Agriculture Committee on April 4th, 2017

[Alaina Lockhart, Liberal, Fundy Royal, NB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to all of you for your testimony today.

Being from Atlantic Canada, I'm going to ask a few questions about the impact to industries in Atlantic Canada. In our last meeting with CFIA, I brought to the table the fact that we have seen a significant decrease in the number of slaughter facilities in Atlantic Canada, meaning that there needs to be more transportation.

Dr. Metzger, you mentioned the flow from Nova Scotia and that it would need to be stopped, or you felt it would need to be stopped. Could you speak to that?

Then perhaps I'll speak to the industries, if I have a chance.

[Dr. Kenneth Metzger]

It's for exactly the reasons that have been mentioned. There's a lack of slaughtering facilities there. In the case of the early-wean pigs that come here, Ontario is one of the only potential outlets for them from those particular farms. People often ask why they wouldn't go to Quebec. There may be possibilities there, but the industry in Quebec is so integrated that introducing a new line of pigs with a different health status probably is not feasible.

That's why I made the comment that in the case of the farms that Ontario transporters haul pigs out of, we believe that most of them would have to go out of business. They simply wouldn't have an outlet for their pigs.

[Alaina Lockhart, Liberal, Fundy Royal, NB]

I think it's important to note that as we're trying to move closer to an international standard, we do need some recognition of the geography of Canada and some of these challenges.

To the pork producers, could you give me your insight?

[Gary Stordy]

Certainly, coming from the east coast, producers are innovative. They've been well in advance of some of the trends within the industry in the past 15 years that I've been with the pork industry, and they continue to be. These regulations would make it difficult to be innovative. It's partially just because, as Mr. Metzger mentioned, there are producers who are involved in the weanling industry who do transport long distances, and they transport well. They would use a number of examples to show that when the weanlings arrive, they arrive in good condition, ready to take a foothold within their new environment.

That's one of the reasons why across Canada our industry excels at raising essentially these baby pigs for the export market, or raising them in another barn. For the east coast and some of the innovative producers who are trying to break into niche markets, this would add another layer of complexity to what they're already doing. Whether they want to ship into processing plants in Quebec or further, unfortunately they would have to take that into consideration and may decide to do other things.

[Alaina Lockhart, Liberal, Fundy Royal, NB]

Okay.

To the cattlemen, I know that Atlantic Canada has some growth potential there too. How would this impact that?

[Matt Bowman]

There's one major processor on the island who's starting to make some inroads into filling that market, but still the vast majority of cattle from the Maritimes have to come to Ontario for processing. There is no other spot. All those cattle are going to have get on a truck and make that trip to Toronto or to Ontario. It'll be a significant challenge if these regulations get changed.

[Alaina Lockhart, Liberal, Fundy Royal, NB]

Do you know the timing now? How long is that trip?

[Matt Bowman]

How long a drive is it from Halifax to Toronto?

[Alaina Lockhart, Liberal, Fundy Royal, NB]

Right, so it's a non-stop trip right now.

[Matt Bowman]

Yes. They can make it in a non-stop trip. If the regulations come through and they have to make a stop, then it will add significant cost and time to that transport.

[Alaina Lockhart, Liberal, Fundy Royal, NB]

Right.

For chicken...?

[Mike Dungate]

I think we're better off now because there's been a new plant built in Clair, New Brunswick. There's also a new one in the Annapolis Valley in Nova Scotia. There had been some longer transport times. Probably those on Prince Edward Island, where there isn't a processing plant, had the longest. They can work within the regulations that are now....

As I said, it comes down to species-specific. We can deal with 28 hours as long as we're not adding on feed withdrawal and other times and changing the definition of what is actually transport.

[Alaina Lockhart, Liberal, Fundy Royal, NB]

I think that's important to point out too. We heard your testimony today, and we heard from CFIA that they believe that 98% of the transportation of animals from Atlantic Canada would be compliant with the new regulations that were proposed. But perhaps further investigation into some of the other regulations might complicate that.

[Mike Dungate]

I think the other challenge right now is that, for instance, would you expect be getting 50 centimetres of snow in Newfoundland? We make decisions, with a decision tree, about whether to load or not load based on weather. To give you an example, if there's extreme heat in the summer, we'll catch birds earlier so that they're not transported in the middle of the day. They'll go into a large climate-controlled facility at a processing plant. Yes, they'll be on the truck for longer, but they'll be in better conditions than otherwise.

That's where the new regulations will compromise the ability to take different statements.... As you already heard about giving the four-hour flexibility time and that decision. We'll make the best decisions we can, but we need the flexibility at times, even though we're trying to reduce times as much as possible.

[Alaina Lockhart, Liberal, Fundy Royal, NB]

Thank you very much.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

I think that will do it for our first hour of testimony. I want to thank the panel for coming here today and all that really great information.

We'll break at this time and I think lunch is provided in the back for the members and we'll be back with the next panel.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

For this second hour, the technical problem has been fixed. Everything is good.

For the second hour, we have with us, from Mercy for Animals, Ms. Krista Hiddema. We also have Lauri Torgerson-White, an animal welfare specialist.

From Animal Justice, we have Ms. Anna Pippus. She is on video conference from Vancouver, B.C. She is the director of farmed animal advocacy. Also, with the Canadian Veterinary Medical Association, we have Michael Cockram, member of the animal welfare committee.

Welcome.

You have seven minutes each, and we can start with Ms. Hiddema.

[Krista Hiddema, Vice-President, Canada, Mercy for Animals]

Members of the committee, it is our honour to have been asked to present to you today. My name is Krista Hiddema, and I'm the vice-president of Mercy for Animals in Canada. I am here with my colleague Lauri Torgerson-White, our animal welfare scientist.

On March 22, in his post-budget interview on Power & Politics, Minister Morneau stated that the government is committed to “beat the world” in agriculture. Since Canadian laws governing animal transportation are arguably the worst in the western world, sweeping changes are needed to realize his goal. These changes must ensure that Canada is competitive on a global basis, not just on par with the also-outdated standards of the United States.

Every year, approximately 700 million animals are transported and slaughtered for food in Canada. The government has an obligation to ensure that these animals are not abused. A survey of Canadians regarding farmed-animal transportation revealed that the overwhelming majority believe that animals raised for food must be treated humanely. The reality is that they are not. The CFIA admitted that 14 million animals per year may be suffering during transport, with 1.6 million animals arriving at slaughterhouses dead. One particularly noteworthy finding in our survey was that 95% of Canadians from coast to coast, representing both rural and urban regions, agreed that they would pay more for food that came from animals that were treated humanely.

I will now comment on each of the nine main issues that our evidence-based research has determined to be the most critical factors in assuring the humane transportation of animals.

The first is that the absolute maximum amount of time that an animal should be transported without food, water, and rest is eight hours. This is the practice in many of the major livestock-producing countries, including Italy, France, and Germany, and it is supported by the most current animal welfare science. Not only does increasing journey lengths negatively impact welfare, but it makes us less competitive on the global stage, and it also impacts meat quality.

The second fundamental component is that animals must be protected from weather and have appropriate ventilation. To allow animals to maintain appropriate body temperature, the environment inside the transport trucks must be kept between five degrees Celsius and 30 degrees Celsius, and animals must be protected from rain, snow, and sun. Trucks must be fitted with temperature sensors, a warning system must alert the driver when temperature goes above or below the acceptable limits, and immediate action must be taken when it does.

The third factor is that animals must be provided with enough room so they can assume natural postures and movement. The regulations must include stocking density limits that are species-specific and based on scientific equations that account for the variations in animal weight.

The fourth factor is that only healthy animals should be transported. Transportation is one of the most stressful times in the life of an animal, and under no circumstances should an animal that is already ill or injured be transported. To do so would cause extreme suffering. The determination of the fitness of an animal for transport must be made by properly trained individuals, and where necessary, a veterinarian.

The fifth factor is that there should be a zero-tolerance policy for any form of rough handling of an animal. This means that there must be a complete prohibition on beating, dragging, kicking, and the use of electric prods. Video cameras that are live-streamed to the Internet must be installed in loading and unloading areas.

Sixth, certain animals must be transported separately. The most critical animals this applies to are boars. Boars are often detusked with no painkillers by using bolt cutters below the gum line. This practice is done to allow more boars on a truck, and as you can imagine, it is excruciatingly painful. The practice of detusking boars must be banned, and boars must be transported in separate pens within the trucks.

Seventh, drivers must be required to undergo annual species-specific certification training, which includes animal physiology, drinking and feeding needs, animal behaviour and stress, emergency care, and contingency planning.

Eighth, detailed records of all aspects of animal transportation must be kept and made available to the public.

Last, the government must ensure regular oversight, together with dissuasive fines and penalties for non-compliance. The government has the obligation to treat animals humanely to meet the expectations of its citizens. As Minister Morneau indicated, the government also has the obligation to remain competitive on the global stage regarding animal agriculture.

Budget 2017 provides the Treasury Board Secretariat with $6 million over three years to continue its efforts in supporting business growth by promoting regulatory alignment with Canada's trading partners, and agriculture is a key element of this. Given that these regulations were last updated four decades ago, fundamental and substantial changes are critical now, and must be based on new science, not decades-old science.

Thank you for your time. We now look forward to answering your questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Thank you very much, Ms. Hiddema.

Ms. Pippus, we'll give you seven minutes. Go ahead.

[Anna Pippus, Director, Farmed Animal Advocacy, Animal Justice]

Thank you very much for the opportunity to be here today to speak on behalf of animals.

Because my special expertise is in law, I'd like to open with some comments about the role of regulation in a democracy. Regulators exist to protect the public interest, not to protect the industries they regulate. I urge vigilance against the common but democratically inappropriate tendency for regulatory schemes to devolve into regulatory capture because of undue industry influence on the substance of regulations.

Justice Wright of the appellate court in D.C. once wisely observed that a recurring question has plagued public regulation of industry, and that is whether the regulatory agency is unduly oriented towards the interests of the industry it is designed to regulate rather than towards the public interest it is designed to protect. The role of the regulator is to establish science-based standards that reflect societal values, in this case the value that animals should not suffer in involuntary service to us. The role of industry is to adhere to those standards in carrying out its economic activities.

Industries the world over resist regulation. This is not due to any particular ill intent but occurs because regulation inherently adds burden and expense. Yet a civilized democracy needs regulation. Vulnerable groups need rules to protect them, and animals are the largest and least politically powerful class of individuals in our society.

The public needs rules in place to ensure that industries don't compromise our cultural values in the pursuit of their own bottom lines, and the public cares deeply about animals and wants them to be free from harm. In a democracy, regulators answer to the electorate, not to the industries they regulate.

In its cabinet directive on regulatory management, the Government of Canada made a commitment to Canadians to protect and advance the public interest to ensure that its regulatory activities result in the greatest overall benefit to current and future generations of Canadians. In addition, the government has promised to make decisions based on the best available knowledge and science, and to encourage entrepreneurship and innovation in the economy.

Many members of the public would be shocked and appalled to learn that according to government figures, 1.59 million farmed animals arrive dead at slaughterhouses each year. This is a crisis. These are animals who suffered to death at human hands. They may have been crowded aboard jostling, jerky vehicles; suffocated and injured; exposed to extreme weather or a lack of air circulation and frozen or overheated to death; collapsed from dehydration, starvation, or fatigue; or all of the above. Many more animals also suffered in these same conditions but managed to hang on to life long enough to avoid becoming a DOA statistic.

This brutal reality doesn't reflect Canadian values or desires.

Canada also has world-class animal agriculture research facilities, including those at the University of Guelph and the University of British Columbia. We should be heeding the fruits of their cutting-edge science. Instead, we're largely ignoring them.

It is said that necessity is the mother of invention. If the regulator only regulates in ways that industries find convenient, what incentive is there for innovation and entrepreneurship to solve the urgent issue of millions of animals suffering and dying? Without meaningful regulation, animal welfare is the inevitable casualty of the consequent race to the bottom.

I'll now say a few words about comparing Canada with other jurisdictions. It is complex to adapt laws from one jurisdiction to another jurisdiction. In fact, there's an entire field of study devoted to the intricacies of comparative law. Situations vary based on culture, economics, demographics, geography, existing political structures, and so forth, yet we can learn valuable lessons by looking to comparable jurisdictions.

One thing is clear. Other jurisdictions are doing a superior job of hearing the public's concerns for animal welfare and of pushing regulated industries to innovate rather than stagnate.

Moreover, the goal should be to be a world leader, not to require only the bare minimum of industry. Canada is a world-class country, and we should be forging new boundaries in the frontiers of compassion and justice for the vulnerable, of respect for science, and of innovation and entrepreneurship, just as the Government of Canada has promised Canadians it would do.

We are particularly concerned with the use of solely outcome-based measures in the weather exposure and loading density provisions. Outcome-based measures rather than prescriptive measures define an outcome but leave it to regulated parties to determine how to achieve the outcome.

In other words, the regulation expresses a vague goal instead of establishing quantitative numbers-based standards. There is a role for outcome-based measures as a regulatory tool, but they must be used appropriately. It is a basic tenet of the rule of law that laws have flexibility as needed, but are as predictable and foreseeable as possible. Specific numbers—quantitative regulations—aid predictability and foreseeability. Vague outcomes do not.

We know from the existing health of animals regulations that outcome-based measures for weather exposure and loading densities do not work, yet these provisions remain essentially unchanged in the proposed regulations. Jurisprudence in the United States has found that outcome-based measures in the context of animal welfare do not work to establish enforceable, minimum animal-welfare standards.

We need prescriptive measures in the areas of weather exposure and loading densities to promote consistency between producers; to avoid a race to the bottom at the expense of animal welfare; to ensure that laws are justly, foreseeably, uniformly, and regularly enforced; and to maintain public trust. Outcome-based measures ought to be used to augment evidence- and numbers-based rules.

Please refer to our brief for more specific detail and for further concerns. I also rely on and endorse the proposals of my colleagues from other animal protection organizations.

Thank you again for hearing my concerns today on behalf of animals, the public, and democracy.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Thank you, Ms. Pippus.

Now, from the Canadian Veterinary Medical Association, we have Michael Cockram.

[Dr. Michael Cockram, Member, Animal Welfare Committee, Canadian Veterinary Medical Association]

Mr. Chairman and committee members, thank you for the opportunity to appear before your committee.

The Canadian Veterinary Medical Association, CVMA, provides a national and international forum for over 5,500 veterinarians working across Canada. Veterinarians promote animal health and welfare, strive to relieve animal suffering, and protect public health. Veterinarians provide unique expertise on the health and welfare of all types of animals and have a professional obligation to ensure the welfare of animals. Animal welfare advocacy is a strategic priority for the CVMA.

I am a member of the CVMA animal welfare committee and a professor at the Atlantic Veterinary College, University of Prince Edward Island, where I hold a chair in animal welfare. My main area of research is the transportation of animals.

The importance of animal welfare to society and our understanding of how animals respond to management practices such as transportation have increased considerably since the existing health of animals regulations were written. They are in urgent need of revision. As you already would have heard in the evidence presented, both transportation and animal welfare are complex issues. Different stakeholders adopt different positions on the regulatory amendments.

Scientific research on animal welfare has clearly demonstrated that mammals and birds have the capacity to suffer and that aspects of transportation can place animals at risk of suffering. The good news is that if care is taken over the fitness of animals, the quality of the journey, and the associated handling and management of the animals, many if not most animals can be transported without experiencing severe welfare issues. However, situations are rarely ideal and different types of animals are more susceptible to aspects of transportation than others. Unfortunately, some animals experience suffering and others die as a result of transportation.

There are patho-physiological and emotional aspects to suffering associated with transportation. Handling, loading and unloading, vehicle movement, and interactions with other animals can cause injury, pain, and discomfort. Restriction of feed and water during long journeys can result in hunger, weakness, exhaustion of body energy reserves, thirst, and dehydration. Exposure to thermal extremes due to an inability of the transport arrangements to protect the animals from harsh external conditions, both hot and cold, and from the buildup of heat and moisture within the vehicle, can cause thermal distress and death. Animals can experience fear and distress by exposure to novel factors and can develop fatigue during long journeys.

Animals that are weak or suffering from disease or injury are most likely experiencing welfare issues such as pain and sickness before they are transported. They're likely to experience increased suffering because transportation will exaggerate any pre-transport issues. They're less able to cope with challenges such as getting on and off the vehicle, maintaining stability, avoiding fatigue, and coping with feed and water restriction and extreme thermal environments. They're likely to deteriorate during long journeys and more likely to die, become non-ambulatory, or have to be euthanized on arrival than those that are healthy.

The regulations need to address these issues by defining how the management of the animals during transport can reduce the risk of suffering. Unfortunately, the proposed amendments to the health of animals regulations do not fully reflect international standards, scientific research, and veterinary understanding of the implications of transporting animals.

Our main comments on the proposed regulatory amendments can be summarized as follows.

First, on fitness of animals for transportation, the CVMA believes that the proposed conditions listed in the compromised animal category should be reconsidered and that many of these conditions should be placed in the unfit for transport category. It is the CVMA's opinion that proposals that would permit the transport of animals for up to 12 hours with the types of conditions listed under the “compromised animals” category would result in considerable suffering.

The second point is about the intervals that animals may be transported without feed, water, and rest. The CVMA strongly supports the reduction in the time intervals that animals may be transported without feed, water, and rest. However, it is the CVMA's opinion that the proposed maximum intervals for animals are still longer than they should be to reduce the risk of suffering. In some situations, scientific research can provide evidence that indicates deterioration in animal welfare after a specific journey length. However, in most situations, the responses are linear and do not indicate a clear cut-off point. Research on this and associated topics is under review by the NFACC transportation code scientific committee.

Our third point relates to the suffering of animals during transportation. The CVMA believes that multiple approaches are required in the regulations to ensure that even though an animal arrives at its destination alive, suffering has not occurred along the way. In addition to the proposed outcome-based measurements, the CVMA believes that weight must also be given to the research evidence, professional advice, and opinion of veterinarians with respect to the assessment of suffering and the enforcement of regulations.

The CVMA strongly supports the removal of the term “undue suffering” from the current regulations and endorses its replacement with the word “suffering”. In addition, we made a number of detailed suggestions to various sections of the proposed regulations.

The CVMA encourages the federal government to dedicate the necessary resources for enforcement, training, and research in order to implement and sustain the new regulations so as to achieve the desired animal welfare outcomes.

The CVMA wishes to express its support for the general direction being taken by the proposed regulations. However, the CVMA is strongly of the opinion that modifications are necessary to ensure that the new regulations are effective and meaningful in strengthening the humane treatment of animals during transport. We look forward to working with the various stakeholders to develop solutions to the challenges of transporting animals, bringing to the table our knowledge, skills, and experience as veterinarians.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Thank you, Mr. Cockram.

Now we will start with our question round.

Mr. Gourde, you have six minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I thank the witnesses for being here with us.

Mr. Cockram, you are here on behalf of the Canadian Veterinary Medical Association, which represents 5,500 veterinarians. I would like to know how many of them specialize in large animals such as cattle, hogs and horses.

[Dr. Michael Cockram]

There is a range of expertise within the CVMA. We have a large number of practitioners with experience of cattle, equines, and other livestock.