Agriculture Committee on April 4th, 2017

[Krista Hiddema]

We know that B.C. has very few hog farms. They raise mostly cattle and birds. Certainly, as it relates specifically to British Columbia, we believe that the proposed changes we have provided would have an excellent impact on increasing opportunities for more slaughterhouses, more jobs in British Columbia, improved welfare, and greater advantages for animals and for workers.

[Joe Peschisolido, Liberal, Steveston—Richmond East, BC]

You spoke earlier about the length of travel. These animals are travelling 2,000 to 3,000 miles, and you talked about the economic benefits of perhaps changing the system. Can you elaborate on that?

[Krista Hiddema]

We've all talked about the percentages, but at the end of the day, we're still talking about 10 million animals that are not becoming part of our food supply chain, coast to coast, not just in British Columbia. I think it's important for the industry to focus on spending money to improve welfare instead of spending money to have 10 million animals not even become part of our food supply.

I don't think any reasonable Canadian thinks it would be okay that 10 million animals are transported and slaughtered without becoming part of the food supply.

[Joe Peschisolido, Liberal, Steveston—Richmond East, BC]

Thank you.

Ms. Pippus, you mentioned the importance of the law and the evolutionary nature of law and how regulation plays into it. I've always been struck by the word “livestock”. They're alive, but they're stock. In Quebec, they talk about animals being sentient. But under law, they're also property.

Can you elaborate a little bit on that? There's also an intriguing case going on, I think in Toronto, about someone who was giving water to pigs. How does that impact on things?

[Anna Pippus]

Animals under the law are property, but they are a special kind of property. The law doesn't really explicitly recognize that, but it does implicitly recognize that. Quebec's move to classify animals as sentient beings was an explicit move toward that.

For example, it's a criminal offence to abuse an animal. It's not a criminal offence to abuse a table. That's because we implicitly understand in the law that animals are sentient individuals. When it comes to their ability to suffer, animals are no different from us humans, and in fact, we sometimes forget that humans are also animals.

Generally, the world over, there is a trend toward recognizing that animals are a special type of property, that we use them as property, but that we're also increasingly in science recognizing that they are sentient. Also as a society we're becoming much more empathetic and compassionate toward animals as vulnerable individuals in our society.

I think that global trend paints the background a little bit for why it is so important to move these regulations. There is discussion of the difficulties, and there are discussions of whether this is really going to change things, but of course, that's what we're here for. We have to believe that regulating works and is essential to a functioning democracy.

As to the case in which Anita Krajnc has been charged with criminal mischief in Toronto for giving pigs water, I think that case really illuminates the problem with pigs in particular aboard these hot, metal trucks that are not climate controlled. In the winter they can become very cold, frozen even. Ms. Krajnc has documented pigs with frostbitten ears. Conversely, in the summer they can arrive panting, which the code of practice for transportation of animals says is a sign of heat distress in animals and needs to be addressed immediately or the animals risk dying.

We didn't get into too much detail, but in New Zealand, for example, pigs and other monogastrics can't go without water for more than six hours, so they parse out water and food in a species-specific way to recognize that pigs don't have sweat glands, and on board metal trucks they are dropping dead. About 15,000 animals a year are dying in transport.

[Joe Peschisolido, Liberal, Steveston—Richmond East, BC]

It's interesting that you talked about the nature of regulations, that you give incentives and disincentives, so basically you're trying to modify behaviour.

A previous witness—and I thoroughly enjoyed his presentation, Mr. Metzger—discussed that if your presentation or amendments are put forth, it would significantly disrupt the industry. What are your thoughts on that?

[Anna Pippus]

We haven't updated our regulations in 40 years, since 1977. In that time, we've had slaughterhouses consolidating, farms consolidating. The landscape has been changing, but that doesn't change the fundamental reality that [Technical difficulty—Editor].

Again, the regulatory needs to answer to the public. We have all kinds of indicators—a study referred to earlier, general trends changing, lots of polling—showing that the public wants animals to be protected in transport, and there's not—

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Thank you, Ms. Pippus.

I'm going to allow a short question from Mr. Nater just to finish the day, if you want.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm proud to be the son of pig farmers and the son-in-law of dairy farmers, and I simply cannot let the statement stand that there's some kind of systemic abuse of animals on Canadian farms. That's simply not the case.

I'm very proud of the 5,600 farmers in my riding. We have more than half a million pigs, more than 50,000 cattle. They are not being abused. They are not subject to undue abuse by farmers. I'm proud of our Canadian farm families. I'm proud of the work they do. I think it's a slap in the face to the hard-working farm families to imply, even make an implicit statement, that there's abuse going on in these farms and in the standards. It's simply not happening. I think that's a slap in the face of so many farm families.

My question is to Dr. Cockram. In your comments you mentioned that loading and unloading increases the stress and the opportunity for harm and pain to animals, yet you're at the same time advocating a decrease in the amount of time that an animal can be on this truck, thereby increasing the number of times that an animal is going to be unloaded and reloaded.

How do you justify that statement, where on the one hand you're saying it increases the risk, and on the other hand you're saying we should have more loading and unloading?

[Dr. Michael Cockram]

Yes, transportation is a complicated issue, and you have to look to see where the largest risks are.

The solution to journey times is to improve or optimize the quality of the journey and the management of the animals before and after the journey, so there's less need to put the emphasis on the journey times.

As we mentioned, in Europe, the way they manage these long-distance transport and feed and water intervals is through the legal requirement to have specialized vehicles that enable the animals to be fed, watered, and rested on the vehicle.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Thank you, and thank you, Mr. Nater.

That will wrap up our session today. I want to thank the panel for coming, and Ms. Pippus for appearing by video conference. Again, thank you for contributing to our report.

The meeting is adjourned.