Agriculture Committee on April 6th, 2017

[Debbie Barr]

Yes, part of the regulatory process is an economic cost-benefit analysis. As part of the regulatory impact analysis statement, they did have to outline that economic analysis and they did display the incremental costs. They show the incremental costs to producers based on the information we had and the information available for the current transport times. So that is part of the regulatory process.

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

When animals are transported to remote slaughterhouses, are the costs covered by the slaughterhouse or by the producer?

[Debbie Barr]

That's a business decision the industry makes. That's not a decision CFIA dictates.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Thank you.

Ms. Brosseau, you have three minutes.

[Ruth Ellen Brosseau, NDP, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Ms. Barr, for your presence here today and for responding to our questions.

I would like to talk a little bit about training. Many stakeholders were consulted over 10 years. What was the involvement of transport companies and people that actually take those animals from farm gate to the end point, the slaughterhouse or...? What was their involvement in this?

[Debbie Barr]

They had an opportunity to be involved at numerous phases along the way, and there were staff involved in putting the regulatory amendment together who did speak directly with transporters and transport companies. We've had their involvement through the voluntary transport standards to discuss transportation patterns as well. There were a number of transporters who were provided directly with both the preconsultation document and with the second economic questionnaire that went out, and then they had an opportunity to validate the economic information that was put forward through that economic questionnaire.

[Ruth Ellen Brosseau, NDP, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Do you know exactly what their feeling is? Have they proposed any changes? At committee, we haven't had a chance to hear that side yet.

[Debbie Barr]

Basically, their comments were reflected in what went forward in the Canada Gazette, part I, and we will continue to incorporate and reflect the comments that were put forward in the official comment period between part I and part II of the Canada Gazette.

[Ruth Ellen Brosseau, NDP, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

As for training, how does that work? Some people have certifications and training. We've had some stakeholders and some commodity groups that have codes of practice and what they do is independently audited, like the Chicken Farmers of Canada. Can you maybe speak to the training of the people who handle animals in transport?

[Debbie Barr]

I think a lot of effort has gone into that training, on the part of the industry, on the part of provinces, and on the part of the federal government. The AAFC put a lot of effort towards the livestock certification program and the industry has had a lot of uptake in training that's been very well-received and promoted. At CFIA, we provide extensive training to our inspectors who view those, and under the Transportation Association of Canada, training does exist, both in classrooms and modules. So I think there is a focus on training. There can always be more training, but the training that is out there is well done and well-received.

[Ruth Ellen Brosseau, NDP, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

The National Farm Animal Care Council made recommendations for transport, but these are different from what has been proposed, like the maximum intervals for access to feed and water. How did you come to these conclusions about the proposed reduction in travel, because it's different from what is proposed by the National Farm Animal Care Council?

[Debbie Barr]

In the codes of practice, I know that a number of them have been renewed just recently, so there may have been some changes. I haven't seen one of the latest ones, but there may have been some changes between when these regs came out and when those were evolved. They were definitely taken into account. The other things that were taken into account, particularly with respect to how to determine whether an animal should be loaded or not, were the industry decision trees that are published. The poultry industry has one that indicates whether an animal should be loaded. They have similar ones in other industries. Those were taken into account and again, they will continue to be taken into account through the review and analysis process.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Thank you, Ms. Barr.

Thank you, Ms. Brosseau.

I think there is consensus that we would each have another question.

I'll go with the government side.

Mr. Drouin, do you have a question?

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Yes, I'll be quick.

As you conduct these regulations, I'm wondering if the CFIA consults with other jurisdictions? We've been hearing mixed messages that we're not really comparing apples to apples. We always hear the example of Europe, but apparently in Europe, their times don't involve the time it takes to load and unload. Has the CFIA looked into that to ensure that when we sign CETA, we will remain competitive? If we include more regulations and if these regulations are going to decrease times or decrease this percentage, which we're all looking to improve, then I want to know whether we're comparing apples to apples when we do the hours to make sure that we're collaborating on an international basis.

[Debbie Barr]

Absolutely we look at other standards. We're very familiar with the standards in Australia, the U.K., the EU, New Zealand, and the United States particularly. We particularly look at the States and Australia, as they are countries of similar geography and size. We're also very familiar with the international standards for animal transport that are meant to reflect the views of all countries.

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Okay. That was my one question.

Pass it on.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Mr. Anderson.

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

I'll follow up on that. I don't know if this is where Mr. Drouin would like to go, but our trading partners set standards. Those are not all set with science. We heard testimony that lots of factors come into this. There are political factors. In Europe the diminished geography is a factor. They can set whatever hours they want and they can still get to where they need to go. Often science is not at the centre of those decisions. How do you factor that in?

That's the first half of my question. The second one is that we've heard that your penalty structure is seen as combative. There's no appeal process to it. It's seen in the industry as a revenue generator for CFIA, actually. Are you changing that to a more collaborative approach, or are you going to continue the approach that has not generated you a lot of goodwill in the agricultural community?

So there are two sections to that. First, how do you balance the fact that many of these decisions in other countries and the standards you're talking about are not actually based on science? And second, are you going to change your role with the penalty system to make it more collaborative rather than combative?

[Debbie Barr]

In setting those time frames we look at available science—as I said, the group tasked with this has reviewed over 300 different scientific articles and references—our own observations, and data obtained through our compliance verification system as to whether there's compliance or non-compliance in the industry. We look at the international guidelines. We look at societal expectations. We also look at the practical realities of the Canadian situation. We don't look at any one factor in isolation. We have to look at all of them. We have to base it as well on the comments we receive from Canadians throughout our large country. Then we look at determining those timelines.

As for the administrative monetary penalties, that's one method of compliance. CFIA has also put a lot of emphasis on compliance promotion. There is recourse available at all levels. CFIA has put in place a complaints and appeals office, where anyone who has an issue can put their case forward. Administrative monetary penalties can be reviewed by the Canadian Agriculture Review Tribunal. This has been done. In some cases they've been upheld and in other cases they haven't. We learn from all of those instances where they're not upheld, and we make better decisions going forward.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Thank you.

Ms. Brosseau, do you want to ask a question?

[Ruth Ellen Brosseau, NDP, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

I do have a question.

Are there any guidelines on the humane killing of animals with firearms? At the National Farm Animal Care Council, they have guidelines on how to humanely euthanize animals, take care of animals. Would it change anything in the proposed regulations if something were to happen?

[Debbie Barr]

No. These regulations focus on the humane transport of animals. They don't focus on the humane slaughter. That's actually a different regulation under CFIA.

[Ruth Ellen Brosseau, NDP, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Can you tell us how many CFIA animal inspectors there are?

[Debbie Barr]

We have 525 inspection staff who spend a portion of their time delivering transport inspections. That's certainly not all CFIA staff, but it's the number of staff who spend at least part of their time doing transport inspections. We also have an additional 1,100 meat inspection staff who spend time verifying the condition of animals upon arrival at a slaughter plant, for example.