Canada Gazette

The purpose of the Health of Animals Act and Regulations is to prevent the introduction of animal diseases into Canada and to prevent the spread within Canada of diseases of animals that either affect human health or could have a significant economic effect on the Canadian livestock industry.

The purpose of Part XII of the Health of Animals Regulations (the Regulations) is to regulate animal transportation in Canada by setting reasonable standards of care that address the welfare of animals in transit. Currently, the Regulations prohibit the loading or transport of compromised animals that cannot be transported without undue suffering during the expected journey. A compromised animal is any animal with reduced capacity to withstand the stress of transportation due to injury, fatigue, infirmity, poor health, distress, very young or old age, impending birth or any other cause. Non-ambulatory animals (those that are unable to stand without assistance or move without being dragged or carried) are an extreme example of a compromised animal.

There have been problems noted with the interpretation of the requirements. The current Regulations do not provide a standard for judging at what point animals should be considered to be compromised, nor what activities would tend to result in undue suffering to the animal in question.

People who are involved in the handling and transportation of livestock in Canada do not share a common understanding of what constitutes "fitness for transportation" in regard to non-ambulatory or "downer" livestock. Similarly, there is a wide range of opinion on the acceptability of loading an animal whose capacity to withstand the stress of transport is in some way compromised by factors such as lameness and poor condition. Conflicting views among and within various sectors and organizations have led to inconsistent decisions and practices. There is a need for a common understanding of what is and what is not acceptable relative to the transportation of livestock that are at risk of exposure to undue suffering or injury because of poor health or physical conditions such as lameness and inability to rise.

The Canadian Food Inspection Agency recently conducted two national, non-statistical surveys, focusing on inspection sites at slaughter facilities and auction markets across Canada. Only a portion of all such federally inspected facilities is represented in the studies. The goal was to obtain a general idea of the incidence of non-ambulatory cattle and pigs transported to federally inspected slaughter plants and auction markets. During the calendar year 2001, 7 382 non-ambulatory cattle were observed arriving at these sites. Of these cattle, 89.8 percent were classified as dairy while 10.2 percent were classified as beef. In 2001, the total number of cattle slaughtered in the 31 Canadian federally inspected plants was 3 235 517. The data strongly suggested that the vast majority of non-ambulatory cattle originated on-farm, with less than 1 percent occurring in transit or accidentally. Inspection led to carcass condemnation in 37 percent of the non-ambulatory dairy animals.

The survey on market hogs and cull sows concentrated on 35 inspection sites across Canada, representing 22 slaughter facilities and 13 auction markets and assembly facilities. Over a period of two months in 2003, a total of 3 433 823 hogs and sows were inspected, of which 4 684 were observed to be non-ambulatory on arrival (322 sows and 4 362 market hogs). After inspection, 1 284 of all non-ambulatory animals had to be fully condemned (47 sows, 1 237 market hogs). Of the non-ambulatory animals, 1 508 carcasses were partially condemned (49 sows, 1 459 market hogs). This means that six out of ten non-ambulatory pigs arriving at these facilities resulted in carcasses that had to be at least partially condemned. The data submitted also indicate that the pigs became non-ambulatory in almost equal numbers on the farm and during transit. On the farm, 1 547 market hogs and 117 sows were non-ambulatory. In assembly yards, 32 market hogs and 2 sows were found to have become non-ambulatory. During transportation, 1 236 market hogs and 136 sows were found to have become non-ambulatory.

The purpose of this amendment is to add a clear prohibition against the transportation of non-ambulatory animals. This prohibition would apply to livestock as well as animals of the cervid, camelid and ratite species. It is proposed, however, to allow non-ambulatory animals to be transported for the purpose of veterinary treatment or testing.

The problems noted with enforcement due to the lack of consensus surrounding the point at which an animal is unfit to be transported would remain.

The use of the Agriculture and Agri-Food Administrative Monetary Penalties Act for violations of this part of the Regulations as intended will also remain questionable due to the fact that violations are decided on the basis of "absolute liability." As stated by the courts in the decisions cited, the inclusion of the words "likely to cause" in many of the prohibition sections implies an element of foresee-ability. The need to prove foresee-ability and the use of an absolute liability administrative process for enforcement would appear to contradict each other. The lack of statutory standards of care, conduct and in some cases standards for space requirements or equipment on which to base decisions about violations would also appear to conflict with the absolute liability nature of the Agriculture and Agri-Food Administrative Monetary Penalties Act.

Option 2. Amend Part XII of the Health of Animals Regulations to add expected standards of care

The introduction of specific, clear requirements with respect to the transportation of non-ambulatory animals will allow regulatees to understand the standards of conduct expected of them in order to be in a better position to comply with the requirements. This will make the requirements more easily enforceable, and will allow the use of AMPs as an enforcement tool.

This is a "significant" regulatory proposal because of the cost between $100,000 and $50 million, mainly to the cattle industry and pork industry, and the high degree of acceptance by the majority of stakeholders.

Since the Regulations were initially drafted in 1975, animal welfare awareness has been increasing significantly. Various stakeholders have been pressuring the CFIA to strengthen its enforcement of animal welfare guidelines. Internationally, the Europeen Union and other countries are also strengthening their animal welfare regulations in response to increasing animal welfare concerns.

When consumers purchase meat products, they are not aware of the way the animal was treated for that particular purchase, since that information is not available to them. Consequently, consumers cannot choose based on the welfare of the animal. Part of the industry has not met this consumer concern. However, an Ipsos-Reid survey conducted in February 2001 indicated that 57 percent of respondents would pay 5 percent more for meat and poultry products labelled "humanely raised."

Less than optimal levels of animal welfare can justify government intervention, if action by the private sector or other public sector entities is not working. The CFIA could act in the public interest by increasing animal welfare.

A prohibition against transporting non-ambulatory livestock would clarify that these animals are unfit for transport. This would bring about needed uniformity in decision-making across Canada, thereby avoiding unnecessary animal suffering, reducing enforcement costs and increasing consumer acceptance.

For the livestock and poultry sectors, increased compliance will result in increased product quality and consumer satisfaction. Increased compliance will reduce injuries and result in less mortality. This, in turn, will reduce insurance claims and costs to industry, subsequently decreasing the costs passed on to consumers. The quality of products derived from animals transported under less stressful conditions will be improved. The frequency of conditions such as bruising can be expected to decrease. Productivity and quality gains will occur due to decreases in stress, bruising, injuries and mortality. There will also be improved veterinary care, earlier culling and other preventive practices.

Corporate fast food retailers and grocery chains are establishing their own animal welfare requirements, which their suppliers must meet. In 2002, the Canadian Council of Grocery Distributors issued a report urging Canadian industry to implement Canadian on-farm standards.

Regulatory requirements that are clearly and easily understood will result in a better understanding of the transportation requirements. This will make it easier

These amendments have potential benefits for Canada's international trade and image. Some countries are taking measures to protect their export markets by addressing animal welfare concerns. New Zealand depends heavily on exports of animals and animal products. Recently, the New Zealand government has referenced the national codes of practice for the care and handling of animals in their national animal welfare legislation. Canada is also heavily dependent on export markets for sales of its animals and animal products. For instance, Canada exported approximately 58 percent of its beef production in the year 2001. Furthermore, Canada's international image relative to animal welfare may be enhanced as a result of improved enforcement and clear regulatory standards.

International animal welfare initiatives are converging towards what could eventually become international on-farm and other animal welfare standards. In the United States, slaughter plant assessments by Temple Grandin, the new regulations for the transportation of slaughter horses, effective February 2002, and recent animal welfare standards adopted within the retail sector are just a few indications of an accelerating growth in interest in animal welfare. The International Air Transport Association (IATA) has international Live Animals Regulations for the transportation of animals by air. The Convention on the International Trade in Endangered Species has a Transport Working Group that collaborates with IATA. The International Standards Association has trapping standards for some wild fur-bearing species.

Some countries are asking the World Trade Organization to recognize animal welfare as an international trade factor. The WTO recognizes the World Organization for Animal Health (OIE) as the international standards-setting organization for animal health. The OIE hosted the first Global Conference on Animal Welfare in February 2004. The first of its kind, the meeting brought together 166 member countries. Participants focussed on developing international standards and guidelines on the welfare of animals. The proposed changes will position Canada favorably in the event that international standards and guidelines are established.

These Regulations would cause the cost of enforcement to be lower in the longer term, as industry compliance improves in response to surveillance, enforcement and educational initiatives. They would also increase the possibility for regulatees to know what standards are expected of them, and so should make compliance easier and decrease the risk of non-compliance and associated penalties.

In the short term, there will be increased enforcement costs and costs associated with increasing industry awareness.

There will be increased costs to industry resulting from the revised section 138 which prohibits non-ambulatory animals from being transported. For example, currently, a seller can obtain approximately $250 (variable) for a non-ambulatory cow that is not condemned at slaughter. If the seller disposes of the animal through a dead stock removal service, he may have to pay as much as $100 (variable) to have the carcass removed. Other methods of disposal such as burial are usually prohibited.

In summary, the small potential salvage value does not justify the animal's suffering, reduced meat quality, and negative impact on the image of the Canadian livestock industry that are associated with the transportation of non-ambulatory livestock.

The Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) recently conducted national multi-stakeholder consultations on the transportation of livestock that are non-ambulatory or at risk of becoming non-ambulatory during transport. Beginning September 26, 2003, information packages were sent out to organizations, groups and individuals representing the following sectors:

Producers (or equivalent)
Livestock transporters or forwarders
Processors
Rest stops
Federal and provincial governments
Animal protection organizations
Veterinarians and veterinary associations
Researchers
Livestock specialists
Retail and consumer groups

In summary, stakeholder comments indicate that the small potential salvage value does not justify the animal's suffering, human health hazards, reduced meat quality, and negative impact on the image of the Canadian livestock industry that are associated with the loading of non-ambulatory livestock. Referenced scientific literature and numerous examples from practical experience support this conclusion.

Paragraph 138(2)(a) of the Health of Animals Regulations currently prohibits the loading and transport of animals that are unfit and specifies conditions such as infirmity, illness, injury, fatigue or any other cause. As it stands, the CFIA has spent significant time and resources in developing a specialized training module for inspection staff engaged in the regulation of the animal transportation industry. Staff with this training are well-qualified to enforce the existing regulation. An outright prohibition on loading or transporting non-ambulatory animals is prima facie a less difficult charge to prove. Existing methodology and training does and will continue to address the need to enforce these new Regulations.

These proposed regulations should have the effect of decreasing the incidence of injury or death to animals being transported in Canada. The decrease in the need to dispose of animals that have died during transport should have a slight positive impact on the environment.

Gord Doonan, Rick Sauder or Martin Appelt, Enforcement and Investigation Services/Animal Health and Production Division, Canadian Food Inspection Office, (613) 225-2342 (extension 4608) [telephone], (613) 228-6630 (facsimile).

Notice is hereby given that the Governor in Council, pursuant to subsection 64(1) (see footnote a) of the Health of Animals Act (see footnote b), proposes to make the annexed Regulations Amending the Health of Animals Regulations.

Interested persons may make representations respecting the proposed Regulations within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. All such representations must cite the Canada Gazette, Part I, and the date of publication of this notice, and be addressed to Dr. G. Doonan, Chief, Humane Transportation of Animals, Canadian Food Inspection Agency, 59 Camelot Drive, Ottawa, Ontario, K1A 0Y9 (Tel.: (613) 225-2342 (4620); Fax: (613) 228-6637; E-mail: gdoonan@inspection.gc.ca).

1. Section 2 of the Health of Animals Regulations (see footnote 1) is amended by adding the following in alphabetical order:

"non-ambulatory animal" means an animal of the bovine, caprine, cervid, camelid, equine, ovine, porcine or ratite species that is unable to stand without assistance or to move without being dragged or carried. (animal non ambulatoire)

2. Section 138 of the Regulations is amended by adding the following after subsection (2):

(2.1) For the purpose of paragraph (2)(a), a non-ambulatory animal is an animal that cannot be transported without undue suffering during the expected journey.

(2.2) Despite paragraph (2)(a), a non-ambulatory animal may be transported for veterinary treatment or diagnosis on the advice of a veterinarian or to the nearest suitable place at which it can receive proper care and attention.

3. These Regulations come into force on the day on which they are registered.