Evidence of meeting #50 for Agriculture and Agri-Food in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was regulations.
A recording is available from Parliament.
12:50 p.m.
President, Association québécoise des transporteurs d'animaux vivants
It takes from 15 to 18 months before we receive a document saying that we are guilty, that we committed a violation.
12:50 p.m.
Conservative
Jacques Gourde Conservative Lévis—Lotbinière, QC
So you are not called the day the shipment is unloaded, when the CFIA took pictures of the animal and produced a report. The officials did not ask you to go back to see them and check with them.
12:50 p.m.
President, Association québécoise des transporteurs d'animaux vivants
No, no.
12:50 p.m.
Conservative
Jacques Gourde Conservative Lévis—Lotbinière, QC
Have you been able to request a second opinion from a veterinarian that you have paid for yourself in order to defend yourself?
12:50 p.m.
President, Association québécoise des transporteurs d'animaux vivants
We cannot do that at all. Once the animal has been declared unfit, it is slaughtered and we cannot revisit the matter, it is closed. On the other hand, we do not receive the documents until later on.
12:50 p.m.
Conservative
Jacques Gourde Conservative Lévis—Lotbinière, QC
Are you the only one who is fined? If it is discovered that the problem might come from the farm, is the fine divided up or are you entirely responsible?
12:50 p.m.
President, Association québécoise des transporteurs d'animaux vivants
Both parties are fined, the farmer and the transporter. I have no power over that. If it is decided that the animal should not have been transported, the fine is automatic.
12:50 p.m.
Conservative
Jacques Gourde Conservative Lévis—Lotbinière, QC
You talked about a $7,000 fine for a first violation, for an animal that is worth about $200. That is 35 times the animal's value. For a second violation, it is 60 times its value, and the third time, 100 times its value. Are these fines excessive?
12:50 p.m.
President, Association québécoise des transporteurs d'animaux vivants
Yes, they are very excessive.
12:50 p.m.
Conservative
Jacques Gourde Conservative Lévis—Lotbinière, QC
Do you know of any companies in your sector that have stopped transporting animals after receiving such fines because they could no longer take the financial and competitive risks? That also places tremendous pressure on the company and on the transporters, those who load the animals onto the trucks, because it is their responsibility to determine whether or not the animals should be loaded onto the trucks.
12:50 p.m.
President, Association québécoise des transporteurs d'animaux vivants
There are companies that have had to close their doors. The directors were of a certain age, were about to throw in the towel, and that gave them a good reason to do so. This situation can also cause additional problems for new companies wanting to start up in this field. It is becoming increasingly problematic.
12:50 p.m.
Conservative
Jacques Gourde Conservative Lévis—Lotbinière, QC
Do you have trouble hiring people to drive the trucks?
They are responsible for loading the animals and delivering them to the slaughterhouse. They also have to decide, together with the farmers, whether to load the animals or not. There is always some uncertainty.
Is that becoming problematic?
12:50 p.m.
President, Association québécoise des transporteurs d'animaux vivants
In terms of hiring people, it is very problematic. The employment rate is very high. The employees are responsible for doing their job well. We give them the same responsibilities as the company has. As a company, I am responsible for my employees. Some of them can put the company at risk if they do not do their job well. Since there is no defence, a company cannot defend itself when it is determined whether or not it is at fault and whether or not it has to pay a fine. An employee who is unhappy because his employer did not give him a raise, for instance, can cause problems.
12:55 p.m.
Conservative
Jacques Gourde Conservative Lévis—Lotbinière, QC
As to the training of these employees, does it take a long time to get them up to a level to be able to avoid problems?
12:55 p.m.
President, Association québécoise des transporteurs d'animaux vivants
We sink a lot of money into training. The slaughterhouses that buy the animals require that our staff be trained. That is the case in the area where I make deliveries, in any case. A great deal of time is invested in training. We have been required to train our staff for a few years now.
12:55 p.m.
Conservative
Jacques Gourde Conservative Lévis—Lotbinière, QC
If there is a problem at a slaughterhouse, would it be fair and reasonable for the CFIA to call the transporter so you can get a second opinion?
12:55 p.m.
President, Association québécoise des transporteurs d'animaux vivants
That would be fair.
12:55 p.m.
Liberal
12:55 p.m.
Liberal
Francis Drouin Liberal Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON
Yes, I will share my speaking time with Mr. Peschisolido.
I'll have just one statement and a question following this. Mr. Bonnett, you actually touched on it with regard to chickens being transported.
I know that in Europe, according to chapter V of the European Council's regulation on the protection of animals during transport and related operations, it states that the maximum time that chickens cannot have access to feed and water is 12 hours, but that doesn't include loading and unloading time. The reason they did this is that the most stressful time for an animal is when you load them and unload them. They didn't want to put the onus on the transporter to meet that deadline. On average, it takes three to four hours to load and unload chickens, and we keep hearing that Europe is the perfect example we should follow. My question is open to all three of you just to comment on.
Also, we know that they've withdrawn their feed and water eight to 12 hours prior to transport, so now you're above 30 hours in Europe. In Canada, we want to go below 30 hours and we don't have the same infrastructure in place. I want to encourage you to comment on this, because it is often cited that Europe is the example we need to follow. Europe is similar to Canada after all. They just don't count like we do.
Ms. Rastogi, Mr. Bonnett, and Monsieur Manningham, can you comment?
12:55 p.m.
Policy and Research Manager, Canadian Federation of Humane Societies
Thank you.
I would remind the committee that the current regulations stipulate that broiler chickens and laying hens cannot be be without food, water, and rest for more than 36 hours. The interval you are speaking about in Europe is 12 hours. My understanding is that the journey times are typically shorter and that if in the conveyances there are provisions for, for example, water to be provided on the truck, these provisions can be quite helpful in allowing for longer transportation. The journey times absolutely must include the entire process, because the science tells us that animal welfare is compromised if the total length of time without food, and water in particular, is greater.
12:55 p.m.
President, Canadian Federation of Agriculture
I touched on it at the end of my presentation. Last night, there was an event with chicken farmers there, and they said that was a concern, including the time off feed and water. Maybe not so much the time off water, but off feed. That's why I said in the presentation that you have to be species-specific when you're talking about transport times. I'd encourage the committee to engage on the different species, because there can be unique situations where there may have to be some allowances made to ensure that the best thing is done.
One of the things I'd like to comment on, as well, is on the presentation from the humane society, which was recommending eight hours as a maximum time. I'm actually a livestock producer, a cattle guy—don't hold that against me—but if I think of eight hours, if you're within a couple of hours of your destination, loading and unloading those cattle puts a lot of stress on those animals.
I think we have to take a look at the overall animal care and animal welfare outcome rather than sometimes getting tied in so tight. If you get this target of eight hours and you know that an hour and a half down the road you can unload them at their final destination, why would you spend all that time running those cattle off a truck and getting them into a pen? Even though they have a rest period, they're not going to be too happy about getting back on that truck after that's done.
I think it's that outcome-based approach to the regulatory system, looking at what is best for the animal.
1 p.m.
President, Association québécoise des transporteurs d'animaux vivants
I would say, as Mr. Bonnett did, that the animals are under the greatest stress when they are unloaded. Ranchers and farmers today are very aware of the concept of biosafety. We have not talked about this, but biosafety is a concern when we are loading the animals, especially livestock, more so than for animals destined for the slaughterhouse. There is a high risk of illness being transmitted when animals are unloaded into enclosures. If those illnesses reach the farms, there are financial losses. As Mr. Bonnett said, it should be judged on the basis of the distances to be covered. I think the concept of biosafety should be applied, given the high demand among our clients.
As to the small animals that are transported, such as 6-kilo piglets, it is best to load and unload them just once. Their handling should be kept to a minimum, because the small animals do not have a lot of water. It is better to transport them in a single trip than in several stages. It is better for the animals.
