Agriculture Committee on Nov. 2nd, 2023

[Dr. Mary Jane Ireland]

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

I don't have the template in front of me. I will say that we have worked extensively with the different associations on all elements of the regulations and implementation. We have provided many tools, including a contingency plan template, to help them understand what things they should think about.

Really, they need to think about what they will do if their truck breaks down. What will happen if the weather changes? What will happen if there's a road closure? What happens if there are delays at the border?

These contingency plans are really thinking about the “what ifs” so that they can continue to provide care for the animals in their possession in their trailers.

It's just one tool of many, in fact, that we've developed with industry over many years to help them come into compliance with the regulation, understand best practices and really facilitate what we're all trying to achieve, which is to really prevent unnecessary or avoidable suffering for animals in everyone's care.

[Tim Louis, Liberal, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

I have just a few seconds left.

I appreciate this.

I was going to ask if you saw patterns of people who are seeking that guidance on frequency and severity. In the last few seconds, can you put forward some of those categories where the subjectivity could be at play here?

[Dr. Mary Jane Ireland]

Sure. The unforeseen circumstances would be weather conditions, inclement weather, a storm, a road that is closed, an issue with the driver or a medical condition. There are a number of factors that our inspectors would consider if someone was found to have gone over the feed, water and rest times.

If you're a trucker and you have beef cattle, you should have offered the animals feed, water and rest after 36 hours. If it is 42 hours, the CFIA inspectors would ask questions. Why did it go over the 36 hours? What were the circumstances? They would use their discretion to determine whether the outcomes.... What was the severity of the outcomes? Were the animals in good shape coming off the trailer? Is this a consistent pattern that this particular trucker was seen to follow? Was he or she always going over 40 hours?

There are a number of factors that our inspectors look at, and they use judgment, because we all understand that things can happen and things can go wrong with the transportation of animals.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

Thank you, Dr. Ireland.

Thank you, Mr. Louis.

Mr. Perron, you now have the floor for two and a half minutes.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Again, thank you to the witnesses for being here.

Mr. Chair, I will use my time to move the motion that I put on notice on September 15, 2023. Since I do not wish to show any disrespect to the witnesses who have travelled here this morning, I am not asking that we debate the motion right away. I am just moving it. That way, we will be able to continue our study. Respect for others is important to me. However, it is also important to publicly announce the motion, because there are people in the agricultural sector who are currently in distress and who have been crying out for help for a long time. The vegetable sector has been asking for help since July. I want to be able to tell them that something is going to happen at the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food to support them. The motion reads as follows:

That, in accordance with Standing Order 108(2), the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food undertake a study on insurance programs and federal assistance granted to the horticultural sector, which is more directly affected by climate hazards; that as part of this study, the committee address the effectiveness of insurance programs and the one-time assistance granted, as well as possible solutions to be developed for greater climate resilience, such as climate adaptation measures and programs to better support the horticultural sector in dealing with climate change; that the committee devote at least six meetings to this study; that the committee hear from witnesses on this issue; that it report its observations and recommendations to the House and that, in accordance with Standing Order 109, the committee request that the government table a comprehensive response to the report.

Obviously, later, when we go in camera, my colleagues will have some flexibility as to the final wording and the number of meetings, among other things. I think it's very important that we look at this.

I know that requests have been made to the Government of Quebec, among others, and we could see a request. At some point, the federal government will have to give a signal. These are jointly financed insurance programs, and we will have to support our people. We will not be able to ask our producers to invest $2 or 3 million in their fields in the spring, only to then tell them that if they have problems during the rest of the year, it's too bad for them. If we do that, they will look at other ways of making a living. Our food security and the most basic respect for the people who feed us are at stake here.

Mr. Chair, I managed to stay within the two and a half minutes allotted to me. I did well.

Thank you to the witnesses. I apologize for not asking them any more questions, but I'm sure they understand why.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

Thank you very much, Mr. Perron.

Of course, we will have time to discuss committee business after we hear from the witnesses.

Thank you very much. We'll have to look at that carefully.

Mr. MacGregor, you now have the floor for two and a half minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My question is for Transport Canada.

When two sides are negotiating, they both have their starting positions in the matter. From the regulator's position, do you feel that the industry needs to do more? It comes down to foreseen and unforeseen circumstances.

This committee has looked at Canada's processing capacity. We know it's dominated by just two corporate entities. We've seen a lot of plants shut down, so the industry has become more concentrated. We've lost a lot of capacity in small, rural communities, often with devastating economic results.

Do the regulators feel that the industry needs to step up a bit more in some of these areas? Is that a starting position?

[Melanie Vanstone]

Thank you for the question.

I don't think it's within the mandate of Transport Canada to take a position on the industry decisions. Our focus is very much on protecting road safety and ensuring, particularly in the context of fatigue, that drivers are driving safely on our roads, for their own safety and the safety of the travelling public.

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

I'll leave it there, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

We are going to go to our final round, so to speak.

We'll turn it over to the Conservatives.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I appreciate my NDP colleague's questions, as I have Cargill meat processors literally in my backyard, and I understand how much truck traffic goes by my place. I would certainly love to see additional processing capacity in Canada. We need to worry about interprovincial trade barriers to get that done too. It's a good topic for discussion, certainly.

Dr. Ireland, you mentioned it briefly in one of your answers, but I want you to expand on it a little bit.

One of the interesting comments from previous witnesses was that the livestock transportation industry needs to plan better. When you see Highway 1 near Thunder Bay, for example, where they go to The Barn as one of the main hubs, the Trans-Canada Highway is a one-lane highway with no shoulders. Certainly the weather in that area can be unpredictable and unforeseeable, let's say.

Is it more impactful or more harmful for cattle if you are loading and unloading? Is it better for their health to keep them on the truck rather than having to unload and load them multiple times?

[Dr. Mary Jane Ireland]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate the question.

We developed the humane transport regulations based on the best available science and from an incredible amount of literature, information and evidence.

We determined that the feed, water and rest prescriptive times in regulation, as I mentioned, for older beef cattle would be 36 hours; for pigs, 28 hours; and for young ruminants, two hours. We based those times on information and science around animal health and welfare.

What we are saying with these regulations is that feed, water and rest must be given after that length of time. Transporters need to plan around that. There are some—arguably, not enough—infrastructure locations like The Barn where animals can be off-loaded and allowed to rest and reloaded and taken to their end location.

The industry needs to plan. You're correct. I think the livestock transport sector has one of the most complex planning and logistics for animals because of the multiple regulatory frameworks and the long distances that they need to take animals.

Those times and the ability to off-load and rest and reload are there for animal welfare, so we don't have nutritional deficits, exhausted animals, and so we have animals coming off the truck and going into our food system in good shape.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Thanks, Dr. Ireland.

I have one last quick question.

How many other infrastructure facilities like The Barn are there in Canada, where there is a designated facility to load and unload animals?

[Dr. Mary Jane Ireland]

Thanks.

I have some indication here in my notes of the locations, but we can provide more later.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

If you wouldn't mind tabling that with the committee, that would be great.

[Dr. Mary Jane Ireland]

We do know there's one in Thunder Bay called The Barn, in central Canada, and another location in the Hearst-Hallébourg area.

Those are privately run, owned and operated facilities that offer a location for animals to rest before they carry on for their trip.

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

Thank you very much.

I have a question for Ms. Vanstone.

In 1976, there were 400 slaughter facilities across Canada. In 2015, there were 30.

When you were talking about the exemption that is currently in place in the United States of 150 miles, you said that a lot of people take advantage of that. Most of the people I've talked to in the trucking industry who haul livestock go much, much farther than 150 miles.

Three of biggest facilities they go to would be Cargill in Guelph, JBS in Winnipeg and Harmony in Calgary.

To think that there would be a lot of people taking advantage of the 150 miles from departure to destination, with our current infrastructure in the livestock industry, would be a bit of an exaggeration.

Did Transport Canada take into consideration, when we looked at the guiding principles in subsection 76(1), that the facilities have gone from 400 down to 30?

[Melanie Vanstone]

Our regulations are agnostic to the load that is being carried. That is why, as I mentioned, there is a possibility, through section 16 of the act, for us to be able to work with industries that have unique needs rather than building that into the regulations themselves.

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

Thank you.

Mr. Chair, I think that gets to the heart of the problem. You shouldn't be agnostic. I think there's a big difference between hauling diapers and hauling livestock. Sometimes you have to make those decisions as a truck driver. There's a lot of stress put on truck drivers in trying to make that decision: Do I push it a little bit and get to my final destination to make sure that it is in the best interests of the cattle? If I do that, will a law enforcement officer...?

We're not talking about adjusting the hours of transportation for the animals. We're talking about the drivers. Let's make that clear. That's the issue they face.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

Thank you, Mr. Steinley.

Colleagues, I'm going to take a round here, and I appreciate my Liberal colleagues permitting me that opportunity.

I want to ask about section 16. This is an exemption, Ms. Vanstone, that you have talked about. The industry was very clear that they are not necessarily seeking an exemption. They're looking for further policy guidance on compliance to ensure there is some understanding that there can be situations beyond the 13 hours when it might be more favourable to finish the trip to maintain the security of the load. They were trying to make sure that maintaining of security of the load applied in an agriculture and a livestock context.

One thing that was very apparent to me during the meeting was that Transport Canada was asking for statistics and information to round out the exemption.

You mentioned to this committee, Ms. Vanstone, that you don't have the data yourself. I know you're a member through Transport Canada. It sits on the CCMTA. If you don't have that information, how would we expect industry to necessarily gather it? What do you envision industry doing to help justify the section 16 exemption, if that was the direction they wanted to go?

[Melanie Vanstone]

Some of the information that we have requested would be understanding the typical routes, what the typical route planning looks like, the time required and where feeding locations are. That's some of the kind of information that we have requested from industry.

With respect to the enforcement information itself, individual provincial and territorial jurisdictions would gather enforcement information within their own jurisdiction that they could bring to bear at CCMTA discussions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

What is the current policy guidance for enforcement? You mentioned that it's provincial. What does that look like? Let's say in Saskatchewan or Alberta, who enforces this when truck drivers...? I guess it would be the provincial truck folks under that department.

Can you get information to this committee about how often there are violations in that space? Not even violations.... There is a requirement under the regulations that if you had to go above and beyond the 13 hours, under the definition of section 76 in the regulations, for the benefit and the security of the load or the safety of the occupant of the vehicle, you at least have to record that, but you don't have that information. Is that something you could get to this committee? Is that something this committee could request from the CCMTA?

[Melanie Vanstone]

I don't have the information. It would be held by provincial and territorial enforcement agencies. That would typically either be a transportation ministry enforcement group or potentially, in some situations, it might be law enforcement like police or the RCMP who may have interacted with a driver.

The way that data would be collected at this point in time is in hours of service violation, so I don't know that the data would necessarily distinguish.... There is a requirement to have an ELD, but then the ELD is simply the way that those hours are recorded, so we would see them recorded as hours of service violations. I'm not sure if the data distinguishes the type of transport entity.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

What guidance is given? Let's say it's an Alberta individual, an inspector working under the department of transportation, for example. They meet a truck driver who is 100 kilometres away from finishing the destination who is at 12 hours and 55 minutes. What guidance is an officer given there about discretion?

Ms. Ireland talked about unforeseen circumstances—I think those are very clear—where those could be done, but industry standards can do just as well, right? Let's say on average someone goes to pick up calves at a certain feedlot and normally it takes an hour, but, for whatever reason in this particular process within the industry, it took three hours. I didn't hear that as being an unforeseen circumstance. How would the officers handle that?

What I thought was pretty compelling testimony last week was that there is a desire to make sure that drivers are not put in a situation where they could be potentially violating the rules, but they're within 75 kilometres or 100 kilometres of finishing their trip. What guidance are those officers given in Alberta, Saskatchewan and Nova Scotia, whatever the case may be?

[Melanie Vanstone]

All enforcement officers should have access to the Canadian Council of Motor Transport Administrators' application guide for enforcement. I can provide the committee with a copy of that guide. Section 76 talks about “emergencies and adverse driving conditions”, so there is guidance. I don't want to take the time of the committee to read through all the details, but that is consistent. That guide is provided to enforcement officers across the country.

Again, the enforcement officers, as they do with CFIA regulations, obviously have a certain amount of discretion in asking a driver questions and determining, in individual cases, what the appropriate enforcement action would be.