Agriculture Committee on Oct. 26th, 2023

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chaffe.

Basically, this morning, we have a fairly simple request: a regulatory clarification must be made, and that could be done quickly.

Thank you to the witnesses.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

Thank you very much.

Mr. MacGregor, you'll finish us off.

I have a couple of questions, but it's over to you.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Fehr, I'll turn my question to you, because you made a great intervention there talking in detail about the planning that goes into these trips a week in advance and so on.

I remember last year our committee was doing a study into Canada's supply chain woes. I recall some of our witnesses talking about the need for better investments so that we can gather more data points in real time.

I'm just wondering how the government could help in other ways with the industry in gathering data about adverse weather events that may be affecting certain transportation corridors, CFIA backlogs at the border or the capacity of a certain loading/unloading station. I'm just trying to think a little bit above and beyond looking at the narrow regulations to see whether investment in real-time data acquisition could help you not only in the planning but also during the transport. Maybe the industry could notify the driver, and appropriate steps could be taken to avoid these complications in the first place.

[David Fehr]

From my perspective, all of that information would be very beneficial. The U.S.A. does a very good job at this. You can see the statistics on the safety side of things with our industry, our subset of the industry specifically. If you compare it to the rest of the commercial transporters, we are the safest group out there on the road, and that supports their level of care and everything else they're doing. If we can gather this data, this information, and use it to present arguments and/or support how we dispatch and/or organize our information, I think that would be hugely beneficial.

One thing I would like to add, though, is that there have been several events—and these were summer events—when we were coming back into Canada and we were having a challenge with the port of entry where they didn't have enough commercial booths open. I can call the National Cattle Feeders' Association. They'll make a call to the CFIA, which then makes a call to its counterpart in the CBSA, and I can have a booth open in 15 minutes. They recognize the fact that being stuck on the side of the road in 30°C weather is detrimental, but we can't adhere to it or have some kind of adoption into our transportation rules. This is my frustration.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

Thank you, Mr. MacGregor.

Thank you, Mr. Fehr.

Colleagues, I don't do this often, but I want to ask a few questions, if you'll permit me.

Ms. Noble, just for clarity for us and to wrap all this up, part of what's driving this conversation.... The actual regulations haven't changed, other than the implementation of the ELDs, from what would have been paper logs in the past. You and I have had conversations in the past. When does the ELD actually start to trigger? Do you know that?

Maybe that's a question for Mr. Fehr. As soon as the truck starts to move even a few kilometres an hour, the clock starts, whereas before there might have been some more flexibility. Do you know, Mr. Fehr, when that ELD actually starts to trigger now?

[David Fehr]

I believe it's at three miles an hour, so once the truck starts registering a speed in excess of three miles an hour.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

How did officials...? Maybe the situations wouldn't have been as dire. To your point, Mr. Fehr, I can appreciate that as soon as the truck starts to move at three miles an hour or three kilometres an hour.... Either way, it's a low threshold. It could be just moving around the yard to actually load up the animals onto the truck. How did officials treat this previously? Was there some flexibility or was there a policy approach? Just for the benefit of this committee, was there generally an understanding on this or was it mixed? How has that changed over time?

[David Fehr]

I think the biggest thing is that, as you said, there's a consideration for what's happening in that given environment. Whether you're ready to back up to a chute and load or you are just turning in and backing up, now your day has started. All of these factors are important.

Perhaps you load as a group, so if you're going across the border, you need to cross the border as that group. If you have to load with another group of people, you're waiting there for 45 minutes or however long it could be. You might be the first person there, so your day has already started and you're an hour into your day now.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

Ms. Noble, on the legislative piece, just so this committee can be very clear about what we can recommend to the government.... I gave you a piece of paper, which has the actual regulation on it, so that you have it in front of you. Under “Emergencies and Adverse Driving Conditions”, subsection 76(1) talks about “a driver who, in an emergency, requires more driving time to reach a destination that provides safety for the occupants of the commercial vehicle and for other users of the road or the security of the commercial vehicle and its load.” Of course, in this case it's talking about animals.

You're not asking for a change in that type of regulation. You're asking for a policy statement, either from the department or from the minister, that explains that in these conditions that includes animal welfare.

[Cathy Jo Noble]

We're not asking for a regulatory change. There's a guidance document that exists. That's what we're asking for clarity on, so it's not even a regulatory change.

Right now, the guidance document in regard to that says, “An emergency is a situation or impending situation where the safety or security of people is at risk or likely to be in jeopardy.” That's the guidance for that one. What we are asking for is an addition that says that, in the case of live animal transport, should an unforeseen animal welfare concern that could lead to animal suffering occur, it will be considered an emergency for the purpose of subsection 76(1). I can share this with you.

We're not even asking about regulations, but guidance.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

Is this an internal document that Transport would share? Is it a public document that's available?

[Cathy Jo Noble]

They share it with the enforcement officers.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

Perfect. That's very helpful.

Thank you so much for the first hour.

Colleagues, on your behalf, let me thank the fine folks from the Canadian Cattle Association, the Canadian Pork Council and the National Cattle Feeders' Association. That was very helpful.

Don't go far, colleagues. We're going to turn it over to our second panel in just a few minutes.

We'll suspend.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

Colleagues, welcome back to panel number two. It's great to be here.

Before I go any further, I have one thing. Before I could get coffee into my system this morning.... We didn't pass the budget for this study. I'd like to make sure we have unanimous consent that the proposed budget shared to your emails can be passed. I don't see any issue with it. Otherwise, the first hour is on me, if you guys don't pass it.

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

Okay, that's good. It has passed.

For the second panel, we have, by video conference, Susan Fitzgerald, executive director of the Canadian Livestock Transporters' Alliance. Welcome, Ms. Fitzgerald. We also have Don Shantz from Vernla Livestock Incorporated.

We also have Barbara Cartwright, executive director of Humane Canada; and Lynn Kavanagh, campaign manager at World Animal Protection.

Monsieur Perron was trying to get a witness. He was unable to get the representatives from Quebec he was hoping for, so I used my discretion. We're allowing the Canadian Pork Council to stay around for any further questions. That was at the behest of Monsieur Perron, and I was happy to oblige.

We're going to give five minutes for opening remarks. I'm going to start with the Canadian Livestock Transporters' Alliance.

It's over to you, Ms. Fitzgerald.

[Susan Fitzgerald, Executive Director, Canadian Livestock Transporters' Alliance]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

The Canadian Livestock Transporters' Alliance is pleased to have been invited by the standing committee to appear before you today in relation to electronic logging devices and animal transport.

Our association represents commercial livestock transport companies. We have members in Ontario, Manitoba, Alberta and Quebec. As you mentioned, I'm joined here today by Mr. Don Shantz with Vernla Livestock, based in Ontario, a member company of the association.

ELDs provide less flexibility in documenting service hours than paper logbooks. Due to this decreased flexibility, our concern is the potential for drivers to reach their maximum hours of service due to unforeseen delays before reaching the animals' destinations, or it could be due to delays with unloading at the destination. The driver would then be put in the very difficult position of either complying with their hours of service regulations by going off duty or doing what they know is best for the animals in their care, which is getting them to the planned unloading site.

Additionally, as you heard from a previous witness this morning, live-haul drivers, unlike freight transporters, cannot simply pull into a rest area and go off duty if they unexpectedly cannot get to their destination or unload within their hours of service. Most of our animal trailers are passively ventilated, which means that the load cannot remain stationary for prolonged periods of time. They must be kept moving to attain maximum airflow and temperature control.

This is also true for the transportation of bees. Plus, with bees, there's the concern of bee escapes when stationary, which could become a human safety concern.

Animal transport is carefully planned. The circumstances we are anticipating are unforeseen delays or events. Drivers going over their hours of service is not an expected occurrence. Animal transporters are not seeking a blanket exemption from ELDs or hours of service. We're asking for flexibility in the hours of service enforcement in situations where animal welfare must be safeguarded.

Examples of unforeseen delays—and you heard some previously—that could occur in transit include adverse weather, traffic accidents that close roads or bring traffic to a standstill, border-crossing delays, bridge or road outages and a breakdown at the processing plant, which would hold up unloading.

Since 2017, when the amendments to the regulations were first published, we have urged Transport Canada to harmonize our Canadian regulations with the U.S. We have live-animal transporters driving on both sides of the border, often during the same day, and they must comply with both sets of regulations. Harmonization would provide clarity. Most importantly, we feel the U.S. regulation recognizes the unique aspects of transporting live animals, and provides the needed flexibility.

In the U.S., the exemption for hours of service of 150 air miles from load origin was in place for live animal transport on an interim basis since 2017. The November 2021 U.S. Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act legislated a permanent exemption from hours of service for livestock and insect haulers, but just within a radius of 150 air miles from the origin and destination of their trip.

Ideally, we would like to see harmonization of animal transport regulations between our countries. In the interim, though, there are sections of the Canadian regulations that could be used to safeguard animal welfare.

You heard mention of subsections 76(1) and 76(2) of the regulations, which permit drivers to extend the driving time allowed during adverse driving conditions or emergency situations in order to reach their destinations for the safety of the occupants and the security of the load. This may cover animal welfare concerns, but the interpretation of what constitutes adverse driving conditions and emergency situations is left largely to individual enforcement officers.

As part of a national working group, we met with Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency and Transport Canada officials multiple times regarding this issue. We have requested the provision of strong guidance to all enforcement agencies that clearly states that animal welfare issues are defined as emergency situations under subsections 76(1) and 76(2) of the regulations. This would provide clarity to enforcement officers and reassurance and peace of mind to animal transporters that they're not going to be penalized for putting animal welfare first. Thus far, Transport Canada officials have not indicated to us that they would move forward with this reasonable request.

Transporting live animals is definitely different from hauling freight, and we believe there should be consideration given to those differences. Both driver safety and animal welfare need to be considered.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

Thank you very much, Ms. Fitzgerald.

We'll now go to Humane Canada and World Animal Protection, which, in my understanding, will share the five-minute slot.

I'm going to turn it over to either Ms. Kavanagh or Ms. Cartwright for five minutes.

[Barbara Cartwright, Chief Executive Officer, Humane Canada]

Thank you so much.

Good morning, everyone.

For more than 40 years, Humane Canada, which is the federation of humane societies and SPCAs, has worked collaboratively with industry and governments at the National Farm Animal Care Council to improve standards of care for farm animals.

Transportation, as we have heard, is the most stressful experience in the lives of farm animals, and it is critical that requirements implemented—

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

Ms. Cartwright, I apologize for interrupting. Our translators are asking if you are able to just move your microphone up a little bit closer to your mouth, just a little bit higher.

[Barbara Cartwright]

Okay.

Is that okay?

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

Yes, let's try it. Thanks.

[Barbara Cartwright]

Okay.

Canada's humane transportation regulations were finally updated, after decades of consultation, to require shorter times and better protections. There was also a coming into force period to allow industry to prepare to meet those regulations, so we had hoped that, during this time, infrastructure changes would be made. Animals would travel shorter distances, and any trip delays would still fall within the mandated time frames.

Animal welfare should always be an essential consideration when dealing with the regulations for truckers who transport livestock. If amendments to the ELD regulations are needed to address animal welfare emergencies, then clear guidance is needed on what constituents such an emergency, and it requires more than just industry input.

We don't support amendments that maintain the status quo or address industry ineffectiveness but then impact animal welfare. For example, in a recent Rabble article on this topic, industry experts cited things like erratic working hours, the impacts of warm weather on the loading and unloading of livestock, timetables at slaughterhouses or auction floors, inspections at border crossings, and businesses' opening hours as contributing to erratic schedules. These are not animal welfare emergencies. They may cause animal welfare emergencies, but in and of themselves, they are not animal welfare emergencies. They are rather very much foreseeable circumstances with industry solutions like better planning, shorter distances, more Canadian slaughter facilities, and climate-controlled vehicles.

The onus is on the agricultural sector to structure the industry so that it is not erratic, poorly planned or ineffective, both for animal welfare and human welfare. The agricultural sector should be held to a higher standard than all other transport sectors because its loads are sentient animals experiencing the most stressful moments of their lives.

In closing, we advocate for greater transparency and accountability in the agricultural sector. We've heard here today that there's a data deficiency. Electronic logs could be useful in collecting data that could then identify concerns and inform the enforcement of the health of animals regulations. This data could be shared with the CFIA, which could put resources toward addressing systemic problems.

We support an agricultural system that promotes safe, local production and slaughter and that doesn't rely on hauling animals cross-country multiple times during their short lives. We don't support a system that prioritizes the current supply chain structure over the welfare of hundreds of millions of animals that are raised and slaughtered for food.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

Thank you, Ms. Cartwright.

Of course, we have the Canadian Pork Council here, but they've already had their opening statement. Feel free to ask Mr. Schwindt any questions that you didn't get to ask during the first panel.

We are going to turn to questions, and I'll look to the Conservative side.

Mr. Barlow, we'll go over to you for six minutes.

[Barbara Cartwright]

I'm sorry. You missed a speaker.