Agriculture Committee on Nov. 9th, 2023

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

Thank you very much, and thank you, everyone, for being here.

I just want to get it on the record to make it clear to everyone that there are vehicles and trucks on the road right now that don't have ELDs. There are trucks still on the road and in service that don't have the technology to use ELDs. They are still using paper logbooks.

Is that correct?

[Corlena Patterson]

Yes. Although there were regulations that were required to be implemented by a certain date, I suspect there still are some making that transition. I would suspect it.

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

Scott, is that what you hear as well?

[Scott Ross]

It's my understanding as well, yes.

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

I'm just going to summarize some of the testimony we heard today.

I'm hearing that there needs to be more clarity. One recommendation that should probably come out of this committee would be to look at subsections 76(1) and 76(2) and make sure that the idea of animal safety will be taken into consideration in unforeseen circumstances. I would just like to get everyone to nod heads in agreement that this would be one of the recommendations that you expect from this committee.

A second one is something we've talked about. Obviously, regulations are a bit harder to change, and it's through Transport Canada and Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. Another thing we would like to see is more integration with what is going on in the U.S.A. We've heard that from the Canadian Federation of Agriculture.

I would like to know if your group has submitted anything to Transport Canada or Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada that is looking at trying to integrate some of those regulations.

The cross-border treaty we have with our largest trading partner, the U.S.A., is obviously significant, especially in the livestock sector. I'm wondering if you've had conversations with departments. If you have, how has that gone? Is your group planning to do a submission and have more conversations to make sure we can get those regulations more integrated with the U.S.A.?

[Scott Ross]

Yes. We have made submissions to the government, to Transport Canada, with respect to the needs on this front.

I would say that there are two components, one being the long-term need to harmonize regulations around that 240-kilometre radius, but the more immediate element we're talking about is more about guidance. It doesn't actually require a regulatory change.

Those conversations have been ongoing. I would suggest that they're not over yet. There's more to be done there, but we certainly have made this point very clear for some time now, and we continue to suggest that it is the most workable solution in front of us today.

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

Thank you very much, Scott.

We did have Transport Canada here. They said there's an interprovincial committee that looks at those guidelines for commercial vehicle hours of service. That committee would need to have meetings to come together to make sure there would be changes in those guidelines.

Has your group or any group submitted a request to that committee to have animal safety in unforeseen circumstances in those guidelines? If not, I would really urge you guys to do a submission to that interprovincial committee that reviews the commercial vehicle hours of service. Has anyone had conversations with that group so far?

[Scott Ross]

I can't speak to the broader network of organizations that are working together. There is a whole host of us working together on this, recognizing that this is of shared import for the entire livestock industry. I can't comment on what others have done.

Certainly the substance of that ask has been put forward to the government, with the understanding that whatever is required to make that happen is a reality, but I take your point. We can take that back and look at it further.

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

Thanks, Scott.

Next is Corlena.

[Corlena Patterson]

I have just a comment. We haven't submitted to the committee directly, but the national livestock groups have been working on this for over a year. We have a group that has met quite routinely and has communicated and met with both the agriculture and transport ministers' staff to discuss the issue.

It would be critically important, and here is why. On the guidance around whether that's an animal welfare issue, the inspectors are transport department inspectors, not animal welfare people, and the concern when you leave it to just guidance is that it becomes very subjective.

The gold standard would be a change in the regulation and, in the interim, some strong guidance. At a very minimum, the livestock sectors support Animal Health Canada's CLT division, Canadian Livestock Transport, which trains truck drivers on humane transportation.

If we want to provide guidance to Transport Canada folks in determining if there's an animal welfare issue, I see a great fit for them to be taking the training. I think we created a second tier for inspectors—government inspectors or whatever—to learn about what humane transport is through that. At a minimum, I would really encourage the committee to consider having inspectors use that as education on guidance.

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

That's perfect. Thank you very much. We'll make sure we have that in the recommendations.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, John Barlow]

Thanks, Ms. Patterson.

Thank you, Mr. Steinley.

Now we'll go to Mr. Drouin for five minutes, please.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I obviously want to thank the witnesses who are before us today on this important issue.

My questions will start with Dr. Reynen. I have some questions with regard to animal welfare.

We do find ourselves in a bit of a conundrum between CFIA regulations. With fully mature or weaned bovine, the maximum hours of transportation before a stop are 36 hours. With ELDs, we're saying 12 to 13 hours. There's a bit of flexibility, but if we were to add that clarity at 276 kilometres, we could say that's another extra three hours.

I am supportive of more clarity from ELDs. I am supportive of that, but when we advocate on the animal welfare issue, we would find ourselves, on the human transportation side, saying that you could drive up to perhaps a maximum of 19 hours in extreme cases before making a stop.

I'm just concerned with.... Obviously, there's the maximum number of hours—36 hours versus 19 hours—and if we go only on the maximum hours, if Transport Canada turns around and says, “Hey, CFIA, we're at 19 hours: Is this an animal welfare concern?”, CFIA would say, “No, because we don't care about anything below 36 hours. We don't care.”

Can you explain to this committee why there could be other animal welfare concerns, and that it's not necessarily around times but the impacts of times—unloading, for instance?

[Dr. Raymond Reynen]

This is an excellent question, and you nailed it. There's quite a big difference in what the rules are for the length of time for cattle transport and for the length of time for the person transporting the animals. There has been a study just released in the last year or two showing that if you compare animals with long-haul rest versus moderate-haul rest—moderate haul to come up to 36 hours—the animals actually did better with the long haul.

The problem was that when you stop and unload them and put them in a place they're not used to and then reload them, it's just like, “Oh, where is everything?”, and there's a lot of stress, even though there are food and water there. There's a lot of difference. They quite often don't get comfortable. They don't sit and eat and drink the way we expect them to.

The animals can tolerate longer travel. That was shown in that recent study, but we do have to work together, the two groups, and we realize that. We don't want to put drivers at risk, but the science is clear: We can go longer for the sake of the animal, but that truck is always moving. This is where a lot of the concern comes in. When we have an unplanned stop on the side of the 401 and it's 30°C with no air moving, that's a major problem.

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

Normally a truck driver would have a plan to get to a place where there's a mandatory stop. I'll use the last example of Ontario.

If we're going along from eastern Ontario—if I'm going from eastern Ontario to Manitoba or Saskatchewan, for instance—I know I'm going to have to stop in Thunder Bay, but I know already that I have to stop in between that. I would have to stop close to Wawa or a little further than that, past Sudbury, because I'd be at my max time.

What would the driver be doing then? Would it mean just stopping on the side of the road and resting for eight hours, and then the next day he or she goes back on the road and then has to stop because CFIA regulations kick in at the Thunder Bay stop?

[Dr. Raymond Reynen]

I can't speak exactly to what the truckers do. That's not my background from the veterinarians association. I do know that they try very hard to get to one of the truck stops, the animal rest stops, and use them and go on and always comply with the human transport part of it.

There are better people than I am to answer what they do day to day.

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

That's great. Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to address you by video conference.

After several meetings with stakeholders, it is my understanding that the people at Transport Canada listened to your demands. They told you loud and clear that you were already covered by the regulations.

However, we know full well that in Canada, for example, we can drive 100 kilometres an hour without being stopped by the police. We can even drive up to 118 kilometres an hour on autoroute 40 or autoroute 20 in Quebec without worrying about the police. However, under the law, the speed limit is 100 kilometres an hour.

What you are looking for is clarification from Transport Canada to prevent livestock haulers from getting in trouble.

Is that it?

[Pierre Lampron]

That is exactly it.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, John Barlow]

Give a fast, quick answer, Mr. Lampron, please.

[Pierre Lampron]

We do not want to be at the mercy of how an inspector might interpret the regulations. It is in our interest for this to be clear, including for the well being of the animals. Drivers need to know what to expect, instead of wondering where a rule applies or not. There needs to be a clear and universal rule in Canada so that everyone is on the same page.

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

Thank you.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, John Barlow]

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr. Drouin,

Mr. Perron, you have two and a half minutes, please.

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

Thank you, Chair.

Mr. Lampron, I invite you to finish your response. Essentially, you want clarification in writing so that this is not subject to the interpretation of each inspector.

Is that it?

[Pierre Lampron]

We can do that, but what we want is for this to be clear.

As Mr. Drouin was saying, transportation cannot be carried out any which way. We want to obey the rules. However, if there are unforeseen circumstances, let us find a way to say that a driver cannot stop just anywhere because, for the well being of the animal, the trucks need to keep moving for the ventilation to work.

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

Thank you, Mr. Lampron.

Mr. Reynen, your presentation was very interesting and your presence here is extremely important. We often talk about veterinarians, but we do not often talk to them. I am pleased to talk to you this morning.

I would like your thoughts on the questions I raised earlier on regional processing and having more processing plants, which would be spread out better. This may pose a problem for your profession in terms of inspections.

I would like your thoughts on that.