Agriculture Committee on April 6th, 2017

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Welcome, everyone, to our Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food.

We have a new member on the opposition side, Mr. Phil McColeman.

Welcome to our meeting.

The last meeting we had was regarding the study on amendments to the health of animals regulations. We have Ms. Debbie Barr, who is gracious enough to join us again today to conclude on behalf of the CFIA. We had a vote happening that day, so we invited her back to finish our question list.

We will start. You have already been introduced and have made your statements, so we will continue the list of our members questioning the witnesses. We're ready to go.

Mr. Anderson, you can start. You have six minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank CFIA for returning to the table. I think the interruption has been good, because we've had a chance to hear from some other witnesses. We may therefore have different questions today from those we had the other day.

We've heard a couple of things from other witnesses, people who are working directly with animals. I think Dr. Metzger was probably most closely involved with the day-to-day issues around transportation. There's been considerable indication given that the health of animals is put at risk by loading and unloading, and these changes to the regulations will require in a number of places and conditions the unloading or reloading animals.

We've heard that more than 99% of animals other than chickens are being transported safely. Why are we putting animals at risk? I think we've heard that we are putting animals at risk by requiring their loading and unloading at particular points.

[Debbie Barr, Director, Animal Health, Welfare and Biosecurity Division, Canadian Food Inspection Agency]

Thank you. You've raised a number of different aspects there that we may need to address.

The purpose of these amendments is to look at the overall risk of transporting animals. Loading and unloading is one aspect of that risk. Prolonged transport times is another aspect of it. As with everything else in these regulations, we try to strike a balance between comparative risks, for want of a better way to put it, to balance all the various risks to come up with the outcome that we feel, at the end of the day, provides the best complete transport outcome for those animals.

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

An interesting factor arose the other day, I think as a result of Ms. Lockhart, who had a series of questions. We basically heard that one of the risks of this is that industry will have to shut down in particular areas of this country. That was specific to the hog industry, involving cases in which, if the animals have to be loaded and unloaded, you're just not going to be able to participate in the industry; ranchers who are providing the weanlings will just have to go out of business in areas of this country, and it will be more consolidated. You're going to see more, I would suggest, industrial-strength farms.

Do you have any comment on that? Does CFIA have any interest in that kind of economic impact and risk that our producers face?

[Debbie Barr]

Certainly part of the whole regulatory process is an economic analysis.

I want to go over a little bit of the process that was used throughout this regulation, because I'm not sure the extensiveness and the depth of the research and the analysis on this is clear.

Starting from the beginning, you will notice in the RIAS probably about 30 references to scientific journals, articles, or other opinion pieces on animal welfare. That's only a small fraction of what the group that put this regulatory amendment forward looked at. They looked at more than 300 different articles and 300 different references to how animals could be transported safely.

They also talked extensively to different parts of the industry and to various transport companies, even, to get feedback from them. How does this work? How would these changes impact you? Part of the regulatory impact analysis process is to look at the economic effect on industries.

The questionnaire that goes out as part of that regulatory process asks them to specify what the impact would be. The responses we got back didn't indicate that magnitude of impact; I can certainly say that.

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

I only have a short period of time here, but one of our concerns is that this questionnaire went out almost four years ago. When we've talked to the industry, they've basically said, “We really haven't had any consultation since then.” This has been a surprise, because when there is a period of two or three years when nothing moves on an issue, we assume it's not going to change, and then all of a sudden this is dumped on us.

We've had to drag out basically vegan rights organizations to find support for what you're doing. I'm wondering what it would take for CFIA to press the pause button on this and to go back, saying that we need to restart this process, that we need to go to industry and actually consult with them, discuss whether EU standards are appropriate for Canada or not, discuss the disease issues on some of these species that are going to create problems rather than solve them.

What would it take for you folks to just back off and say we're going to stop this? We've had, from our perspective on this side, too many initiatives coming through Ag Canada, CFIA, and PMRA that appear to be politically motivated far more than scientifically directed. For the industry's sake, what would it take for you folks just to stop and say we're going to take another look at this and start over?

[Debbie Barr]

We've worked with the industry throughout that. The last consultation, the validation of the economic questionnaire, was in 2015. In that time period, I personally made numerous presentations to industry associations and to other farmed animal health and welfare sectors. There was communication in that time period.

However, that said, the publication in the Canada Gazette, part I, is the process wherein everybody, including the industry associations, has a chance to put their comments forward. It's now our responsibility to analyze those comments, review them, determine if any changes need to be made as we go forward into Canada Gazette, part II. That's part of the regulatory process. We do need to look at all the comments received, analyze them carefully and in-depth, and then make decisions on where we go from there.

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

I'm sure you're hearing what we've heard here as well.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Thank you, Mr. Anderson.

Thank you, Ms. Barr.

Mr. Gourde, you have six minutes.

Oh, sorry. Mr. Peschisolido, you're next.

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

I would like to follow up on Mr. Anderson's line of questioning. Has CFIA done a scientific assessment of the risk of contamination for the unloading and loading of animals?

[Debbie Barr]

CFIA looks at those factors on a number of fronts. Certainly, in establishing the time frames, one of the things that were taken into account was known traffic patterns. The number of times animals might need to be loaded or unloaded did factor into some of those time frames that were put forward.

At the same time, on another initiative, CFIA is working collaboratively with the transport industry in the development of voluntary national biosecurity standards that all transporters would use to help minimize any risks of disease transmission through the transport continuum. That process is going on in parallel.

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

We've had at committees a line of questioning on the enforcement side, which you do. What's the feasibility of having a streaming video system so that not only you are looking at this, because I know you want more folks to help out on this and other things, but the whole world would be looking? Is that feasible?

[Debbie Barr]

I'm not sure we've looked into that aspect of it. I will take note of that and we can put some thought into it.

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

All right. I have another question. On your enforcement regime, we've had witnesses come forward who talked about, on the legal side, the definition of animals. Are they property? Are they alive—live stock? Are they sentient creatures or just a chair? Does that have an impact on how you deal with the regulations on the enforcement side, or would it, if there were a change?

[Debbie Barr]

One of the premises of putting this regulation in is that animals are living things. At a minimum, they are living things; they are live. I don't think there's any question that they're alive when they're transported. That implies a duty of care and responsibility to a living thing that is being transported. Preventing animal suffering is part of what this regulation is all about. That can be addressed through good planning ahead of time, through making sure that the animals are comfortable while they're travelling, that they have access to rest periods, and feed and water when needed; and that they're safely loaded, unloaded, and handled with care by trained operators.

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

One other issue seems to be slaughterhouses. We don't have enough of them. They're closing down, and we should build more. I have a couple of questions on that.

Out in B.C., in my neck of the woods, there aren't any federally regulated slaughterhouses. We're trying to get them. It seems that B.C. and Atlantic Canada have their own regional aspects, but also we're tied into the overall system. When was the last time you consulted on this process in B.C. and in Atlantic Canada? For Atlantic Canada, since that consultation, have slaughterhouses closed down?

[Debbie Barr]

There have been changes in the industry; there's no question about that. Some of that is part of the analysis going forward. We'll also be looking at compliance data and a lot of other things in terms of, as you mentioned, enforcement activities, to see if patterns or trends are changing at all on that basis.

There is definitely consolidation in some parts of the industry. There aren't just federal slaughterhouses; there are also provincial slaughterhouses. They can equally be used for the slaughter of animals. It is a decision on the part of the person selling the animals and the person buying the animals as to where they source those animals from.

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

One thing that struck me when I was preparing for you and others in this process was the number of animals that arrive dead and the number that arrive injured: 1.2 to 1.3 million arrive dead, and I think 12 million or 13 million arrive injured and suffering a great deal. Are those high numbers? Can you talk a little about that?

[Debbie Barr]

It certainly is—14 million is 14 million. It's a big number.

It is different. It does vary from species to species, and it certainly is higher in some species than others. Poultry tends to be the highest, as an example.

Certainly the goal of this regulation is to ensure that this number is as small as it can possibly be.

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

One other thing that struck me—and perhaps you can help me on this—is that you have the experts, both science-based and the animal welfare groups, saying that this is awful, that the sky's going to fall if we don't change it, and then the other side is saying the sky is going to fall if we do change it. What are your thoughts on that?

[Debbie Barr]

It's one of the things that makes this particular regulation extraordinarily difficult to make changes to and one of the reasons it has taken a considerable amount of time to get to this point and why we've engaged in quite extensive and exhaustive analysis and review.

It's an issue with very divergent viewpoints and it's complex, but it is our job to try to balance and reconcile those disparate viewpoints and do that while taking into account international standards, the parameters put in place by trading partners. When I say “trading partners”, we do look at what's done in all countries, but we particularly put a lens on those countries that are similar in geography and size.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Thank you, Ms. Barr.

Thank you, Mr. Peschisolido.

Mr. Gourde, go ahead for five minutes.

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

Thank you.

The size of our country means that animals have to be transported from west to east and vice versa. In my riding, much of the livestock intended for beef feedlots comes from Alberta. Usually, the trip is continuous, and the process works very well.

I am concerned about some aspects of the new regulations. The regulations talk about unloading the animals in a gathering location somewhere in Ontario for 12 hours or 24 hours. It cannot be established what the ideal number of hours is to allow the animal to eat, rest and drink. An animal can spend a few hours in a gathering place to rest, but it is not guaranteed that they will be able to drink.

The animals are often on trucks that follow behind one another on the road. That is why 200, 300 or 400 animals can get to the the gathering premises at the same time. Yet those gathering premises currently don't exist because the number of transported animals is huge. It would be creating additional stress for the animal. We have to determine whether a 12-hour stop is sufficient for an animal to rest. They may be just as exhausted when they get back on the truck, and the process would have caused them added stress.

Has that aspect been evaluated?

In addition, the situation will be impossible in terms of biosafety at the gathering facilities. The premises will have to be disinfected every time the animals get off the trucks or get back on them. It will be terrible.

Have you looked into that problem?

[Debbie Barr]

Yes, certainly the stress of loading and unloading has been addressed and some animals adapt to that more easily than others. Other species of animals can't be unloaded because they're in crates. Different species of animals definitely have different needs, and that has all been looked at and evaluated.

Again, the stress of loading them has to be compared to the stress of not loading or unloading them and the stress of prolonged transportation without any access to feed, water, and rest.

The one thing that we have tried to do in these regulations is to align as much as possible the rest period of the animals with the mandatory rest periods that either exist or are coming into place for the drivers.

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

We are talking about young animals that are transported for feeding purposes.

Have you assessed the additional costs to the producers who will buy back those animals?