Agriculture Committee on March 23rd, 2017

[Dr. Jaspinder Komal]

I think we have done a great amount of consultation and communication. Of course, we can do more. One of the things we are doing is—and I should have actually included it in my response before—we will delay the implementation date for one year after we have the final regulation because that will allow the industry to adjust. That may also allow the industry to work with our colleagues on the department side of Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, if they need any help to make any adjustments. As an example, if they need more rest stations along the way, there will be an adjustment and we are allowing the time to make those adjustments.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Thank you very much. In the 20 seconds left, I could share my time with—

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Thank you.

I think we will end it. If it's a normal vote and it takes a normal amount of time, maybe we could at least come back to hear some of the witnesses.

Do you have something to add, Mr. Anderson?

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

I think we should go, but I would like to reserve the right to ask Mr. Komal to return again to the committee and finish his testimony.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

That would be okay, if we have time.

We will suspend.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

We shall resume our meeting on the transport of animals.

On this panel, we have the Association québécoise des transporteurs d'animaux vivants, with Alain Manningham. From the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, we have Mr. Bonnett. Once again, welcome to our meeting.

We also have, from the Canadian Federation of Humane Societies, Toolika Rastogi, policy and research manager.

I apologize for the shortened time we have, but we'll give you your full time to present, and then we'll see. We might have a short round of questions.

We'll start with the Association québécoise des transporteurs d'animaux vivants, Mr. Manningham. Go ahead.

[Alain Manningham, President, Association québécoise des transporteurs d'animaux vivants]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Hello, everyone. Thank you for this opportunity to appear before you.

First of all, I would like to thank my MP, Jacques Gourde, for inviting me to appear before the committee today. We are very grateful for the opportunity to convey our concerns to the government about the current regime for the transportation of live animals.

We are here to talk about a real and glaring problem that is getting worse and worse. I am referring to the system of administrative monetary penalties or AMPs, specifically as regards the transportation of unfit animals.

Before delving into the issue, let there be no mistake that animal welfare is very important to our association and to our members. Moreover, we were the first to fight for compliance with the highest ethical standards relating to the transportation of animals.

Animals are our livelihood. This reality sometimes escapes the people with whom we discuss this. It is thanks to animals that we can put food on the table.

You must also understand that we have every monetary reason to protect animals. An animal who dies in transit is a straight loss for us. If too many animals die in transit, it becomes a problem for our clients.

In short, we have every reason to protect animals from ill treatment, and that is what we do. We do not need legislation to force us to protect animals. We scrupulously comply with the law .

What the current system provides, however, is something different. Allow me to read an excerpt from a unanimous Federal Court of Appeal decision from 2009, in the Doyon case:

In short, the Administrative Monetary Penalty System has imported the most punitive elements of penal law while taking care to exclude useful defences and reduce the prosecutor's burden of proof. Absolute liability, arising from an actus reus which the prosecutor does not have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, leaves the person who commits a violation very few means of exculpating him- or herself.

That is strong language. These are the most punitive elements of criminal law, without the defences, but with a reduced burden of proof. The worst part of criminal law is kept, and the burden of proof on the prosecutor, the CFIA, is reduced to almost nothing, and all the elements of defence of the alleged offender are removed. How could our MPs have passed such a law? We have to wonder.

That said, we will not be calling for a criminal procedure today or for the usual burden of proof, or talk about a 50% discount, all points that could be problematic. We are willing to deal with all the imperfections of this law since Parliament enacted it. We do, however, demand the right to a defence.

We simply want to talk about the innocent party's right to plead their innocence, a right that is the foundation of our legal system.

Subsection 18(1) of the Health of Animals Act excludes due diligence. Yet this defence is present in nearly all Canadian legislation. It means pleading that every reasonable measure was taken to avoid the violation, or that one sincerely and reasonably believed something that was proven false.

To illustrate further, even if the transport company hired a veterinarian to examine the shipment, it could still receive a notice of violation. So if an animal had a completely undetectable condition, the transporter could still be fined.

In short, innocent parties are being found guilty. We want to stress this point. If the defence of due diligence is allowed, negligent transporters will still be found guilty. The only difference between allowing and not allowing the due diligence defence is finding people guilty who have done nothing wrong. Why should innocent parties be found guilty?

Let me give you an example of something that happens on a regular basis when animals are transported. When animals are being loaded, often there is not much time to examine them. They are loaded in all kinds of conditions. In the winter, for example, it is very cold. There are some animals that should not be loaded, but that are still in the shipment, either because certain producers did not understand the regulations correctly or because they decided to hide them in the group. When we get to the plant, the people there examine the animals and find that some should not have been transported.

In many cases, we transport swine or cattle. For swine, the transportation cost is $3 per head, while the animal could be worth $150 or $200. If an animal is hidden in a group without our knowing it and we have not noticed its condition, we are fined $7,000. We transport a lot of head of cattle every year. We are considered repeat offenders if there are too many such cases. The fine imposed on repeat offenders increases each time. It can rise to $12,000 and then $20,000. I don't know if you are aware, but that is how it works.

In closing, I would like to share a few statistics.

Of 10 countries with AMPs, including England, Spain, Germany, and Portugal, Canada is the only one that does not allow this defence. This defence is not allowed in just one third of the nine AMP systems in the country.

Let me quote another statistic. In criminal law, for the same charges, fewer than half result in payment; for AMPs, the rate is over 98%. Are there more offenders in criminal law? Certainly not. These are the same offences. The difference is that, in the case of AMPs, people are not given the opportunity to defend themselves. This huge difference means that innocent parties are often found guilty.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

I will have to stop you there, Mr. Manningham. Your presentation time is up.

[Alain Manningham]

That's fine, I was finished.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Thank you.

Now, Mr. Bonnett, you have seven minutes.

[Ron Bonnett, President, Canadian Federation of Agriculture]

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to present to the committee.

Most of you know who CFA is and who we represent, so I don't think there's a lot of use in going through that explanation, but I would say that CFA represents all agricultural producers, because of the membership we have.

I'll be speaking to some high-level concerns and recommendations that Canadian producers have, and I encourage you to continue to reach out to commodity-specific organizations on how these proposed regulations would affect individual species. They are better informed to provide specific examples from within their industry and to address some of the species-specific concerns and requirements set out within the proposed regulations.

Overall, the transport of farm animals is an area in which Canadian producers have a very strong interest in maintaining high care standards. The thorough and hard work accomplished through the National Farm Animal Care Council, of which CFA is a member, continues to play a strong role in providing sound scientific guidance for the best practices of assuring animal care outcomes for producers and during transport.

The National Farm Animal Care Council brings together producers, the value chain, animal welfare scientists, and NGOs with an interest in farm animal care to collaboratively develop codes of practice for the industry to follow. These multi-stakeholder approaches provide the best process for developing the needed authoritative guidance to a continuous improvement approach to animal care.

There's no doubt that maintaining high standards of care during transportation is a matter of public trust and something that the industry has come under scrutiny for in the past. From the producer's perspective, poor animal care outcomes during transport open up the industry to increased public criticism, the likelihood of increased regulation, and also a lower price received due to shrinkage or a compromised animal. It is clearly in the best interest of industry to look to continuously improve our standards of animal care, and a component of this is the regulatory backbone to the system. We've also recognized that bringing Canadian regulation up to international standards set by OIE is an important component.

Overall, we'd like to thank the department for moving towards regulatory language that is outcome-based rather than prescriptive. This enables regulation to better keep up with rapid technological and market changes. That being said, there are a number of concerns that we'd like to raise regarding the proposed regulations.

As Canada is geographically very large, some components of agricultural production rely on shipping animals over large distances for domestic production, especially for breeding and processing. Over the past number of decades, we've seen declining numbers of processing facilities, so there's been no choice for producers but to ship animals further.

Similarly, as one of the few countries in the world that exports food, Canadian producers ship live animals to many countries, and therefore, stand to be impacted by the lowering of intervals that animals can spend in transit without access to feed, water, and rest. This is compounded by the additional requirement to attain reasonable expectations that sufficient care will be provided throughout the length of a journey, once the animal has left Canada.

While every effort is made to ensure animal care standards are achieved and exceeded once the shipment leaves Canada, this is easier with known businesses and countries than with new ones. Therefore, there is some concern that this requirement could act as a disincentive to grow new markets or expand current ones by working with new business partners in new countries. We support the requirement in principle, but would like to see clear guidance for how the industry would comply with this requirement and address potential hindrances in market development.

I'd like to encourage the committee to closely assess the potential impact of lowering the maximum intervals based upon the testimony of national commodity organizations. With immense diversity within industry from species to species, the intervals should remain at different levels based on the best science. We have therefore asked CFIA to revisit the proposed intervals and regulatory impact analysis statement to more carefully consider the impact on the full value chain for all types of farm animal transport.

Overall, we'd recommend a four-hour extension for all categories, to cover unforeseen circumstances that rarely, but inevitably, arise. This allows for those transporting animals to adequately respond in rare situations that are simply not foreseen in a contingency plan. We would also like to ensure that the requirement of a contingency plan does not require a written plan. In many cases, for experienced transporters, routes are well known and issues that could cause significant delays can be mitigated through experience.

Increased focus on offering training to those actually transporting the animals would improve outcomes as people begin to better understand the animals and the regulatory requirements.

Producers and those who transport animals all strive to reduce the potential stress and suffering for animals during transport. Differences in breeds and how animals have been raised, coupled with unobservable conditions, will mean that some animals are more used than others to transportation, confinement, and being with other animals, resulting in different stress levels depending on many factors. The regulation should be clearer to determine the extent of undue, unwarranted, disproportionate, and unjustified suffering. By doing so, the regulations would be able to support improved animal care outcomes and current legal interpretations with consistency and clarity.

Additionally, the term “visibly observable” should be included as it relates to those responsible for loading, unloading, and transport of compromised and unfit animals. There are many potential conditions that could lead to an animal being determined as compromised or unfit, but these are not always visibly observable to those who hold the responsibility for transport. No one responsible for transport wants to unknowingly transport compromised or unfit animals. Without this term, confusion around whether people would be held liable for a situation in which they did not reasonably have access to information or visible indication that an animal was compromised or unfit could cause problems.

We also recommend that CFIA pursue a flexible implementation option to allow smaller businesses the time needed to ensure that operators receive appropriate training. It is expected that with the coming into force of these regulations there would be a significant demand for training, and allowing more time to phase that in would be beneficial to both employers and employees.

The agriculture industry requires strong yet workable regulations to guide the humane transport of farm animals in order to maintain and build public trust while providing guidance to the industry. Once the regulations have been updated, we remain committed to working with the National Farm Animal Care Council to develop and continuously update codes of practice and share information across commodities.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Mr. Bonnett, I'm going to have to—

[Ron Bonnett]

Just a quick addition....

Last night, the issue was raised by people transporting fowl that the definition of transport time has been changed. The transport time from leaving the farm to getting to the processing facility is now extended to include the time off feed and water. It was explained that in a chicken barn, for instance, it may take four hours to load the truck, so all of a sudden you've lowered the time. I think you have to consult with some of the sector-specific—

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Maybe some of the questions will deal with that, Mr. Bonnett. Thank you so much.

Ms. Rastogi, go ahead for seven minutes, please.

[Toolika Rastogi, Policy and Research Manager, Canadian Federation of Humane Societies]

Thank you very much for the opportunity to present to the committee.

In my oral statement today I'm going to address three different areas. First, I'll let you know a little about the sector we represent. Secondly, I'll speak to proposed amendments to the health of animals regulations, and thirdly, the importance of animal welfare in public trust.

The Canadian Federation of Humane Societies, or CFHS, is the only national organization representing humane societies and SPCAs in Canada. We drive positive, progressive change nationally to end animal cruelty, improve animal protection, and promote the humane treatment of all animals through the enactment of effective legislation, among other means.

CFHS was formed in 1957 out of concern for the welfare of farm animals and was influential in the introduction of the federal Humane Slaughter of Food Animals Act in 1959. As a founding member of the National Farm Animal Care Council, CFHS advocates for continual improvement to the standards of farm animal care in Canada's agriculture industry codes of practice.

Humane societies and SPCAs, or what we refer to as the humane sector, make up one of the oldest social movements in Canada. Canada's first animal cruelty law was established in 1857, and Canada's first SPCA was established in 1869.

The humane sector is a key contribution to Canada's community social safety net. The sector is made up of 115 humane societies and SPCAs located in every province and territory, in urban and rural communities, and acting at local and provincial levels. Forty per cent of humane societies and SPCAs have enforcement authorities for provincial and federal legislation pertaining to animal cruelty and abuse. The sector employs almost 2,000 full-time employees.

I would now like to turn to the proposed amendments to the health of animals regulations.

More than 700 million farm animals are raised in Canada each year and the majority of them are transported for slaughter. Transportation creates a high risk of both animal suffering and disease. Overall, we feel that raising and slaughtering animals in close proximity better meets sustainable development objectives of reducing environmental impact, improving health outcomes and social conditions, more efficient and equitable economic conditions, and improved animal welfare than a system of agriculture that relies upon long-distance transportation.

As proposed, the revised transportation regulations would compromise animal welfare in at least four areas.

Firstly, the length of time that animals are allowed to be transported and must go without food, water, and rest is still far too long in the proposed regulations. The longer animals travel, the more likely it is that there will be negative animal welfare outcomes, and there are scientific studies to that effect. For example, Gonzalez and colleagues published on the transport conditions for cattle.

Overall journey lengths from initial preparation to final destination, in total, the whole process, must be shortened. For example, rather than the proposed 36 hours for cattle and 28 hours for horses and pigs, we would recommend eight hours as per the European Food Safety Authority's independent scientific panel on animal health and welfare.

Secondly, transportation presents significant animal welfare challenges for healthy animals. However, the proposed regulations allow many so-called “compromised” animals that are already suffering from poor animal welfare due to other injuries and conditions to be transported for significant durations, and this is not acceptable. These animals should actually be listed in the regulations as unfit for transport.

Thirdly, the draft regulations do not provide sufficient safeguards to ensure that animals are not subjected to extreme environmental conditions while in transport. These conditions further challenge their physiology on top of the stress they're experiencing due to transport itself. Transportation should not be permitted in extreme environmental conditions. Vehicles should be designed with equipment to provide insulation and appropriate bedding; and ventilation systems and monitoring of conveyance conditions should be made mandatory to prevent overheating and frostbite. Since 2009, the European regulations have required that all road vehicles used for long-distance journeys be fitted with such systems.

The fourth area is loading densities. Loading density itself is an essential variable that must be controlled during transportation. Therefore, clear rules, including maximum loading densities, must be provided in the regulations and checked during inspections. We recommend space allowances as laid out by the European Food Safety Authority's independent scientific panel.

These are four key areas I wanted to raise to let you know of our concerns regarding the current proposed regulations. For the final minute or two, I'd like to touch on the importance of animal welfare in rebuilding public trust.

Public trust in the agriculture sector is vital to its success and to the livelihoods of many producers and communities. In 2016, Canada's federal, provincial, and territorial ministers of agriculture issued the Calgary Statement, their consensus view on the priorities to develop for the next ag policy framework. One of the six priority areas they identified was public trust. In this context, ministers specifically acknowledged changing consumer preferences in food and that consumers expect transparency from industry and assurance that food is produced in safe, sustainable, and responsible ways. Given the link between animal welfare and food safety, responsible, sustainable, and safe production must include humane production.

Another point they made that is particularly relevant to today's session is that ministers reaffirmed their support for continued review and modernization of science-based regulations for food safety, animal health and welfare, and plant health. This commitment surely includes the adoption of revisions to the long-outdated regulations for transport to bring them in line with the current science and other international jurisdictions.

Public confidence relies on strong, effective regulations and their enforcement. Given how long the amended regulations may be in force before being updated in the future—and it's worth noting that the current regulations have been in place for over 40 years—the most current animal welfare knowledge must be considered and the most progressive provisions included to ensure that the regulations remain relevant for years to come.

Animal welfare concerns among the public are at an all-time high and are evolving rapidly. Therefore, it is essential that governments support producers in transitioning to systems that—

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

I'll ask you to conclude, if you can.

[Toolika Rastogi]

Okay.

They must be supported to be able to provide for this demand for humane products.

Canadians expect to make decisions on food choices based on their own household budgets but assume that all the products on their grocery shelves have been produced humanely and that the government is overseeing that, so we would—

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Thank you, Ms. Rastogi.

[Toolika Rastogi]

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

We have time for short questions from each side.

Mr. Gourde, you have six minutes.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to thank the witnesses for being here today.

My question is for Mr. Manningham.

When an animal leaves the farm and is loaded onto one of your trucks, does it become entirely your responsibility?

[Alain Manningham]

The animals are entirely our responsibility. We are willing to assume that.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

When you get to the slaughterhouse and start unloading the animals, if there is a problem with an animal, are you fined by the CFIA that same day or reasonably soon thereafter, or is it not until weeks or months later?

[Alain Manningham]

We typically receive a letter saying that a file has been opened for that animal and describing what happened. It is then transferred to the CFIA.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

How long after the events do you receive the letter?