thank you so much, Mr. Komal.

Now we will proceed with the questions.

Mr. Anderson, you have six minutes.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for being with us today. We look forward to this study.

I'd just like to ask you a bit about the consultation process in the last year and a half. You mentioned that up to 2015 there was some discussion for almost eight or nine years, but it seems to me when talking to people in industry that they were surprised by the fact that this was dropped on them in November, that people didn't have a lot of knowledge that this was coming, or whatever. Then there was a fairly short comment period.

Actually I think the committee was caught by surprise as well, and of course we had our Christmas break and this was as soon as we could have hearings on this issue. Can you tell me what the process was in the last year or year and a half in terms of industry and the interest groups that might have been involved?

[Dr. Jaspinder Komal]

As I said, we've been consulting for the last 10 years, and there are various ways to consult with our stakeholders. Normally we would meet with our stakeholders whenever we have a chance to meet with them, and we inform them at my level and levels above me. We always have meetings with our industry partners from time to time, either in a formal or informal setting. But as I said in my opening remarks, we also sent questionnaires to our stakeholders from time to time. We have been meeting and collecting data from them. Of course, these questionnaires and surveys are voluntary, so we get them back and we try to collect information and analyze it. Also, when folks are here in Ottawa, we find a chance to meet with them and educate them.

We have consulted with them quite a bit, but since 2013-14, as I said, we distributed more than 11,000 surveys to 1,100 stakeholders to determine the economic implications of the proposed amendments, and we then went back to validate that survey in 2015 to look at what we got, what they said. Of course, as I said, certain parts of the industry will respond more than others.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

I have a concern then. This isn't the first time that we're seeing decisions at committee that have been made suddenly without industry participation. Even in your answer you haven't talked about the last year, year and a half, other than some sort of voluntary participation in a survey or whatever. I hope you understand that this leaves industry on the outside looking in. It makes some of us wonder how these decisions are being made, how much co-operation and how much science is involved in them, and how much political decisions are playing a role in these kinds of things.

One of the major things these have done is suggest that we need some time intervals changed. How do you determine time intervals, and specifically, do you think that the international standards, particularly those out of Europe, are useful for a country that's as diverse as Canada?

[Dr. Jaspinder Komal]

Thank you again, Mr. Anderson.

I want to go back to your previous comment. We have consulted in the last year and a half, two years, but we have been talking to the industry for the last 10 years, so it's not that they weren't aware that these changes would be coming at some point.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

They sit for seven or eight or nine years, and nothing has changed. Then there's a dead period, and then, all of a sudden, something's dropped on them. Do you understand how that might be an issue for industry, giving rise to a concern about whether they're being consulted on these issues?

[Dr. Jaspinder Komal]

I take your point, but I think we always said that these changes would be made whenever we have an opportunity to make them. We have been updating the industry on our progress from time to time. We have taken the value chain round table, for example, as a forum to talk to the industry on a one-to-one basis.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Can I just ask about the specific changes? You're saying that the industry should have known that what you proposed here was what they were going to have to deal with at some point. Is that what you're saying?

[Dr. Jaspinder Komal]

Yes. They were aware of the changes we were making with respect to the food, water, and rest intervals of the time prescription. We start with the science on this, as I said. Since 1977 more science has been available on the welfare of animals and how animals behave when they are transported. The transportation of animals is a very stressful environment for animals, and these animals are transported a number of times during their lives.

We start with science and then we look at what our international partners are doing. We also look at the international standards set by the World Organisation for Animal Health and then we also look at the geographical realities of Canada and the interests of different stakeholders on both sides of the ledger. That's how we came up with it. Before the consultation, we had proposed some times. We did consultations and we adjusted our times before Canada Gazette, part I, and now we have received upwards of 11,000 submissions from different stakeholders. We're doing an analysis, and we'll see if we need to further—

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Thank you, Mr. Komal.

Thank you, Mr. Anderson.

Mr. Breton, you have the floor for six minutes.

[Pierre Breton, Liberal, Shefford, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Komal, thank you for being here with us today.

I would like to pick up on the issue raised by my colleague, Mr. Anderson, regarding the changes to be made to time intervals. You touched on the European Union's standards. As you know, however, we draw on international standards.

What can you tell us about your comparison with Europe? One just has to think of time intervals, the animals' access to water or food during transit, or to ventilation systems. I think these are still the public's concerns regarding the treatment of animals.

[Dr. Jaspinder Komal]

Thank you for your question, sir.

As I said, we looked at all these factors, along with the standards in Canada, Europe, the United States, Australia, and New Zealand.

In the past, the Health of Animals Regulations were very prescriptive. Now the focus is more on results, but the regulations still set out the travel times.

Canadian standards differ from European ones because animals are transported over greater distances owing to our geography. In any case, we have reduced travel times. We have also examined industry needs and determined the maximum travel times that people transporting animals must comply with. If something unexpected arises before or during transit, the people looking after the animals should decide to reduce the travel time based on the animals' health.

So the regulations set out the travel times. Canada's standards in this regard are similar to those in the United States, Australia, and New Zealand. The standards in Europe are much stricter than ours. In Europe, however, the distances are much shorter than they are in Canada.

We evaluated all these factors and arrived at these standards for Canada.

[Pierre Breton, Liberal, Shefford, QC]

Okay.

What about training for people in the industry? Do the regulations impose training requirements on people in the industry? There are many details. It would be useful for these people to get training, and for it to be provided by the government or accredited consultants. Do the regulations address that?

[Dr. Jaspinder Komal]

Thank you for your question.

A provision was in fact added to the regulations requiring everyone who looks after these animals to receive training, as stipulated in international standards.

From the time they leave the farm, the animals go through many hands: they are loaded onto trucks, transported, and then shown at markets for sale, and so forth. The regulations will henceforth require that all the handlers involved, including the truck drivers, be trained to know how each species of animal will react under the more stressful transit conditions. If something unexpected arises, the person will know what has to be done to make sure the animals are well treated, fed and watered.

In addition, as I said in my presentation, there will be a guide to help people in the industry interpret the rules. The CFIA will continue to train all the handlers to make sure the animals are well treated.

[Pierre Breton, Liberal, Shefford, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Komal.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Thank you, Mr. Breton.

Ms. Brosseau, you have six minutes.

[Ruth Ellen Brosseau, NDP, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Komal, for your presentation and for your participation in this study.

You've talked about Europe having very strict standards. As we compare the U.S. with Canada, can you elaborate on what is done in the States and how that applies compared with Canada?

[Dr. Jaspinder Komal]

Thank you again for your question. The U.S. has standards for times. It has one standard, I think it is about 28 hours, but it also has provisions in its standard to move a little bit up and down so, for instance, if somebody says there are unforeseen circumstances that have come up, he or she can actually get permission to adjust the times.

We have prescribed standard times for different species based on the available science, based on the welfare of different species of these animals. Also we wanted to make sure that the industry has targets that it can actually comply with, so it is better from a compliance point of view, it's better efficiency from CFIA's inspection point of view, to provide those times for different species. In terms of making sure that we are on the same standard as the U.S., because there is a lot of trade of animals between the U.S. and Canada, I think that in the species and the sectors in which we trade with the U.S., we are pretty much in line with them.

[Ruth Ellen Brosseau, NDP, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Transporting animals is stressful, especially when they're young. It's the first time, they're being weaned, and they're taken away from their mothers. When they're transported.... I was speaking to farmers this morning and one of the concerns that was brought up was that sometimes maybe stopping and unloading them, giving them water when they haven't had water before—it takes a while for an animal, a young one, to be accustomed to drinking water—was more stressful than just getting the job done as quickly as possible. I would like to hear your comments on that.

Canada is a very big country. We have seasons. We have heat in the summer and extreme cold. I was wondering if we could get your comments on that one. When we hear that, maybe just getting it done in one shot and not stopping, can you talk about how those interval times will actually help improve animal health?

[Dr. Jaspinder Komal]

It's a very good question. Yes, as I said, the transportation of these animals is a very stressful event for them. Animals in Canada are transported many times in millions of numbers. For young animals, we have a prescribed time, which is very tight, very short, shorter than for adult animals. For cows, for example, we have prescribed the time of less than 12 hours, so this is in one shot. If they have to be stopped, they have to stop over for feed, water, and rest for eight hours at least to rest.

It's the same thing for other animals. For cattle, for example, it's 36 hours, because traditionally, historically, cattle are transported east to west, and we want them to be rested if the travel goes longer than 36 hours.

It's very akin to human beings travelling. If we travel a long distance, we are in the plane for a longer period of time, we tend to get dehydrated, even if we keep drinking or eating. It's a very similar condition for animals. If you just leave them to transfer for 70 hours, 72 hours, or 80 hours, I think the research has shown that there's a deterioration of their physiological system and pathological conditions start setting in, animals get sick, and then ultimately the product that we derive from these animals is not good quality and not safe for humans.

As I said previously, we started with the science, then we adjusted based on the geographical environment in Canada. We still think that by reducing these times from the previous standards in 1977 it's going to be much better. Are we perfect? I think we are not, but it's good progress, and as the science evolves we will continue to make further progress.

[Ruth Ellen Brosseau, NDP, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Can you maybe talk to us about the transport of compromised animals now? In the Canada Gazette regulations amending the health of animals, it says “N/A” current hours for compromised animals, and now there are 12 hours proposed for a compromised animal. Can you maybe talk to us and elaborate a little more on that, please?

[Dr. Jaspinder Komal]

In the current regulations, the regulations that were published in 1977, there's no distinction. In the proposed regulations, we have tried to make it clear to the animal handlers or the industry what “compromised” means and what “unfit” means. We have tried to prescribe that in the regulations because it's very difficult to do an assessment of an animal if you don't have professionals.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Thank you, Mr. Komal. I'll have to change.

Thank you, Ms. Brosseau.

We'll have to move to Ms. Lockhart and perhaps you can finish your thoughts.

I'm not suggesting you use your time, Ms. Lockhart, but you might have a chance later on.