Agriculture Committee on Oct. 26th, 2023

[René Roy]

What we do as producers is that we plan our travel. If it's, for example, longer than the prescribed time, we are planning a stop somewhere else. The problem is if there are unforeseen events. We are not reaching this planned stop place, so it's increasing the risk of biosecurity, of course, but also putting the animals' welfare at risk.

For producers, right now if it's beyond the 10 hours, normally there will be two truckers. They find a way. But even with two truckers, the electronic logbook is still a challenge. If there are other reasons.... If you have only one trucker who becomes available, for whatever reason, then you are stuck with really rigid legislation that could be problematic.

But, yes, for producers, if they have longer hours than they're supposed to, they are able to plan a stop somewhere else along the road.

[Heath MacDonald, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

I have a further note. Can you give some examples, for anybody listening here today, of when this was an impediment in the past where very unfortunate situations arose, whether it be weather or car accidents, whatever, or maybe the truck broke down?

[Ryder Lee]

We have a bunch. I don't think they'd get into that spot of research data, but it is anecdotes. One example is being held up at the border. If you're bringing animals in from the U.S., you do need some CFIA presence there, and that is always an unpredictable thing. Another one adding time is roads that are closed by the RCMP, and you have to go a completely different way. Then there's trying to get to a place that has feed, water and rest. I think René went into that. There's a risk there, too. The alternative is speeding and making it there, and that's not a win either.

When the flexibility is gone, you do what you need to do. It's that kind of thing, and that's not a win, either. That's another piece that we look for. This flexibility gives you the chance to say, “I can get there and go in a reasonable way.”

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

Thank you, Mr. Lee.

Thank you, Mr. MacDonald.

It's now Mr. Perron's turn, for six minutes.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

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

Mr. Roy, in your opening remarks, you mentioned that transportation could be stressful for livestock and that, if the journey had to be lengthened or if the trucks had to be unloaded and then loaded again, this would increase the stress on the animals.

Could you expand on that a little?

[René Roy]

I will give you a very concrete example of a challenge or problem that can arise.

When animals get on the trucks, they are entering a new environment, and it's stressful for them. It's a time when the risk of injury is greater. Once the animals are in the truck, if the transport takes a long time, they will lie down, so there is much less risk of injury. An animal lying down is less likely to fall and injure itself or other animals. In the event of shortened deadlines for transporting animals, the trucks may have to be unloaded and the animals taken to an unforeseen location, in less-than-optimal conditions. This increases the safety risks, not only for the animals, but also for the people handling them.

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

Thank you very much.

You also mentioned passive ventilation and the importance of keeping the truck moving.

What happens in situations where you're stuck on the road, for example if there's an accident on the highway and traffic is at a standstill?

[René Roy]

In Quebec, we had a year when we had to transport hogs over very long distances, for reasons that most of you are familiar with. We have….

I'm sorry, I lost my train of thought there.

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

I was talking about how important it is for the trucks to be ventilated and to keep moving.

[René Roy]

For the ventilation to work properly, we have to drive at a certain speed. When it's warm, we reduce the number of pigs in our trucks so the ventilation is better. However, when it's warm, it's warm, and the animals release heat. There's no possible airflow in an enclosed area if the truck isn't moving, so the temperature rises, which poses an additional risk.

At times, we have had to pass through certain areas where a road was closed, for example. In the middle of winter, another phenomenon occurs: the animals on the outside risk frostbite, while those in the middle of the truck are too hot.

Passive ventilation balances temperatures inside the truck.

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

If I understand correctly, you are constantly concerned about animal welfare during transportation.

The request before our committee this morning must certainly have an economic impact, but that is not the objective of your request. The objective is to maximize animal welfare, is it not?

[René Roy]

That's right.

We aren't asking for a systematic increase in our flexibility. What we're asking for is flexibility in the event of an emergency or unforeseen circumstances.

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

An example mentioned was the United States, where there's a kind of flexibility like what you're asking for. Basically, that's the objective of your request: you want a similar measure.

However, how will we then control the cases where this justified flexibility will be used? Is there a process in place in the United States? How do we know that this is being respected and that this flexibility won't be used by everyone on a regular basis, for example?

[René Roy]

Ms. Noble raised the issue of including this flexibility for unforeseen situations, and that's basically what we're asking for.

It's important to recognize that not everyone is very familiar with the agricultural sector. If this aspect isn't clarified in the legislation, peace officers, whose role is to enforce the law, won't necessarily understand the situation. If the legislation specifies that animal transporters have this flexibility in particular circumstances, which they must justify with documents, everyone will benefit.

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

So I understand that you want to clarify the section.

Ms. Noble, in your statement, you mentioned something that troubled me. You said that Transport Canada said that animal health wasn't part of its mandate, but you can't regulate the transportation of something without worrying about it, especially if it's not a thing, but a living being. I find that a bit surreal.

You and Mr. Roy said that you wanted clarification of the section. Have you determined specifically which regulatory section should be amended and come up with the wording? Do you have any legal experts who have come up with a proposal? If so, you could provide a proposal to the committee, so that we can look at it and include it in our report.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

We're getting pretty close to time.

Could you try to do that in about 30 or 40 seconds?

[Cathy Jo Noble]

I will.

There is the ideal ask. The ideal ask is to be the same as the U.S. and have that radius of 150 air miles. That's going to take time and it's going to be a harder ask, but that's our ideal. Alternatively, very immediately, very easily, in section 76 of the guidance, put in a clarification that a risk to animal welfare is an emergency.

Monsieur Perron, we have wording that we sent to Transport Canada, which I'm happy to share with this group. Because they weren't drafting it, we drafted it and we said, this is all we're asking. I can share that with you. That is the more immediate, timely answer to this. In an ideal world, we align with the U.S., but we know that's not an easy or quick fix, and our drivers are out on the road right now trying to manage this. So it may be two phases.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

Thank you very much.

We'll go to Mr. MacGregor for six minutes.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to thank each of you for being here today. I think you've all presented a very clear case, and I see some similarities from your opening statements. Some clear and concise language and some flexibility, I think, are two main themes.

Transport regulations are not something that comes before this committee very often. I was taking a look at a survey that was done with the Ontario trucking industry. This was a survey that was done with drivers, employers and supervisors. They had a ranked list of the top 10 primary causal factors of driver fatigue. Number one was traffic delays. Number two was lack of rest and irregular sleep. Number three was stress, which could include pressure from management or dispatch and the fact that you have a live cargo. I think the top three conditions of driver fatigue can apply in the situations we've heard about at the committee today.

I understand what you are presenting to our committee, and I think it's reasonable, but I'm just wondering if each of you or any one of you can talk about what your conversations have been like with the trucking industry. What have drivers been telling you? Do they feel that what you're asking for is in line with the concerns they've outlined?

With those big transport trucks, when something bad happens, it's catastrophic, not just for them and not just for the animals they're transporting, but for other drivers on the road.

If any of you can weigh in on what your conversations have been like with the trucking industry, it would be appreciated.

[Cathy Jo Noble]

Sure, I can.

I'm not disagreeing with what you're saying, and that is why we're not asking for a full exemption to ELDs, because our drivers' safety is a priority as well.

When we speak to the drivers, they're feeling pressure under this because they're trying to get to a safe destination with the livestock within those hours of service. I want to emphasize that this is for unforeseen circumstances.

If this change is made, the industry holds accountability, because if an enforcement officer looks at your ELD record and you're over every day, that's not unforeseen. We need to be accountable for that, and we will be. Those aren't the players who are looking for this. This is the occasion when, once a month or once a quarter, they do get in a difficult position and they don't feel like they need to speed up or do something that is dangerous in order to make sure the animals are safe too.

I hope that's helpful.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Yes.

Does anyone else want to weigh in?

[Eric Schwindt]

If I could, I think this adds one more layer of stress to our drivers, in that there's no alternative for them if they meet those challenges doing their job. They have only one option in this case, and that is to make it on time. By building in flexibility, you're relieving stress and the encouragement to do unsafe activities.

Our truckers care about their livelihoods. They care about the fellow vehicles on the road, but they also care about the animals under their care. By adding more stress on them, we're not accomplishing increased safety. We're actually making it worse.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Thank you for that.

As part of Mr. Steinley's motion, this committee is also hoping to invite the Minister of Transport here to, at the very least, have some representation from Transport Canada.

Ms. Noble, in your opening statement you were talking about how Transport Canada had a need for some data that you felt was quite impossible to provide. I'm just trying to compare.... We're trying to harmonize a lot of things with our southern neighbour, the United States. In the data you do have, is there data that you could share with Transport Canada on how often these kinds of incidents are happening where a driver is reaching the end of where they should be taking a rest, but they still have a live cargo and they're still far away? Has that not been acceptable to Transport Canada as a basis or rationale for changing these?

I just wonder if you could go into a bit more detail on what those conversations have been like with Transport Canada, because that would help inform this committee when we may have the opportunity to question the Minister of Transport.

[Cathy Jo Noble]

Sure.

The original conversation with Transport Canada was, “We're not having that conversation. That's not our mandate”, but we're a persistent bunch, and we've continued the conversations with them.

It's asking for data that we don't have. Susan Fitzgerald is appearing before you after us. She represents the Canadian Livestock Transporters' Alliance, and she can speak in detail about what data we have and don't have.

We're here because we want a solution. We want Transport Canada to sit across the table from us and come up with a realistic solution, not “plan your routes better”—because we have been told that—or “get two drivers.”

There's a shortage of livestock transport drivers. We are trying our best. We have been prescriptive in what we've asked for in regard to that guidance, but we're willing to listen to other options. We just need a solution for the objective we have, which is to get these animals there safely and to keep our drivers safe as well.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

Thank you so much, Mr. MacGregor.

We'll now go to Mr. Lehoux for five minutes.