Agriculture Committee on Oct. 26th, 2023

[Richard Lehoux, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'll share my time with my colleague Mr. Steinley.

I'd like to thank the witnesses for being with us.

I have a quick question for you, Mr. Roy.

Given the closure of the Olymel plant in the Beauce region, which slaughtered at least 35,000 hogs a week, additional transportation will be required.

Based on the discussions you've had with the transporters, where do things currently stand? The plant will be closing in the very near future; it's scheduled for next December.

[René Roy]

Normally, this should have no impact on transportation, since the measures we're currently examining apply when it's beyond 10 hours, unless there are exceptional circumstances, of course. In Quebec, most hogs will be redirected to other slaughterhouses.

[Richard Lehoux, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Still, we must take into account the dynamic that my colleague opposite was talking about earlier. The majority of hogs in the Maritimes are redirected to Quebec slaughterhouses. Is there going to be a cascading effect where some hogs are going to be redirected more to Ontario, or are they just going to be transported longer distances, in which case there could be consequences?

[René Roy]

You're absolutely right. There are hogs that are going to have to be transported over longer distances.

I would like to highlight the fact that what we're really asking for is not to treat our animals the way we would treat toilet paper shipments. When we stop at the side of the road, it's not the same reality, and we would like that reality to be taken into account in the regulations.

[Richard Lehoux, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

I appreciate your comment, Mr. Roy. What you're saying is true. We often seem to think we're working with mechanics here, but that's not the case. These are animals, these are living beings. It would be appropriate for the legislator to take this into account in its considerations.

What you're asking for is flexibility of the rules. Some flexibility could be granted similar to the U.S. regulations. I heard you say earlier that you ultimately wanted to respect the standards, but that special circumstances could arise, such as bad weather or trucks with mechanical breakdowns. It has to be said, too, that the animal unloading and reloading stations cause them a great deal of stress. So there are consequences, if only in terms of biosecurity.

[René Roy]

You're absolutely right. We plan our trips to get to our destinations, but it's based on normal days. We don't plan our trips around extreme circumstances that will prevent us from reaching our destinations. We want to have flexibility precisely in those circumstances where we can't get to our destination for animal welfare reasons, but also for biosecurity reasons, of course. Otherwise, this can lead to problems for the animals being transported, but also for the animals in the regions in question, because certain diseases can be airborne.

[Richard Lehoux, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Roy.

As for transportation, it may also cause anxiety for the carriers, truckers and drivers.

I'll give the rest of my time to Mr. Steinley.

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Fehr, there is something I want you to make clear. When we are making these plans, they are not ad hoc. Can you walk us through, logistically, how planned your day is when you're transporting livestock and animals? I want to make it clear to this committee that you guys take the route seriously and you're planning it down to a very set time.

[David Fehr]

Thank you for that question.

I'll use the example of transporting feeder cattle from Idaho. This is planned a week in advance. We are communicating with the vets. We've provided them with packages on how they need to assemble all of the documentation for the importation. We are communicating with the CFIA vet. We're communicating with whoever might be loading the animals—like the particular sorting facility or whatever it might be—and we are ensuring that our drivers can get there in the required time and get home in the required time.

It's very planned. I cannot stress that enough.

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Thank you very much. I appreciate that.

I have only a few seconds left. I want to say one thing to Mr. MacGregor. I think the reason there isn't data on how many people are going overtime in unforeseen circumstances is that they don't want to let people know that they're not following the rules, so I think that's a tough ask. That's probably why the data isn't there. That's to my colleague Mr. MacGregor.

Lastly, what kinds of consequences are the drivers facing if they do get pulled over in their overtime? That would be stressful for them. I just want to know what the drivers would face and what the company would face if they are over the allotted hours of service.

[David Fehr]

A fine can be imposed on the drivers themselves, and that also impacts the carrier, so things like insurance costs and all these other aspects are impacted. More importantly, I think the biggest issue is the fact that the driver has to choose what he's going to take care of. At the end of the day, he has a responsibility to care for the animals, and that's what his biggest priority is going to be.

They are always considering everything else. Somebody mentioned fatigue and all these different aspects. We train our drivers to ensure that they recognize that. We have drivers who pull over on the side of the road for a 30-minute nap or a 20-minute nap—just to get themselves refreshed and recharged if they find themselves in that position—and move on with it, and that's hugely beneficial.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

Thank you.

We'll now turn to Mr. Drouin for five minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to thank the witnesses for being here.

I'll start with a question for Mr. Roy, so I can better understand. Of course, I understand what the issue is, but I'm thinking of one aspect in particular.

According to the Canadian Food Inspection Agency regulations, an animal can be transported for up to 36 hours, on average, without giving it water and without stopping. However, a driver has to stop to rest after 13 hours of driving.

With regard to animal health, does the agency foresee the possibility of urgent situations where the 36‑hour limit could not be met?

[René Roy]

That's a good question, which I can't answer because I'm not familiar with that provision. I can get back to you on that.

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

That's fine, I can find the information.

Let's take the example of a driver who leaves from our region, in eastern Ontario, and who can't get to Thunder Bay on time. He has to stop at the side of the road with the animals. Even if he complied with the animal health regulations for transporting animals, he wouldn't be complying with Transport Canada's regulations, which require drivers to stop for at least eight hours to sleep. He has to plan for that. He'll probably then have to stop in Thunder Bay, depending on where he goes, and unload the animals.

What you're saying is that Transport Canada isn't clear on what should be done in an emergency, for example, if a driver has to stop at the side of the road or if he's stuck in traffic.

Basically, what I understand from Ms. Noble's comments is that verbal confirmation was received that there was no cause for concern and that the regulations were being complied with, but no one is ready to put all that in writing.

[René Roy]

That's one of our requests: it has to be clarified and put in writing. This interpretation cannot be required of all those responsible for enforcing the law. It has to be in writing, or our industry can't know about it either.

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

Ms. Noble, you said before that you've had chats with Transport Canada. They have assured you verbally “No, no, you're fine”, but they're not willing to provide clarity in writing with regard to subsection 76(1).

Did I misunderstand that?

[Cathy Jo Noble]

I don't know if they say that we're fine, as much as they say, “What you're asking for will just be covered in section 76.”

What we're asking is for it not to be left to an individual enforcement officer, who may not have a comprehension of animal welfare. We're asking for it to be in the guidance document that shows the enforcement officer that it is an emergency situation.

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

Essentially, we're stuck.

If I'm driving on the road, I know that the speed limit is 100 kilometres an hour. Over many years of data, I know I can go at 118 kilometres an hour and the cops won't bother me, but if I go at 119 or 120, they're probably going to ticket me. I've never been lucky enough to be let go, but I know some people who were let go after a speeding ticket. After 118...normally that's the law, but obviously provinces would never provide that clarity.

We do have a precedent with the U.S. You said 150 air miles, which is about 276 kilometres, which would equate to 2.5 or almost 3 hours extra should there be unforeseen circumstances.

I want to go back to the regulation of 36 hours, because I think that's important. You could be at 15 hours and if, for instance, there's an unforeseen circumstance, CFIA could say that, yes, the animal could have been in danger had the driver not brought the animal to its final destination, but the regulations from CFIA say 36 hours, so CFIA would say this fits very well into the number of maximum hours we can transport animals, but now we have to deal with the driver. The poor drivers are stuck dealing with two regulations, but there's no clarity. It's just being bumped from one end to the other.

[Cathy Jo Noble]

It's very siloed. We see that across government. CFIA is responsible for animal welfare, and they made a regulation. Transport Canada is responsible for the drivers' safety, and they made a regulation. That's what happens, so the driver gets squeezed out and so does the sector.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

Unfortunately, we're at time, Mr. Drouin. Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Noble.

I have Mr. Perron for two and a half minutes, and then Mr. MacGregor for two and a half minutes.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Roy, I can't help but pick up the puck put on the ice by Mr. Lehoux about regional processing. There is no doubt that this issue and the subject we're discussing today are complementary. Obviously, there would be far fewer transportation constraints if we increased processing capacity in the various regions of Quebec and Canada.

Do you have an opinion to share with the committee on that?

[René Roy]

There's no question that increasing regional processing capacity actually reduces the amount of transportation we have to do, so it benefits everyone.

However, certain economic constraints mean that there's a concentration. However, this concentration poses a problem for producers and also decreases our resilience in the agri-food sector.

I'll leave it at that. I'm not going to give a doctoral thesis this morning, but you're right.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Roy.

Mr. Chaffe, would you like to add anything about the questions that have been asked, particularly regarding the importance of this flexibility that you're calling for this morning?

[Jack Chaffe]

I know that Ms. Noble mentioned the U.S. regulations giving that radius of 150 air miles. That's key, especially to those loads of cattle heading from western Canada to eastern Canada, if you have to make two stops to pick up your load. If you're at a ranch and you pick up half your load, and then you have to go to a sale barn to pick up the balance of your load, and you start heading east and all of a sudden you run into a snowstorm, a flat tire or whatever, that's where we need the flexibility to make it to that next rest stop.

We also need clarity under section 76, where the animal welfare concerns need to be mentioned.