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.