Vol. 150, No. 49 — December 3, 2016

Regulations Amending the Health of Animals Regulations

Statutory authority

Health of Animals Act

Sponsoring agency

Canadian Food Inspection Agency

REGULATORY IMPACT ANALYSIS STATEMENT

(This statement is not part of the Regulations.)

Executive summary

Issues: The current provisions of the Health of Animals Regulations (HAR or the Regulations) dealing with the transportation of animals do not reflect current science regarding the care and handling of animals, do not align with the standards of Canada’s international trading partners, and are not aligned with the World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) welfare standards for animals transported by land, air, and sea. This leads to a continuing risk that animals will suffer during transportation.

Description: The HAR would be amended to

  • Provide clarification by adding definitions (for example definitions for compromised and unfit animals) and establishing clear requirements for regulated parties to better understand what is expected of them;
  • Improve animal welfare and reduce risk of suffering during transportation by establishing clear and science-informed requirements that better reflect animals’ needs and current industry practices;
  • Better align with the standards of Canada’s international trading partners and the OIE animal welfare standards for animals transported by land, air, and sea; and
  • Remove obsolete or unnecessary requirements to reduce the burden on the industry.

Cost-benefit statement: It is anticipated that a small portion of commercial carriers that transport animals by land would bear additional costs, as an estimated 98% of all shipments are already in compliance with the proposed amendments. Some processors in the poultry industry may experience incremental costs associated with changes in management practices, but will realize cost savings in relation to the benefits resulting from these changes. The present value of the total industry costs is estimated to be approximately $3.9 million.

In addition to improving animal welfare, the proposed amendments would reduce transport losses and improve marketability and product quality, leading to benefits for consumers.

“One-for-One” Rule and small business lens: The “One-for-One” Rule would apply to the proposed amendments. The total administrative cost increase is estimated to have an annualized value of approximately $320,000. The small business lens would also apply. The total cost savings of the flexible option for small business is estimated to have an annualized value of approximately $87,000.

Domestic and international coordination and co-operation: Protecting animal welfare in Canada is a shared responsibility between federal, provincial and territorial governments, producers, transporters, processors, retailers, and many other stakeholders.

The proposed amendments to the HAR would significantly improve alignment with the OIE animal welfare standards for animals transported by land, air and sea. Furthermore, based on a comparative review conducted by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA), the proposals respecting feed, water and rest would align Canada’s regulatory outcomes more closely with those of its trading partners, such as New Zealand, Australia, the United States, and the European Union (EU).

Background

Animals are valued by people for social, cultural, economic and emotional reasons. They provide food, fibre, and companionship; are used in sport, recreation, education, and scientific study; and have increasing importance as aesthetic assets in their own right.

Canadians strongly support animal-handling processes that allow animals to express normal behaviours and do not result in animal pain, injury, or ill health. (see footnote 1) Good animal welfare practices contribute to reduced food safety risks and increased environmental sustainability by reducing the risk of disease. (see footnote 2) Similarly, poor animal welfare practices can contribute to economic losses. (see footnote 3)

The transportation of animals in Canada is a complex and wide-ranging activity carried out by a diverse set of stakeholders. Humane transportation of animals is a shared responsibility between several partners, including owners, producers, buyers, sellers, auction markets, assembly points, abattoirs, and transporters. Businesses range from small operators that move one animal to vertically integrated systems that transport multiple animals over short and long distances. It is estimated that 700 million animals are transported per year in Canada.

Transportation is an unfamiliar event for animals that can cause significant anxiety. (see footnote 4) Poor welfare leads to increased physiological and psychological stress, which in turn can lead to increased susceptibility to disease among animals and increased shedding of pathogens due to increased intestinal motility. This poses a risk to human and animal health. (see footnote 5)

Animals are transported, sometimes for long distances, for many reasons, including breeding, shows, feeding, sale, and slaughter. The continual consolidation of growing and finishing operations in the Canadian agriculture sector, as well as processing plants, has contributed to an increase in the distances animals are transported to reach production points. For example, the number of federal facilities processing beef decreased from 400 in 1976 to 30 in 2015. Similar consolidation has occurred at the farm level. For example, the number of farms decreased by 45.8% between 1976 and 2001. (see footnote 6)

Due to these increased distances, animals may be loaded and unloaded multiple times, over prolonged periods, and can be exposed to adverse environmental conditions such as excessive heat, cold, snow, and rain. The equipment used to transport animals is similarly varied, ranging from home-made trailers to commercial stock liners to containerized jumbo jets and specialized ships.

Part XII (Transportation of Animals) of the Health of Animals Regulations (HAR), which was first passed into law in 1977 pursuant to the authorities of the Health of Animals Act (the Act), regulates animal transportation, including the loading and unloading of animals within Canada as well as entering into or leaving Canada, by imposing requirements on those individuals involved in the transportation of animals and setting out prohibitions to address the welfare (humane treatment) of animals during transportation.

Issues

Part XII of the HAR was enacted to address animal welfare problems encountered during the long distance transport of cattle by rail. At the time, there was little research or information pertaining to the effects or risks of transportation on the well-being of animals. The provisions of the HAR were consequently written in general terms, using words such as “undue” as it applies to suffering, to qualify prohibitions. This can lead to inappropriate decisions, such as loading animals deemed unfit for transportation or loading compromised animals for transportation over long distances without special measures. This, in turn, may increase the risk of animal welfare issues.

By extrapolating from the rate of compliance in inspection data, it can be estimated that 2% of all shipments of animals being transported in Canada are not in compliance with the current regulatory requirements. This represents an estimated 14 million animals per year that may be suffering during transportation, of which 1.59 million animals per year are reported as dead on arrival at their final destination. Given the strong public support for preventing the suffering of animals, and the risk to human and animal health, this must be addressed.

More recent scientific evidence shows that transportation can be one of the most stressful experiences for animals, when animal welfare is not taken into account and addressed. (see footnote 7) The HAR do not reflect current science regarding the care and handling of animals, and frequently do not take the physical, behavioural, and physiological needs of animals into consideration. In addition, the HAR do not consistently align with current, generally accepted industry practices. The joint industry– government National Farm Animal Care Council (NFACC) develops codes of practice, which are nationally developed guidelines for the care and handling of farm animals. A code of practice for the transportation of farm animals was released in 2001. While the transportation code of practice considered the current requirements of the HAR when it was drafted, the recommendations in more recent codes of practice for the care and handling of farm animals meet, and in certain circumstances exceed, the requirements of the HAR.

Finally, the HAR do not consistently meet the standards of Canada’s international trading partners, such as the United States and the European Union (EU), and are not adequately aligned with the World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) welfare standards for animals transported by land, air and sea. As a member country of the OIE, Canada is expected to meet or exceed OIE standards. This lack of alignment could compromise market access for Canadian products in the future. For example, a recent European survey concluded that 93% of Europeans agree it is important to establish animal welfare standards that apply to products sourced from within and outside of the EU. (see footnote 8)

Objectives

The proposed amendments to the HAR would

  • Move towards a more outcome-based regulatory framework (for example replacing the requirement for a plane to “provide a change of air not less than once every five minutes” with a requirement to provide “adequate ventilation to prevent injury, suffering or death”), which would give regulated parties greater flexibility to apply technological advances in transportation, while maintaining high standards for animal welfare;
  • Clarify expectations and better reflect new science regarding the care and handling of animals, thereby reducing the risk to animal welfare during loading, transportation, and unloading;
  • Better align Canada’s requirements with those of other jurisdictions (for example the United States, Australia and the EU) and the OIE’s animal welfare standards for animals transported by land, air and sea; and
  • Satisfy Canadian societal expectations regarding the responsible care of farm animals and the humane treatment of animals during transport, including loading and unloading.

Description

The HAR would be amended to

  • Provide clarification by adding definitions (for example definitions of compromised and unfit animals) and establishing clear requirements for regulated parties to better understand what is expected of them;
  • Improve animal welfare and reduce the risk of suffering during transportation by establishing clear and science-informed requirements that better reflect animal needs and current industry practices;
  • Better align with the standards of Canada’s international trading partners and the OIE’s animal welfare standards for animals transported by land, air, and sea; and
  • Remove obsolete or unnecessary requirements.
Clarifications — definitions and outcomes

The proposed amendments would provide clear requirements for animal transportation to allow regulated parties to better understand what is required of them to be in compliance. The proposed amendments would establish either prescriptive requirements (in which case the process or procedure requirements are defined in regulation) or outcome-based requirements (in which case the required outcome or level of performance is defined in regulation), where appropriate. Prescriptive requirements would be established in cases where any alternative to the prescriptive requirements or ambiguity would predictably result in animal suffering, injury, or death. In other situations, outcome-based amendments were deemed appropriate for obtaining desired results.

(i) Definitions and outcomes for “compromised” and “unfit” animals

Definitions for both “compromised” and “unfit” would clarify whether an animal could be transported with special measures (compromised) or not transported at all (unfit).

The proposed amendments state that compromised animals can be transported provided that they are segregated from other animals; that measures are taken to avoid injury, death, or suffering; and that the animals are transported directly to the nearest place, other than an auction market or assembly yard, where they can receive care, receive treatment, or be humanely killed. A compromised animal may be transported with one other animal with which it is familiar. A list of conditions that would mean an animal has an impaired capacity or is in a compromised state would be provided in the amendment as part of the proposed definition.

Unfit animals would only be able to be transported for diagnosis, care or treatment on the advice of a veterinarian. A list of conditions that would mean an animal is unfit would be provided as part of the proposed definition.

To prevent suffering or further injury, the proposal also includes options for how an animal is to be treated, cared for, or humanely killed when it is found to be in a compromised or unfit condition on board a vessel, in a conveyance or in a container during transportation. The options provide for some flexibility when situations arise in which an animal’s status changes during transportation.

Provisions are proposed that would clarify when the activities of loading and unloading would be considered to begin and end, which should contribute to defining critical periods when transfer of responsibility for the animal’s care occurs between regulated parties.

A definition of confinement is also proposed to support improving animal welfare. The proposed definition would include the period of time an animal is held in a container prior to being placed on a conveyance, the period during transportation, and the period of time after the container is removed from the conveyance.

(ii) Clearer, science-informed standards of conduct

As stated previously, the current HAR are written in general terms, which may lead to misunderstanding of the required conduct for ensuring animal welfare. In order to address this, provisions in the proposed regulatory amendments described below would provide clear standards of conduct for regulated parties.

Knowledge, skills, and training

The proposed amendments would establish standards of knowledge and of care in the Health of Animals Regulations (the Regulations) for any person loading, transporting, or unloading animals.

Commercial carriers would be responsible for training, or ensuring that training is or has been received by, their employees or agents to conduct activities in compliance with Part XII of the HAR. The training would cover animal behaviour, animal handling, restraint, loading densities, and transportation methods for the species being transported, as well as risk factors that can impact animal welfare and contingency plans.

Risk factors and contingency planning

There are a number of interrelated factors that must be included in a regulatory framework if animals are to be transported safely and humanely. Therefore, it is proposed that any person loading, transporting, or unloading animals would be required, prior to loading, transporting, or unloading, to assess risk factors that could reasonably be viewed as having an impact on the animal’s capacity to withstand the loading, transportation and unloading (for example foreseeable weather conditions, duration of transportation, loading density).

As a complementary element to this risk factor assessment prior to loading, it is further proposed that every person who transports an animal, or causes one to be transported, establish a contingency plan for unanticipated events, for example what to do in case of a mechanical failure while en route. This contingency plan would need to be communicated to any person involved with the loading, transportation, or unloading of animals.

Having a contingency plan would support mitigating the risk of injury, suffering, or death of an animal on the conveyance should an event occur while in transit that could place the welfare of the animals in the conveyance at risk.

Animal handling

The proposed regulatory amendments would include prohibitions against unacceptable handling practices by persons involved in the loading, transportation, confinement, and unloading of animals. It would be prohibited to handle an animal in any way that would likely result in suffering, injury, or death to the animal.

The regulatory proposal would limit the use of an electric prod during the loading, confinement, transportation, or unloading of an animal. While electric prods are commonly used to encourage animals to move in a required direction (for example to move animals onto a conveyance), the regulatory proposal would prohibit the use of an electric prod on sensitive areas or regions on an animal’s body (for example belly, genital, or facial regions) and if animals do not have a clear path to move forward.

Loading density and overcrowding

The proposed requirements related to loading density would establish clear parameters for what conditions would constitute overcrowding in a container or conveyance. Loading, confining, or transporting animals in a conveyance or container that is overcrowded would be prohibited.

Overcrowding would occur when, due to the loading density or the size of the conveyance or container, the animal cannot maintain its preferred position or adjust its body position to protect itself from injuries or from being crushed or trampled; the animal is likely to develop conditions such as hyperthermia, hypothermia, or frostbite; or the animal is likely to suffer, sustain an injury, or die.

Segregation

The prescriptive nature of the current requirements respecting segregation by species, age, and weight would be replaced with an outcome-based provision that would prohibit loading, transporting, or confining animals that are incompatible (by reason of their nature, species, temperament, gender, weight or age, which are likely to result in injury, suffering or death to any animal transported in the same conveyance), unless they are segregated. This outcome-based approach is consistent with OIE standards, and provides the flexibility for animals that prefer travelling together to be kept together; under the current requirements, these animals would need to be segregated irrespective of compatibility.

Guidance would be made available to industry to assist in the determination of compatibility in respect of species, class, size, level of fitness, familiarity with one another, and behaviour. The guidance would be available on the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) Web site.

Container or conveyance requirements

These amendments would also provide additional clarity about the preferred position of various species during transportation and propose outcome-based requirements respecting the height of the roof or top of the conveyance or cover of the container needed to accommodate the animal’s natural behaviour. For example, horses may wish to hold their heads straight or hold their heads up, depending on the breed, size and type.

For animals transported by air, the container requirements set out in the International Air Transport Association (IATA) Live Animals Regulations (IATA-LAR), as amended from time to time, would be incorporated by reference into Part XII of the HAR. IATA is a trade association for the world’s airlines, representing some 240 airlines, or 84% of total air traffic, and is responsible for formulating industry policy on aviation industry issues. The IATA-LAR is a global standard for transporting animals by air in a safe and humane manner and is referenced by the OIE in its animal welfare standards for animal transportation by air. Container requirements in the IATA-LAR are established on a species-by-species basis, and include construction, design, and stocking density guidelines. The IATA-LAR is currently in its 42nd edition, is available as a printed manual and as a software application, and may be purchased online at http://www. iata.org/publications/Pages/live-animals.aspx. The CFIA intends to review the changes made to subsequent editions of the IATA-LAR on an annual basis, to ensure the requirements are still suitable. Stakeholders will be notified each time the IATA-LAR has been updated and reviewed.

Condition, maintenance, and use of conveyances

Requirements respecting the condition, maintenance, and use of conveyances and containers used for transporting animals, including sea vessels and aircraft, would be clarified by these amendments. In addition, requirements that pose an unnecessary regulatory burden would be removed, such as specific ventilation requirements for aircraft or vessels. The proposed amendments would also provide clarity on what conditions would be prohibited due to the potential for an animal to be injured, suffer, or die.

Feed, water, and rest for animals

Recent scientific studies provide more conclusive species-specific guidance than what was available at the time Part XII of the HAR first came into force. (see footnote 9) (see footnote 10) (see footnote 11) (see footnote 12) Significant advances have been made in determining animals’ needs for feed, water, and rest to prevent suffering from extreme hunger, dehydration, or excessive fatigue. (see footnote 13) With this new information, there is a basis for redefining time periods during which animals can be without feed, water, or rest to reduce their risk of suffering, injury, or death during transportation. The regulatory proposal establishes new maximum intervals without access to feed and water, which are summarized in Table 1 by species and class.

Once the proposed maximum time intervals without feed and water are reached, a minimum rest period of eight hours, increased from five hours in the current Regulations, would be required during which animals would be provided with access to feed and water. The rest period could be conducted on a stopped conveyance that is suitably equipped to provide space for the animals to lie down at the same time, to eat and to drink, while providing adequate ventilation and other acceptable environmental conditions. Alternatively, animals could be unloaded to a suitable rest area.

In addition to the feed, water, and rest time requirements, the regulatory proposal also includes an outcome-based requirement to provide feed, water, and rest to animals to prevent them from becoming dehydrated, suffering from nutritional metabolic abnormality, or suffering from fatigue during transportation. Both the prescriptive requirements and the outcome-based requirements would need to be met. The combination of prescriptive and outcome-based requirements would provide flexibility and clear expectations to the regulated party without compromising animal welfare.

Interpretive guidance is being developed to accompany the proposal, which would also provide additional information for clarity. For example, the guidance would define when an interval of time is considered to have ended and the next interval begun. This information would assist in improving compliance and would reduce the risk of animals suffering.

Table 1: Proposed maximum intervals for access to feed and water

Species and class

Proposed (hours)

Current (hours)

Compromised animals

12

N/A

Ruminants that are too young to be fed exclusively on hay and grain

12

18

Broiler chickens, spent laying hens and rabbits

24

36

Beef and dairy cattle and other adult ruminants that can be fed exclusively on hay and grain

36

52

Other adult monogastrics

36

36

Equines and pigs

28

36

Day-old birds

72 (see footnote *)

72

(iii) Transfer of responsibility

Many people are involved in the transportation of animals. The chain of responsibility for animal welfare during transport begins with the owner or their agent, and extends to the final receiver of the animals. The welfare of animals during loading, transport, and unloading is the joint responsibility of all those involved. Producers, handlers, shippers, drivers, and receivers share important responsibilities, as they ensure animals are transported safely.

According to the proposal, it would be prohibited for any person who transports an animal to leave the animal at a slaughter establishment, auction market, assembly yard, or feedlot without a representative of those locations being present and accepting responsibility for the animal’s care upon arrival, in writing. Moreover, the person accepting responsibility for the animal’s care at the destination location would be responsible for taking the measures that would be necessary to prevent suffering, injury, or death of the animal, including meeting feeding and watering requirements.

(iv) Record-keeping

Record-keeping is essential to encouraging compliance, ensuring a complete chain of custody for shipments, and further enabling CFIA enforcement activities. All commercial carriers would be required to maintain records of animal transport for each shipment of animals, including, for example, the amount of floor space in the conveyance available to the animals, the last time the animals were fed and watered prior to loading, the date, time and place the animals were unloaded at destination, and the name of the person who accepted responsibility for their care. Records are currently required for carriers engaged in the inter-provincial or international transportation of livestock, and must be retained for a duration established in Part X of the HAR. The proposed amendments would only constitute a change for commercial carriers either transporting non-livestock animals, such as zoo animals, or operating intra-provincially.

(v) Application of animal welfare transportation requirements to import and export shipments

Currently, all shipments of animals transported into, transported within, or leaving Canada must comply with Part XII of the HAR. In terms of export of animals, this means that the CFIA is unable to take enforcement actions in situations where the shipment is compliant as it leaves Canada, but may not be compliant once it reaches its destination. The proposed amendments prohibit the export of an animal unless the person has reasonable grounds to believe that the animal will be transported in accordance with Part XII of the HAR. Therefore, for example, for animals in a shipment that would require a feed, water, and rest stop during the transport, the person exporting the animals would be required to have reasonable grounds to believe that the feeding, watering and resting requirements could be met for the entire journey. This amendment would better allow the CFIA to take enforcement action in situations where there are reasonable grounds to believe that the animals cannot be, or would not be, transported in compliance with Part XII of the HAR.

Regulatory and non-regulatory options considered

Option 1 — Status quo

Under this option, the CFIA would maintain the regulatory requirements for the transportation of animals as currently prescribed in Part XII of the Health of Animals Regulations.

This option would result in a continued risk that animals transported in Canada could be injured, suffer, or die. An estimated 14 million animals are transported every year in a way that is not compliant with Part XII of the HAR, and 1.59 million animals each year are reported dead on arrival at their final destination. Continuing with the current humane transport requirements would result in continued use of general terms in the HAR, ineffectiveness in protecting animals often due to the regulated parties’ misunderstanding of the required conduct for ensuring animal welfare, gaps in enforceability, lack of relevance regarding current practices, and a continued misalignment with the OIE animal welfare standards for the transport of animals and the animal welfare standards of Canada’s international trading partners. While the current code of practice, developed jointly by industry and Government, outlines best practices during transportation, it is not law. Further revisions to the transportation code of practice are pending, and have been delayed for some time in the hopes that amendments to Part XII are made first.

This option would not move towards meeting societal expectations regarding responsible farm animal care and the humane treatment of animals during animal transport, including loading and unloading.

Option 2 — Amend Part XII using a combination of outcome-based and prescriptive requirements

Under this option, Part XII of the HAR would be amended to clarify and modernize requirements, using a combination of outcome-based and prescriptive requirements. Modernized requirements would better reflect the needs of the animals. This option would clearly define prohibitions. Greater clarity would allow regulated parties to better understand the standards of conduct expected of them in order to comply with the requirements and would make the requirements more easily enforceable.

Benefits and costs

It is anticipated that the following stakeholders would be affected by the proposed regulatory amendments:

  • Commercial carriers transporting livestock (pigs: 480 businesses, horses: 96 businesses, cattle: 470 businesses, sheep/goat: 71 businesses);
  • Commercial carriers transporting poultry (135 businesses);
  • Commercial carriers who either transport non-livestock animals or operate intra-provincially;
  • Abattoirs (i.e. meat product processors) [348 businesses];
  • Livestock and poultry producers (approximately 84 000 businesses);
  • Retailers and consumers;
  • The Canadian public; and
  • The Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA).

The proposed regulatory amendments would reduce the maximum time limits for animals to be without access to feed, water, and rest. Training would also be required for drivers who cannot demonstrate the knowledge and skills needed for transporting animals. Finally, commercial carriers transporting non-livestock animals, or those who operate only intra-provincially, would be required to keep records for each shipment of animals. Commercial carriers transporting animals by land would be expected to carry incremental costs as a result of these proposed requirements.

Commercial air carriers providing air transportation services are not expected to carry additional costs. Commercial air carriers (IATA members and non-members) generally move animals that are more valuable to their owners (e.g. performance horses, breeding animals, pets and endangered species), which are typically well fed and watered. Furthermore, commercial carriers who transport animals by air are also encouraged to comply with the IATA-LAR. It is also assumed that non-IATA members are already following industry’s best practices and would not carry additional costs.

The requirements of the proposed amendments to the HAR are consistent with OIE guidelines for animals transported by sea, including record-keeping requirements. It is therefore not expected that the proposed amendments to the HAR would result in incremental costs to sea carriers.

Benefits

The potential benefits associated with the regulatory proposal would be the following.

Increased compliance with regulatory requirements

The amended Regulations would clarify expectations and, in turn, make it easier for industry to comply with the HAR. For example, the record-keeping requirements for commercial carriers who transport non-livestock animals, and those who operate intra-provincially for commercial purposes, would facilitate enforcement by the CFIA. This, in turn, is expected to lead to increased compliance rates, which would improve the welfare of animals and reduce the resources allocated to respond to non-compliance. It is similarly expected that the requirements for regulated parties to assess risk factors and have a contingency plan would also increase compliance.

Furthermore, the move from prescriptive to outcome-based regulatory requirements would provide the industry the flexibility to choose the least costly option to achieve the required outcome under the proposal. This is also expected to contribute to improved compliance with the regulatory requirements. For example, the current segregation requirement of species, age, and size is based on those differences alone, while the proposed amendment would instead focus on incompatibility of the animals in load. A further example is the removal of the specific number of attendants per number of animals transported by sea, to focus instead on the provision of adequate care.

Improved animal welfare and prevention of animal suffering during transportation

The implementation of the proposed regulatory amendments, and the resulting increased compliance, would prevent animal suffering, thus improving animal welfare and ensuring that animals are free of pain. Added clarity, such as defining a compromised or unfit animal, would provide clear expectations for producers and transporters. This, in turn, is expected to reduce the number of compromised and unfit animals loaded and transported.

The implementation of the proposed regulatory amendments would also benefit Canadian livestock and poultry producers by reducing economic losses as a result of animals being injured, dying, or being severely bruised in transport. Bruising and losses due to shrinkage (depletion of body reserves) increase with increased transportation times. (see footnote 14)

According to the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations, the benefits of animal welfare extend to consumers through the availability of a secure and safe food supply. (see footnote 15) Consuming safe food is important for Canadians. Stressed animals are more likely to shed pathogenic organisms and, as a result, increase the risk to food safety. It is anticipated that the improved animal welfare during transportation resulting from the proposed regulatory amendments would contribute to reducing risks to food safety from animal-based food products.

Improved regulatory alignment

The regulatory proposal would also lead to improved regulatory alignment between Canada and international trading partners (for example the United States and the European Union) and would contribute to improving alignment with the OIE animal welfare standards related to the transport of animals by land, sea, and air. This, in turn, could facilitate or maintain trade and market access for Canadian products, by avoiding trade barriers that could arise due to differences in regulatory requirements.

If amended, the HAR would better reflect current science regarding the care and handling of animals and animal needs. Since the transportation of farm animals code of practice was drafted with consideration of the current Regulations, subsequent updates of this code of practice would be strengthened.

Increased consumer confidence in animal food products

As a result of the previous three benefits — increased compliance, improved animal welfare, and improved regulatory alignment — the proposed regulatory amendments would move towards meeting Canadian societal expectations that animals be free of pain, be healthy, and have the ability to express natural behaviours. (see footnote 16) (see footnote 17) Decisions on animal welfare are therefore considered an ethical issue, not just an economic one. (see footnote 18) Consumers consider animal welfare when making purchasing decisions and assessing the quality of animal products, whether implicitly or explicitly, (see footnote 19) and improved management practices during transportation would help ensure that those consumers have the assurances they need to make those decisions. (see footnote 20)

Since the regulatory proposal is designed to improve animal welfare conditions that are of importance to consumers, such as transportation and maximum intervals without feed, water, and rest, it is expected that the proposed amendments would contribute to increased consumer confidence in animal food products purchased.

Costs
Costs associated with feed, water, and rest

The CFIA conducted a survey of businesses that would be potentially affected by the proposed regulatory change to feed, water, and rest provisions. Based on survey results and CFIA inspection data collected at federally registered abattoirs, it was concluded that, overall, 98% of current shipments would not be affected by the proposed requirements, as the shipments already meet the proposed maximum intervals. This percentage varies across commercial carriers depending upon the animal being transported.

The proposed maximum interval for access to feed and water for pigs is 28 hours, compared to the 36 hours under the baseline scenario (i.e. in the current regulation). With the shorter time interval, some commercial carriers transporting pigs currently exceed the proposed time limits. These carriers, representing approximately 1% of all commercial pig carriers, would assume additional upfront costs associated with potentially retrofitting or installing feed and water systems in the conveyances and ongoing costs associated with maintaining the feed and water systems in the retrofitted conveyances in order to comply with the proposed requirement. These upfront costs are estimated to be $5,000 per retrofit with annual maintenance costs of $1,000.

Also, based on current industry practice, pigs are not off-loaded during rest periods. These conveyances would also require sufficient space for all animals to lie down at the same time, and to be fitted with equipment which would allow animals to eat and drink while providing adequate ventilation and protection. The costs of these measures were also estimated to be $5,000 per retrofit with annual maintenance costs of $1,000.

For some commercial carriers transporting slaughter and feeder horses that would exceed the time limit, there would be a need to off-load the animals at stations (off-loading is an industry practice), to allow them to rest and be provided with feed and water. Approximately 14% of all commercial horse carriers would assume the incremental cost of the amount paid to the owners of rest stations for the entire duration of the stay of the animals. This amount was estimated to be $200 per 8–10 hour stay.

For commercial poultry processors, less than 1% would assume the incremental costs of changing the management of their operation to reduce the lairage times, that is, the length of time that poultry are kept in containers at processing establishments waiting to be slaughtered. This would be required to comply with the proposed maximum intervals for access to feed and water. The costs associated with change would be the time and salary required for a scheduling expert to make adjustments to their standard operating procedures in order to comply with the requirements. This reduction in lairage time could benefit some businesses, due to the reduced costs associated with keeping the lairage area lit, cooled, and heated. The rest of the poultry processors are already in compliance with the proposed feed, water, and rest requirement.

Provincial and federal regulations have been enacted that outline driver hours of service and rest requirements during long-haul transportation. These requirements were taken into consideration when analyzing the impact of the proposed regulatory amendment. It is anticipated that animal and driver rest stops can be managed to occur at the same time and, as a result, the affected commercial carriers would not expect to carry additional feed, water, and rest costs due to additional stops.

Costs associated with training

The proposed regulatory amendments would require the training of those drivers who operate under a commercial carrier. Some commercial carriers would assume training costs for their drivers who have not received training. It was estimated that approximately 1.45% of commercial carriers transporting pigs, horses, cattle and sheep/goat and 2.45% of commercial carriers transporting poultry would be impacted.

Due to a lack of data and information, the CFIA estimated the number of drivers who would require training by analyzing CFIA inspection data for the rate of shipments that were not compliant with the current regulatory requirements for animal transport. Non-compliant shipments can be considered evidence that those drivers require training or retraining.

The Canadian Livestock Training (CLT) program is considered to provide drivers all the required competencies referred to in this amendment. It is therefore used as a reference for estimating training costs.

The livestock transportation industries have been proactively making livestock transport training mandatory for drivers. As a result, the training costs attributable to the proposed regulatory requirements would be expected to decrease over time, and to be negligible within five years, as this training will be the livestock transportation industry standard.

Costs associated with record keeping

There would be incremental costs associated with record-keeping requirements assumed by all commercial carriers who transport non-livestock animals and those who operate for commercial purposes intra-provincially. Costing assumptions for these incremental costs can be found in the “One-for-One” Rule section below. Note that commercial carriers of poultry would not assume incremental costs in this respect, since they are already required to maintain records for inter-provincial and international movements, and flock-based records for all loads of commercial poultry irrespective of destination. In addition, the proposed Regulations would not specify technical formats for record keeping, which would allow commercial carriers to select the method that involves the least cost or greatest efficiency to them.

Methodology

All of the identified costs have been monetized in the analysis, while all of the identified benefits are described qualitatively. The standard cost model was used to estimate incremental costs associated with feed, water, and rest; training; and administration. The standard cost model takes into account the time required for individuals to perform a task, the individuals’ wage rate and how often the task must be performed. Data sources used for the analysis include industry survey data, the CFIA’s Compliance Verification System (CVS) database, the input of program subject matter experts, and published data. The assumptions used in the cost estimation were made based on the best available information.

Results
  • The total incremental costs for all affected stakeholders are estimated to have an annualized value of $556,217. This equates to a cost of approximately $444 per business.
  • The total incremental costs associated with the proposed feed, water, and rest requirement for all affected stakeholders are estimated to have an annualized value of $80,452. This equates to a cost of approximately $64 per business.
  • The driver’s training course costs $235. The total incremental costs associated with the proposed training requirement for affected stakeholders are estimated to have an annualized value of $26,953. The total incremental costs associated with the proposed record-keeping requirement for all affected stakeholders are estimated to have an annualized value of $448,812.

Cost-benefit statement

 

2017

2018

2026

Total (Present Value)

Annualized Average

A. Quantified impacts (in Canadian dollars [CAD], constant 2012 prices)

Feed, water and rest costs

Commercial carriers transporting livestock and poultry

$30,616

$79,279

$46,141

$565,966

$80,452

Training costs

Commercial carriers transporting livestock and poultry

0

$104,350

0

$189,304

$26,953

Record-keeping costs

Commercial carriers who transport non-livestock animals or those who operate intra-provincially

0

$467,737

$272,227

$3,152,265

$448,812

Total costs

$30,616

$651,366

$318,368

$3,906,635

$556,217

B. Qualitative impacts

Canadians

  • Improved compliance and enforcement of regulations leads to better animal welfare and prevention of animal suffering during transportation, consistent with societal expectations.

Industry

  • Clarified regulatory expectations and increased flexibility for industry to choose the least-cost option to best meet outcome-based requirements.
  • Reduced economic losses and improved international reputation for Canadian industry following regulatory alignment.

Consumers

  • A safer food supply for Canadian consumers and increased confidence in purchased animal food products.

Notes:

  • The analysis covered a 10-year time period (2017–2026), using a 7% discount rate.
  • Numbers may not add up due to rounding.
  • Feed, water and rest compliance costs in 2017 are associated with the costs of retrofitting existing transportation vehicles.
  • Costs are not reported by type of livestock to protect confidential business information.
Cost impacts per business

Costs per business (in CAD, constant 2012 prices)

 

2017

2018

2026

Total (Present Value)

Annualized Average

FWR

$24

$63

$37

$452

$64

Training

$0

$83

$0

$151

$22

Sub-total (Compliance costs)

$24

$146

$37

$603

$86

Administrative costs (Record-keeping costs)

$0

$374

$217

$2,518

$358

Total (Compliance and administrative costs)

$24

$520

$254

$3,121

$444

“One-for-One” Rule

The proposed regulatory amendments would impose incremental administrative costs associated with the proposed record-keeping requirement for affected commercial carriers who transport animals intra-provincially for commercial purposes. Therefore, the “One-for-One” Rule applies. The total annualized administrative cost increase for all businesses would be approximately $319,996. The annualized administrative cost increase per affected business would be approximately $286.

These results are based on the following assumptions that are based on the data sources listed in the methodology:

  • it would take an additional five minutes to complete a record that includes the new requirements;
  • the wage of the individual taking the record is equal to the Canadian average wage rate for a transport and equipment operator; and
  • the average affected business would have to keep 176 records per year.

Businesses have been consulted on the potential administrative burden as a result of the proposed amendments through an industry survey. The surveyed businesses were requested to provide their estimated time to complete a record in complying with the proposal. Once the survey data analysis was completed, the industry was consulted again through a validation survey, which found that the majority of businesses were in agreement with the estimated time based on their previous responses.

Small business lens

Based on an analysis of the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes 484110 (general freight trucking, local), 484121 (general freight trucking, long distance, truck-load) and 484122 (general freight trucking, long distance, less than truck-load), 1 239 businesses, or approximately 99% of the 1 252 affected businesses, in the commercial animal carrier industry are classified as “small business” by the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat definition. Therefore, the small business lens would apply because these small businesses would face incremental compliance and administrative costs as a result of the regulatory proposal.

Small businesses were consulted on the potential economic impacts as a result of the regulatory proposal through three surveys conducted by the CFIA between November 2013 and May 2015. The initial survey was sent to 30 transporters, who were then asked to distribute it further. The survey was designed to collect information and data. The CFIA received 10 responses to the first survey. A follow-up survey was sent to 1 130 stakeholders, including (but not limited to) processors, transporters, and auction markets. The second survey was designed to validate the findings and conclusions. The CFIA received 70 responses to the second survey. Respondents to the second survey were contacted to validate the responses received. The CFIA received 10 responses to the validation survey. The majority of respondents agreed with the data and conclusions as they relate to the economic impacts of the proposed amendments.

Based on the survey findings, the affected small commercial animal carriers would expect to carry incremental compliance costs associated with (i) training for those employees and agents who have not been trained, (ii) potentially retrofitting or installing feed and water systems in the conveyances (trailers), and (iii) animal rest stations for animals to feed, drink and rest. Those carriers who transport animals intra-provincially for commercial purposes would also carry incremental administrative costs associated with the record-keeping requirements.

For the small business lens analysis, the initial option would be to set the coming-into-force date of the regulatory proposal on the date when it is registered. The flexible option would be to set the coming-into-force date of the regulatory proposal to be 12 months from the date when it is registered, in order to allow time for transition. This option would be available to all businesses.

For the flexible option of delaying the coming into force 12 months after registration, the incremental compliance costs (annualized average) would be approximately $71,970 for all small businesses. The incremental administrative costs (annualized average) would be approximately $444,070 for all small businesses. The total annualized average costs would be approximately $516,040 for all small businesses and $416 per small business.

Regulatory flexibility analysis statement

 

Initial Option

Flexible Option

Short description

  • The proposed Regulations come into force on the date they are registered
  • The proposed Regulations come into force 12 months from the date they are registered

Number of small businesses impacted

1 239

1 239

 

Annualized Value

Present Value

Annualized Value

Present Value

Feed, water, and rest costs

$51,603

$362,434

$45,298

$318,157

Feed, water, and rest costs per small business

$42

$293

$37

$257

Training costs

$39,467

$277,196

$26,672

$187,333

Training costs per small business

$32

$224

$22

$151

Total compliance costs

$91,070

$639,630

$71,970

$505,490

Total compliance costs per small business

$74

$516

$58

$408

Record-keeping costs

$512,270

$3,597,940

$444,070

$3,118,980

Record-keeping costs per small business

$413

$2,904

$358

$2,517

Record-keeping costs per shipment per small business

$2

$17

$2

$14

Total administrative costs

$512,270

$3,597,940

$444,070

$3,118,980

Total administrative costs per small business

$413

$2,904

$358

$2,517

Total costs (all small businesses)

$603,330

$4,237,570

$516,040

$3,624,480

Total cost per small business

$487

$3,420

$416

$2,925

Risk considerations

Having the proposed Regulations coming into force on the registration date would make it more difficult for small businesses to comply.

The 12-month delay in the coming into force of the proposed Regulations would provide small businesses with time to make the required changes.

Notes:

  • The analysis covered a 10-year period (2017–2026), using a 7% discount rate, with a constant 2012 dollar.
  • Numbers may not add up due to rounding.
  • Costs have been estimated using the standard cost model. A detailed calculation is available upon request.

The flexible option is recommended, where the requirements would come into force 12 months following registration. The total cost savings for all small businesses as a result of the flexible option provided by the CFIA versus immediate coming into force is estimated to have an annualized value of $87,290, equating to $71 per small business.

Consultation

The CFIA has consulted with stakeholders on this initiative, in both broad and targeted consultations, starting with informal consultations in the early 2000s, a Web consultation in 2006, and one-on-one meetings with industry stakeholders from 2006 to 2016. Taken together, a broad cross-section of Canadians has been consulted, including representatives from each of the affected industry groups, veterinarians, animal welfare advocates, federal and provincial governments, researchers, and the general public.

Most stakeholders agree that regulatory amendments are needed, and support the need for them. Opinions, however, are polarized. For example, with respect to the changes to feed, water, and rest periods, animal welfare groups believe that the proposed maximum periods without access to feed and water are too long, and the rest periods too short, which would in turn impact the animal’s well-being. In order to address the concerns raised by animal welfare groups, the CFIA is proposing to include an outcome-based requirement in addition to the proposed reduced maximum intervals without feed, water and rest. This outcome-based requirement will ensure that animals’ needs are met at all times to prevent the animals from suffering from dehydration, nutritional metabolic abnormalities or exhaustion, irrespective of the proposed durations. Conversely, some industry representatives believe that the proposed maximum durations are too short and would impact the profitability of their businesses.

Examples of concerns that were raised and taken into account by the CFIA in preparing the proposed regulatory amendments include feed, water, and rest provisions for spent laying hens. Spent laying hens, meaning egg-laying chickens that have passed their peak in the production cycle, are an economical source of lean protein for use in poultry products like chicken soup and chicken nuggets. Due to their fragility, spent laying hens are particularly vulnerable to injury during transport. (see footnote 21) Some members of the poultry industry have expressed concerns regarding the reduced transport times proposed in the amendments, indicating that it is impractical to provide feed and water to the birds while in transportation. In cases where the shipments of spent hens would exceed the proposed maximum times without access to feed, water, and rest, the industry would not be able to ship those birds. This would have direct impacts on the profitability of those processors, who lose an economical source of lean protein, and indirect impacts on the profitability of producers, who would have to pay to have the hens humanely killed and either composted on-site or transported to be rendered.

The CFIA met with poultry industry representatives to discuss compliance options for reducing the economic impact of the proposed maximum times. In response to stakeholder concerns, and taking into consideration available scientific evidence, (see footnote 22) the CFIA proposed that the maximum interval for spent laying hens be revised to 24 hours from the originally proposed 12 hours. Data provided by poultry industry representatives indicate that the majority of spent laying hen shipments are already compliant with this interval, and the CFIA believes that changes to management practices of abattoir and loading operations can be made to accommodate the majority of those that currently do not. For example, time spent in lairage could be reduced at the abattoir, or feed withdrawal times at the time of loading could be reduced on the farm. Moreover, the maximum interval of 24 hours is aligned with current U.S. practices. While the United States do not formally regulate poultry transport, rigorous industry practices that establish requirements for feed, water and rest are in place. Approximately 95%, or 276 million, of all laying hens in the United States are raised by members of the United Egg Producers (UEP). UEP producers are audited by the United States Department of Agriculture’s Agricultural Marketing Service, together with a third-party certification and auditing group. The UEP certification standard includes a maximum interval of 24 hours for feed and water. As a result, the proposed regulatory amendments would not be more restrictive than current U.S. practices.

Regulatory cooperation

Protecting animal welfare in Canada is a shared responsibility between federal, provincial, and territorial governments; producers; transporters; processors; retailers; and many other stakeholders. The CFIA enforces Part XII of the HAR with the assistance of the Canada Border Services Agency. Provincial police, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and other peace officers may also be called to provide assistance. The Criminal Code can also be applied in situations where animal abuse occurs. The CFIA regulates the welfare of animals during transport under the HAR, as well as the welfare of animals in federally registered slaughter establishments under the Meat Inspection Regulations, 1990.

Canadian provinces and territories have the primary responsibility for protecting the welfare of animals, including farm animals, by enforcing provincial and territorial acts and regulations that pertain to animal welfare. All provinces and territories have legislation regarding animal welfare. Some provinces and territories have recently strengthened their animal welfare regulatory frameworks, including Quebec in 2015, Nova Scotia in 2013, Newfoundland and Labrador in 2012, and Ontario in 2009. Provincial, territorial and federal regulations are mutually supportive in protecting the welfare of animals.

The proposed amendments would more closely align Canada’s requirements with the OIE animal welfare standards respecting animals transported by land, sea, and air. In May 2005, the OIE International Committee adopted five animal welfare standards for the OIE Terrestrial Animal Health Code (the Code), which included the humane transport of animals by land, sea, and air.

Table 2 presents an overview of how the proposed amendments to the HAR relate to Chapter 7 of the Code, pertaining to animal welfare standards during transportation (http://www.oie.int/index.php?id=169&L=0&htmfile=titre_1.7.htm).

Table 2

Proposed HAR amendment

Relevant Terrestrial Animal Health Code article

Knowledge, skills, and training

7.3.2: Animal behaviour
7.3.4: Competence

Overcrowding and space requirements

7.3.5.6: Space allowance

Assessment of risk factors

7.3.3: Responsibilities

Contingency planning

7.3.5: Planning the journey

Feed, water, and rest requirements

7.3.5.3: Nature and duration of the journey
7.3.5.7: Rest, water and feed

Based on a comparative review conducted by the CFIA, the proposals respecting feed, water, and rest would align Canada’s regulatory requirements more closely with those of New Zealand, Australia, the United States, and the EU. Table 3 compares the respective regulatory requirements of Canada with each of these countries.

Table 3: Comparison between the requirements of Canada with New Zealand, Australia, the United States, and the European Union

 

Species

New Zealand

Australia

United States

European Union

Canada (Current)

Ruminants

Cattle, sheep, goats, etc.

  • Adult cattle, sheep, goats: no more than 12 hours without water and 24 hours without food.
  • Lactating cows: no more than 8 hours without water.
  • Calves: no more than 12 hours of transport from pick up of first calf.

Clauses stipulate that individual circumstances (ability to cope, age, previous transport experience) may warrant a shorter time.

  • Calves less than 5 days old: no more than 6 hours of transport.
  • Calves 5–30 days old: no more than 12 hours of transport.
  • Cattle 1 to 6 months old: access to water every 24 hours.
  • Cattle older than 6 months old (not pregnant nor lactating): access to water, feed and rest every 48 hours.
  • All: no more than 28 hours of transport, then unloaded for feed, water and rest but can be extended to 36 hours with permission by phone.
  • no more than 8 hours of transport but can be extended if vehicles are designed to provide water at all times, are insulated, and have special partitions and mechanical ventilation.

Journeys greater than 100 km: ban on transporting very young animals (i.e. calves less than 10 days old and lambs less than 1 week old).

  • Cattle, sheep, goats and other ruminants: no more than 48 hours without feed, water and rest but can be increased to 52 hours without feed, water and rest if the animals reach their final destination within 52 hours.
  • Calves: no more than 18 hours without feed and water.

Monogastrics

Pigs, birds, equines, etc.

  • Adult pigs: no more than 8 hours without water and 24 hours without food.
  • Birds: no more than 12 hours of transport.
  • Chicks: must reach the destination within 72 hours after hatching.

Clauses stipulate that individual circumstances (ability to cope, age, previous transport experience) may warrant a shorter time.

  • Pigs: feed and water every 24 hours.
  • Piglets: no more than 12 hours without feed and water.
  • Poultry: no more than 24 hours without water.
  • Chicks: no more than 72 hours without water from time of hatching if provided with hydrating material in transport container.
  • Commercially transported slaughter and feeder horses: no more than 28 hours of transport then unloaded for feed, water and rest.

NOTE: There is no regulatory provision for poultry in the United States. However, the United Egg Producers clearly indicate that “catching and transport must be planned so that feed is withdrawn no more than 24 hours prior to slaughter and that water must not be withdrawn prior to catching.”

  • no more than 8 hours of transport but can be extended if vehicles are designed to provide water at all times, are insulated, and have special partitions and mechanical ventilation.
  • Birds and rabbits: no more than 12 hours of transport.

Journeys greater than 100 km: ban on transporting very young animals (i.e. pigs less than 3 weeks old).

  • Equines, swine or other monogastric animals: no more than 36 hours without feed, water and rest.
  • Chicks: no more than 72 hours of transport after hatching.

Rest time after maximum feed and water time

 

8 hours

12–36 hours, species and condition dependent.

5 hours

24 hours

5 hours

Rationale

There is clear scientific evidence that shows that improved animal welfare results in improved animal health and, indirectly, contributes to reducing food safety risks. Stress factors and poor welfare can lead to increased susceptibility to disease among animals, and animals experiencing stress that negatively impacts animal welfare may shed more pathogenic organisms. (see footnote 23) Animals can be transported more effectively and with lower risk to welfare if

  • the preparation of the animals before transport is adequate for the intended transport;
  • fitness for transport of the animals is assessed before loading;
  • contingency plans are in place to deal with unforeseen circumstances which may impact the welfare of the animals;
  • animals are handled appropriately at all times using well-designed and maintained equipment;
  • animals are managed and handled by competent handlers;
  • the transportation is planned to ensure prompt delivery of the animals, and undertaken to ensure appropriate timing of arrival with consideration of situations that may affect the welfare of the animals; and
  • consideration is given to feed, water, and rest requirements; provision of adequate shelter; and protection from, or treatment of, injury.

Many animal welfare problems — such as stress, lameness, infectious disease, and a lack of physical and thermal comfort — translate into economic losses. The proposed amendments establish minimum handling and transportation conditions, which would contribute to reducing transport losses, improving marketability and product quality, and improving food safety. Furthermore, a robust regulatory framework also contributes to a level playing field between regulated parties, insofar as no financial advantage can be gained by a business employing suboptimal animal welfare practices, particularly when low-value animals such as spent laying hens are transported. These amendments would respond to the requests made by many regulated parties already in compliance with the proposed humane transportation requirements.

While the industry generally demonstrates good compliance with the present regulatory requirements, new science-based information that provides greater insights into animals’ needs is available. This information makes it possible to amend the HAR to reduce burden, in some cases, while promoting improved animal welfare during transportation. Improved clarity in the HAR would also likely result in improved regulatory compliance as the regulated parties’ understanding of what is expected of them would improve. As a result of clearer expectations and requirements, the CFIA’s ability to enforce the requirements for those who are non-compliant would be improved and more consistent.

On the whole, the proposed amendments would achieve the objective of an outcome-based regulatory framework that provides flexibility and clear, science-based expectations, which in turn would lead to improved animal welfare and a reduced risk of animal suffering during transportation.

Canada exports animals and meat products to many countries around the world every year, and is a member of the OIE. Animal welfare was first identified as a priority by the OIE in its 2002 Strategic Plan. The proposed amendments would bring Canadian requirements in line with those of trading partners and with the OIE animal welfare standards. Healthy animals and high quality meat products, resulting from improved animal welfare during transportation, can strengthen Canadian international trade status and facilitate market access. As a result, the proposed amendments would achieve the objective of better aligning Canada’s requirements with those of other jurisdictions, including trading partners and the OIE.

The proposed regulatory amendments are generally consistent with current, accepted industry practices. Despite this, a large number of animals suffer and die during transportation every year in Canada due to stakeholders with non-compliant business practices. The proposed regulatory amendments are therefore needed to prohibit practices by some businesses that are deemed unacceptable by the CFIA, by animal welfare groups, or by other livestock producers.

Public attention to the welfare of farm animals has been increasing for the past half century in the industrialized countries and worldwide, especially during the past decade. This has resulted from cultural changes that have caused animals to be more valued, from economic pressures that have required producers to limit production costs, and from the practical recognition that attention to animal welfare often leads to improved animal health and productivity. A result of these and other developments is an increasing expectation, both domestically and internationally, that animals will be raised, transported, and slaughtered humanely, and that suppliers will be able to demonstrate adherence to appropriate animal welfare standards. (see footnote 24) As a result, the proposed amendments would achieve the objective of satisfying these expectations.

Implementation, enforcement and service standards

To provide the industry with time to adjust to the amended Regulations, the CFIA is proposing a delayed coming into force as part of implementation. The Regulations would come into force on the first anniversary of the day on which they are published in the Canada Gazette, Part II.

To enforce the proposed Regulations, the CFIA would continue its monitoring activities and would enforce animal transportation requirements by observing the transportation of animals at strategic locations, including, but not limited to, federally and provincially registered abattoirs, assembly yards, airports, border crossings, randomized roadside inspections, and auction markets. The CFIA would continue conducting inspections of conveyance operators’ records.

The CFIA has the mandate and a program in place to enforce the requirements of Part XII of the HAR, and operational resources are committed to enforce them. The CFIA has developed a specialized training module for inspection staff designated to monitor compliance with the animal transportation regulations. With this training, inspection staff would be well qualified to enforce the proposed Regulations.

A proactive communications plan is in place to inform stakeholders of the proposed HAR and the associated implications. The CFIA would provide information and interpretive guidance to those involved in the transportation of animals, would investigate suspected non-compliance in accordance with the CFIA national enforcement policy, and apply appropriate enforcement actions when non-compliance is confirmed. The interpretive guidance document will be available on the CFIA’s Internet site.

There is little tolerance for situations where non-compliance results in an animal being injured, suffering, or dying during transportation. In instances where non-compliance is determined, appropriate enforcement action is pursued.

Non-compliance to most provisions of Part XII of the HAR would continue to be subject to the administrative monetary penalties regime, namely Part 1 of Schedule 1 to the Agriculture and Agri-Food Administrative Monetary Penalties Regulations. As a result, violations of these HAR provisions may result in a warning or a penalty. The maximum penalty for a violation is set out in the Agriculture and Agri-Food Administrative Monetary Penalties Act. Should the amendments to Part XII be approved, consequential amendments to Part 1 of Schedule 1 would be required to align the violations with the amended HAR. Stakeholders were informed of the need for consequential amendments in March 2016.

The Act provides that contraventions of the HAR are punishable in the case of a summary conviction by a fine of up to $50,000, by imprisonment for up to six months, or both, and in the case of an indictable offence by a fine of up to $250,000, by imprisonment for up to two years, or both.

Section 51 of the Act allows the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food to order compensation for the market value of animals ordered to be destroyed. In the instance where animals would be ordered to be destroyed by the CFIA to prevent further suffering, if they were transported in contravention of the HAR, compensation pursuant to section 51 of the Act would not be awarded.

The proposed amendments would operate under existing complaint and appeal mechanisms. The CFIA uses an incremental process to manage complaints and appeals, which range from discussions with the CFIA employee to the submission of a formal complaint to the CFIA Complaints and Appeals Office.

Contact

Please direct all questions and enquiries to

Dr. Cornelius F. Kiley
National Manager
Animal Welfare, Biosecurity and Assurance Programs Section
Canadian Food Inspection Agency
59 Camelot Drive
3rd Floor West, Room 231
Ottawa, Ontario
K1A 0Y9
Telephone: 613-773-7028
Fax: 613-773-7567
Email: animaltransportanimaux@inspection.gc.ca

Small Business Lens Checklist

1. Name of the sponsoring regulatory organization:

Canadian Food Inspection Agency

2. Title of the regulatory proposal:

Regulations Amending the Health of Animals Regulations

3. Is the checklist submitted with a RIAS for the Canada Gazette, Part I or Part II?

Canada Gazette, Part I ☐ Canada Gazette, Part II

A. Small business regulatory design

I

Communication and transparency

Yes

No

N/A

1.

Are the proposed Regulations or requirements easily understandable in everyday language?

2.

Is there a clear connection between the requirements and the purpose (or intent) of the proposed Regulations?

3.

Will there be an implementation plan that includes communications and compliance promotion activities, that informs small business of a regulatory change and guides them on how to comply with it (e.g. information sessions, sample assessments, toolkits, Web sites)?

4.

If new forms, reports or processes are introduced, are they consistent in appearance and format with other relevant government forms, reports or processes?

No new forms, reports or processes would be introduced as a result of the regulatory proposal.

II

Simplification and streamlining

Yes

No

N/A

1.

Will streamlined processes be put in place (e.g. through BizPaL, Canada Border Services Agency single window) to collect information from small businesses where possible?

No information in respect of the humane transportation of animals would be collected from regulated parties.

2.

Have opportunities to align with other obligations imposed on business by federal, provincial, municipal or international or multinational regulatory bodies been assessed?

3.

Has the impact of the proposed Regulations on international or interprovincial trade been assessed?

4.

If the data or information, other than personal information, required to comply with the proposed Regulations is already collected by another department or jurisdiction, will this information be obtained from that department or jurisdiction instead of requesting the same information from small businesses or other stakeholders? (The collection, retention, use, disclosure and disposal of personal information are all subject to the requirements of the Privacy Act. Any questions with respect to compliance with the Privacy Act should be referred to the department’s or agency’s ATIP office or legal services unit.)

No data or information would be required.

5.

Will forms be pre-populated with information or data already available to the department to reduce the time and cost necessary to complete them? (Example: When a business completes an online application for a licence, upon entering an identifier or a name, the system pre-populates the application with the applicant’s personal particulars such as contact information, date, etc. when that information is already available to the department.)

Regulated parties would not be required to submit forms or complete online applications with respect to this regulatory proposal.

6.

Will electronic reporting and data collection be used, including electronic validation and confirmation of receipt of reports where appropriate?

Regulated parties are free to choose any method for data collection. However, no reporting of the data collected would be required. The data would need to be accessible at the time of inspection, as required.

7.

Will reporting, if required by the proposed Regulations, be aligned with generally used business processes or international standards if possible?

Reporting would not be required by the proposed Regulations.

8.

If additional forms are required, can they be streamlined with existing forms that must be completed for other government information requirements?

No additional forms would be required by the proposed Regulations.

III

Implementation, compliance and service standards

Yes

No

N/A

1.

Has consideration been given to small businesses in remote areas, with special consideration to those that do not have access to high-speed (broadband) Internet?

2.

If regulatory authorizations (e.g. licences, permits or certifications) are introduced, will service standards addressing timeliness of decision making be developed that are inclusive of complaints about poor service?

The regulatory proposal would not require regulatory authorizations. Regulated parties are able to register complaints or appeals with the Canadian Food Inspection Agency’s Office of Complaints and Appeals.

3.

Is there a clearly identified contact point or help desk for small businesses and other stakeholders?

B. Regulatory flexibility analysis and reverse onus

IV

Regulatory flexibility analysis

Yes

No

N/A

1.

Does the RIAS identify at least one flexible option that has lower compliance or administrative costs for small businesses in the small business lens section?

Examples of flexible options to minimize costs are as follows:

  • Longer time periods to comply with the requirements, longer transition periods or temporary exemptions;
  • Performance-based standards;
  • Partial or complete exemptions from compliance, especially for firms that have good track records (legal advice should be sought when considering such an option);
  • Reduced compliance costs;
  • Reduced fees or other charges or penalties;
  • Use of market incentives;
  • A range of options to comply with requirements, including lower-cost options;
  • Simplified and less frequent reporting obligations and inspections; and
  • Licences granted on a permanent basis or renewed less frequently.

2.

Does the RIAS include, as part of the Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Statement, quantified and monetized compliance and administrative costs for small businesses associated with the initial option assessed, as well as the flexible, lower-cost option?

3.

Does the RIAS include, as part of the Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Statement, a consideration of the risks associated with the flexible option? (Minimizing administrative or compliance costs for small business cannot be at the expense of greater health, security or safety or create environmental risks for Canadians.)

4.

Does the RIAS include a summary of feedback provided by small business during consultations?

V

Reverse onus

Yes

No

N/A

1.

If the recommended option is not the lower-cost option for small business in terms of administrative or compliance costs, is a reasonable justification provided in the RIAS?

The recommended option for this regulatory proposal is the lower-cost option for small business.

PROPOSED REGULATORY TEXT

Notice is 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 concerning the proposed Regulations within 75 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. Cornelius F. Kiley, National Manager, Animal Welfare, Biosecurity and Assurance Programs Section, Canadian Food Inspection Agency, 59 Camelot Drive, 3rd Floor East, Room 231, Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0Y9 (tel.: 613-773-7028; fax: 613-773-7567; email: animaltransportanimaux@inspection.gc.ca).

By submitting representations, interested persons consent to having their representations posted on the Canadian Food Inspection Agency’s website.

Ottawa, November 24, 2016

Jurica Čapkun
Assistant Clerk of the Privy Council

Regulations Amending the Health of Animals Regulations

Amendments

1 The definition transporteur maritime in section 2 of the French version of the Health of Animals Regulations (see footnote 25) is replaced by the following:

transporteur maritime Propriétaire ou exploitant d’un navire qui se livre au transport des animaux par voie maritime. (sea carrier)

2 Part XII of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

PART XII

Transport of Animals

Interpretation

136 (1) The following definitions apply in this Part.

commercial carrier means

  • (a) the owner of a motor vehicle who is engaged in the business of transporting animals by land for financial benefit;
  • (b) the owner of an aircraft who is engaged in the business of transporting animals by air for financial benefit;
  • (c) the owner of a vessel who is engaged in the business of transporting animals by water for financial benefit; or
  • (d) a railway company. (transporteur commercial)

compromised, in respect of an animal, means an animal that

  • (a) is bloated;
  • (b) has laboured breathing;
  • (c) has acute frostbite;
  • (d) is totally blind in one or both eyes;
  • (e) has not fully healed after an operation, including dehorning or castration;
  • (f) is slightly lame in one or more limbs with slightly imperfect locomotion;
  • (g) has difficulty climbing a ramp or rising;
  • (h) is in heavy lactation;
  • (i) has an unhealed or acutely injured penis;
  • (j) has a rectal or vaginal prolapse;
  • (k) has its mobility limited by a device applied to its body, with the exception of hobbles that are applied to aid in treatment of an injury;
  • (l) is a wet bird; or
  • (m) has an impaired capacity to withstand transportation because of infirmity, illness, injury, fatigue or any other condition intrinsic to the animal, other than a condition set out in any of paragraphs (a) to (l). (fragilisé)

confine means to hold an animal

  • (a) in a container before it is placed in a conveyance for the purpose of transportation;
  • (b) in a conveyance or container during transportation; or
  • (c) in a container after the container is removed from a conveyance after transportation. (confiner)

container means a structure that is moveable, that has sides and a bottom and may have a cover and that is used to confine an animal, and includes a cargo container and a crate. (caisse)

humanely kill means to kill as rapidly as possible with the least possible suffering, fear and anxiety. (tuer sans cruauté)

humanely stun means to render irreversibly unconscious as rapidly as possible with the least possible suffering, fear and anxiety. (assommer sans cruauté)

safe water means potable water, or water that does not pose a risk to the health of the animal drinking it and, in the case of an animal that is being loaded or transported to be slaughtered and prepared as food for human consumption, that does not pose a risk of contamination of that food. (eau salubre)

unfit, in respect of an animal, means an animal that

  • (a) is non-ambulatory;
  • (b) has a fractured limb or pelvis;
  • (c) has any other fracture that impedes its movement or causes suffering;
  • (d) is lame in one or more limbs to the extent that it is reluctant to walk and exhibits halted movements;
  • (e) is lame to the extent that it cannot bear any weight on one limb;
  • (f) has sustained an injury and is hobbled to aid in treatment;
  • (g) is in shock or is dying;
  • (h) has a prolapsed uterus;
  • (i) has a severe open wound or a severe laceration;
  • (j) is extremely thin;
  • (k) is dehydrated;
  • (l) is hypothermic or hyperthermic;
  • (m) has a nervous system disorder or is showing signs of one;
  • (n) has a fever;
  • (o) has a hernia that
    • (i) impedes its movement, including when a hind limb of the animal touches the hernia as the animal is walking,
    • (ii) causes the animal to exhibit signs of pain on palpation,
    • (iii) touches the ground when the animal is standing in its natural position, or
    • (iv) has an open wound, ulceration or obvious infection;
  • (p) is in the last ten percent of its gestation period or has given birth during the preceding 48 hours;
  • (q) is a porcine that is trembling, has difficulty breathing and has discoloured skin; or
  • (r) cannot be transported without suffering because of infirmity, illness, injury, fatigue or any other condition intrinsic to the animal other than those set out in any of paragraphs (a) to (q). (inapte)

(2) For the application of this Part, loading begins when an animal is handled, moved or caught for the purpose of placing it in a conveyance or container and

  • (a) in the case of an animal that is transported in a conveyance, unloading begins when the animal is handled or moved for the purpose of removing it from the conveyance and ends when the animal is removed from the conveyance or from any ramp, gangway, chute, box or other apparatus that was used for unloading; and
  • (b) in the case of an animal that is transported in a container, regardless of whether the container is placed in a conveyance, unloading begins when the container is handled or moved for the purpose of removing the animal from the container and ends when the animal is removed from the container.

(3) An animal is considered unfit for the purposes of this Part if it is both compromised and unfit.

Import

136.1 No person shall import an animal unless the animal is transported in accordance with this Part.

Export

136.2 No person shall export an animal unless that person has reasonable grounds to believe that the animal will be transported in accordance with this Part.

Knowledge and Skills

137 Every person who loads, transports or unloads animals, or causes them to be loaded, transported or unloaded, shall have the necessary knowledge and skills to conduct those activities in compliance with this Part.

Training

138 (1) Every commercial carrier shall train, or ensure that training is received by, its employees and agents or mandataries who take part directly in the loading, transportation or unloading of animals or who take part in decision making or advising the person operating the conveyance in respect of the loading, transportation or unloading of animals, so that they have the necessary knowledge and skills to conduct those activities in compliance with this Part.

(2) The training must cover the following subjects in respect of the species of animals being transported:

  • (a) animal behaviour;
  • (b) animal handling, restraint, loading densities and transportation methods;
  • (c) the contingency plans referred to in section 139; and
  • (d) the risk factors set out in section 140.

(3) Training of an employee or an agent or mandatary is not required if the commercial carrier verifies that the person already has the necessary knowledge and skills.

Contingency Plans

139 (1) Every person who transports an animal, or causes one to be transported, shall have a contingency plan that establishes effective measures that are to be taken in the case where

  • (a) unforeseen delays or other circumstances could result in the animal’s suffering, injury or death; or
  • (b) the animal becomes compromised or unfit during transport.

(2) Every person who transports an animal, or causes one to be transported, shall ensure that their employees and agents or mandataries who take part directly in the loading, transportation or unloading of animals or who take part in decision making or advising the person operating the conveyance in respect of the loading, transportation or unloading of animals are informed of all applicable contingency plans.

Assessment of Risk Factors Related to Transport

140 Every person who intends to load or transport an animal in — or unload an animal from — a conveyance or container, or to cause one to be so loaded, transported or unloaded, shall, before loading, transporting or unloading the animal, assess its capacity to withstand the loading, transportation and unloading taking into account the prohibitions set out in, and the obligations imposed by, this Part as well as any other factors that could reasonably be viewed as having an impact on the animal’s capacity to withstand the loading, transportation and unloading, including

  • (a) the current condition of the animal;
  • (b) any pre-existing disease, injury or condition of the animal;
  • (c) the loading density and the compatibility of the animals to be transported taking into consideration the nature, species, temperament, gender, weight and age of the animals;
  • (d) animal handling and restraint methods;
  • (e) the duration of the transport and confinement in the conveyance or container;
  • (f) the foreseeable delays during transport and at destination;
  • (g) the foreseeable weather conditions during transport;
  • (h) the foreseeable conditions that may be encountered during transport that could result in sharp inclines and declines, vibration and shifting of the container or swaying of the conveyance;
  • (i) the type and condition of the conveyance, container and equipment; and
  • (j) the possible breakdown of the conveyance, container or equipment.
Transport of Unfit Animals

141 (1) Subject to subsections (2) to (4), no person shall load or transport an animal that is unfit, or cause one to be loaded or transported, in a conveyance or container.

(2) An unfit animal may, on a veterinarian’s advice, be loaded and transported directly for diagnosis, care or treatment at a place other than a slaughter establishment, auction market or assembly yard, if the measures that are necessary to minimize the animal’s suffering during loading, transportation and unloading are taken.

(3) If an animal becomes unfit during transport while on board a conveyance or in a container, no person shall continue to transport the animal or cause it to continue to be transported unless, without delay,

  • (a) reasonable measures are taken to minimize the animal’s suffering and it is transported directly to the nearest place where it can
    • (i) receive care or treatment on a veterinarian’s advice, or
    • (ii) be humanely stunned or humanely killed; or
  • (b) the animal is humanely killed on board the conveyance or, if the animal is in a container, in the container.

(4) If an animal becomes unfit during transport while on board a vessel, the vessel master or a veterinarian shall, without delay, take reasonable measures to minimize the animal’s suffering and

  • (a) provide care and treatment to the animal or cause care and treatment to be provided to the animal by a person referred to in subsection 157(1); or
  • (b) cause the animal to be humanely killed by the person referred to in paragraph 155(b).

(5) No person shall unload an animal, or cause one to be unloaded, if it is unfit as described in any of paragraphs (a) to (h) and (q) of the definition unfit in subsection 136(1), unless

  • (a) the animal is being unloaded for diagnosis or care or treatment on a veterinarian’s advice;
  • (b) in the case of a small animal that can be easily and manually lifted out of the container in which it is being transported, it is removed without delay from the container and humanely killed; or
  • (c) the animal is humanely stunned.

(6) A veterinary inspector may, if they have reasonable grounds to believe that an animal is being or has been loaded, transported or unloaded in contravention of any of subsections (1) to (5), order that the animal

  • (a) be humanely killed; or
  • (b) be transported directly to the nearest place to receive care or treatment or to be humanely killed.
Transport of Compromised Animals

142 (1) Subject to subsections (2) to (5), no person shall load or transport a compromised animal, or cause one to be loaded or transported, in a conveyance or container unless

  • (a) the animal is segregated;
  • (b) the animal is loaded last and unloaded first;
  • (c) the measures that are necessary to prevent the animal’s suffering, injury or death during loading, transportation and unloading are taken; and
  • (d) the animal is transported directly to the nearest place, other than an auction market or assembly yard, to receive care or treatment or to be humanely killed.

(2) Paragraphs (1)(a) and (b) do not apply to poultry or rabbits.

(3) A compromised animal may be loaded and transported unsegregated in a conveyance or container with one other animal with which it is familiar, if to do so is unlikely to cause either animal suffering, injury or death.

(4) If an animal becomes compromised during transport on board a conveyance or in a container, no person shall continue to transport the animal or cause it to continue to be transported unless, without delay,

  • (a) reasonable measures are taken to minimize the animal’s suffering; and
  • (b) it is transported directly to the nearest place to receive care or treatment or to be humanely killed.

(5) If an animal becomes compromised during transport on board a vessel, the vessel master or a veterinarian shall, without delay, take reasonable measures to minimize the animal’s suffering and

  • (a) provide care and treatment to the animal or cause care and treatment to be provided to the animal by a person referred to in subsection 157(1); or
  • (b) cause the animal to be humanely killed by the person referred to in paragraph 155(b).

(6) An inspector may, if they have reasonable grounds to believe that a compromised animal is being or has been loaded or transported in contravention of any of subsections (1) to (5), order that the animal be transported directly to the nearest place to receive care or treatment or to be humanely killed.

Transport of Livestock, Camelids or Cervids of Eight Days of Age or Less

142.1 (1) No person shall load or transport livestock, camelids or cervids of eight days of age or less, or cause one to be loaded or transported, in a conveyance or container unless

  • (a) the animal is loaded last and unloaded first;
  • (b) the measures that are necessary to prevent the animal’s suffering, injury or death during loading, transportation and unloading are taken;
  • (c) the animal is transported in less than 12 hours directly to a final destination other than an auction market or assembly yard and stops are made only to embark other livestock, camelids or cervids of eight days of age or less; and
  • (d) subject to subsection (2), the animal is segregated from animals that are not livestock, camelids or cervids of eight days of age or less.

(2) Livestock, camelids or cervids of eight days of age or less may be loaded and transported in a conveyance or container with their dam if to do so is unlikely to cause either animal suffering, injury or death.

Transport of Lactating Dairy Animals

143 (1) No person shall load or transport a dairy animal in heavy lactation, or cause one to be loaded or transported, without its suckling offspring unless the animal is fully milked at intervals not exceeding 12 hours.

(2) No person shall load or transport a dairy animal in heavy lactation, or cause one to be loaded or transported, without its suckling offspring unless they determine when the animal was last fully milked.

(3) For the purposes of subsection (1), an interval ends and the next interval begins each time the animal is fully milked.

Animal Handling

144 (1) No person shall, during the confinement, loading, transportation or unloading of an animal,

  • (a) beat the animal;
  • (b) prod, whip or use any driving device on the animal in a manner that is likely to cause the animal’s suffering, injury or death;
  • (c) prod, whip or use any driving device on the animal if it does not have a clear path to move;
  • (d) apply an electric prod to sensitive areas of the animal including the belly and the anal, genital and facial regions of the animal, or to any region of the animal if it is three months of age or less or is a horse, goat or sheep;
  • (e) drag the animal;
  • (f) lift the animal by its fleece, fur, feathers or ears;
  • (g) lift the animal by its tail; or
  • (h) handle the animal in any other way that is likely to result in the animal’s suffering, injury or death.

(2) Paragraph (1)(g) does not apply in respect of mice or other small rodents, or in respect of animals of other species that are commonly handled by their tails, if the handling does not cause the animal’s suffering or injury and is consistent with generally accepted practices.

(3) No person shall, when an animal is in a container,

  • (a) drop, kick or throw the container; or
  • (b) handle the container in any manner that is likely to cause the animal’s suffering, injury or death.

145 (1) No person shall load or unload an animal, or cause one to be loaded or unloaded, using a ramp, gangway, chute, box or other apparatus unless it

  • (a) can bear the weight to which it is subjected without collapsing, twisting, breaking or bending;
  • (b) has side rails of sufficient strength and height to prevent the animal from falling off;
  • (c) has a secure surface that prevents the animal from tripping, slipping, falling or sustaining an injury;
  • (d) is placed so that there is no unprotected gap through which the animal could trip, slip, fall or escape or that could cause the animal’s suffering or injury;
  • (e) has steps of a height and design that are suitable for the species to prevent the animal from suffering or injury; and
  • (f) is constructed, maintained and used in a manner that prevents the animal from suffering or injury.

(2) No person shall load or unload livestock or cervids — or cause them to loaded or unloaded — using a ramp, gangway, chute, box or other apparatus that has a slope of

  • (a) more than 35° from horizontal in the case of a cervid, goat or sheep;
  • (b) more than 30° from horizontal in the case of a bovine or horse; and
  • (c) more than 25° from horizontal in the case of a porcine.
Weather Protection and Ventilation

146 No person shall confine, load, transport or unload an animal, or cause one to be confined, loaded, transported or unloaded, in a conveyance or container if the animal is likely to suffer, sustain injury or die by being exposed to meteorological or environmental conditions, humidity or inadequate ventilation.

Overcrowding and Space Requirements

147 (1) No person shall confine, load or transport an animal, or cause one to be confined, loaded or transported, in a conveyance or container that is overcrowded.

(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), overcrowding occurs when, due to the loading density or the size of the conveyance or container,

  • (a) the animal cannot maintain its preferred position or adjust its body position in order to protect itself from injuries or avoid being crushed or trampled;
  • (b) the animal is likely to develop a pathological condition such as hyperthermia, hypothermia or frostbite; or
  • (c) the animal is likely to suffer, sustain an injury or die.

(3) No person shall transport an animal by air, or cause one to be transported by air, except in accordance with the floor space standards described as stocking density guidelines for the species that are set out in the Live Animals Regulations, 42nd edition, published by the International Air Transport Association, as amended from time to time.

148 (1) No person shall confine, load or transport an animal, or cause one to be confined, loaded or transported, in a conveyance or container unless

  • (a) in the case of livestock, cervids, canines, felines and ratites, the animal is able to stand at all times within the conveyance or container with all feet on the floor, with head elevated, with sufficient headroom to permit a full range of head movement and without any part of its body coming into contact with a deck, roof or top of the conveyance or cover of the container;
  • (b) in the case of chickens, turkeys, ducks, geese, quail and pigeons, the animal is able to maintain a squatting or sitting position without coming into contact with the cover of the container; and
  • (c) in the case of all other species, the animal is able to maintain its preferred position with sufficient headroom to permit a full range of head movement.

(2) No person shall transport an equine, or cause one to be transported, by land in a conveyance with more than one deck.

Segregation

149 (1) No person shall confine, load or transport, or cause to be confined, loaded or transported, in the same conveyance or container, animals that are incompatible with one another unless they are segregated.

(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), an animal is incompatible with another animal if, by reason of its nature, species, temperament, gender, weight or age, it is likely to cause injury, suffering or death to the other animal.

Conveyances and Containers

150 (1) No person shall confine, load or transport an animal, or cause one to be confined, loaded or transported, in a conveyance or container that

  • (a) is unsuitable for the species being transported;
  • (b) is not constructed, equipped, maintained or used in a manner that prevents injury to the animal or the animal’s escape;
  • (c) does not provide a secure surface to prevent the animal from tripping, slipping, falling or sustaining an injury;
  • (d) is likely to collapse;
  • (e) has exposed bolt heads, angles or other projections that are likely to cause the animal’s suffering, injury or death;
  • (f) contains objects that are not secured;
  • (g) has insecure fittings;
  • (h) cannot be cleaned;
  • (i) in the case of the transport or confinement of livestock, cervids, camelids or ratites, has a floor that is not strewn with sand, straw, wood shavings or other bedding material sufficient to absorb, and prevent the pooling or escape of, water, urine and liquid manure; and
  • (j) in the case where a conveyance is used for the confinement of animals for feeding, water and rest, the conveyance is constructed or maintained in a manner that does not permit the animals to be fed, watered and rested in accordance with section 159.2 without being removed from it.

(2) No person shall confine, load or transport an animal in — or unload an animal from — a conveyance or container, or cause one to be so confined, loaded, transported or unloaded, if the animal is exposed, or is likely to be exposed to any thing, including exhaust from the conveyance, that is toxic or noxious or that is likely to cause the animal’s suffering, injury or death.

(3) No person shall transport an animal by air, or cause an animal to be transported by air, unless it is transported in a container that meets the design and construction requirements for the species that are set out in the Live Animals Regulations, 42nd edition, published by the International Air Transport Association, as amended from time to time.

151 (1) No person shall confine or transport an animal, or cause one to be confined or transported, in a container unless

  • (a) the animal is visible from outside the container, or at least two of the container’s outer sides have a readily visible sign or symbol indicating the presence within of a live animal and a readily visible sign or symbol indicating the upright position of the container; and
  • (b) the container is constructed and maintained so that
    • (i) the animal may be fed and watered in compliance with this Part without being removed from it,
    • (ii) except in the case of poultry and rabbits transported by land, the escape of any urine or manure from it is prevented, and
    • (iii) in the case of an animal being transported by land, other than poultry and rabbits, its floor can be cleaned and strewn with fresh bedding material in compliance with this Part.

(2) No person shall use a container for the transportation of an animal unless the container is secured to the conveyance in a manner that prevents it from being displaced during transportation.

Vessels

152 Every sea carrier shall provide passageways to permit the feeding, watering and care of livestock and poultry on the vessel.

153 Every sea carrier shall provide an enclosed area or pen to accommodate livestock and poultry on the vessel that are injured or become ill, compromised or unfit.

154 Every sea carrier shall have lighting equipment — including emergency lighting — that is sufficient to permit the feeding, watering and caring for the livestock and poultry on the vessel, and the necessary portable lighting equipment to enable clinical examination of the livestock and poultry.

155 Every sea carrier shall

  • (a) provide humane killing devices that are in good working order and are an appropriate type for the species, age and weight of the livestock and poultry on the vessel; and
  • (b) ensure that there is a person who is trained to use the humane killing devices.

156 Every sea carrier shall have a sufficient quantity and type of supplies on the vessel, including medication, to treat the livestock and poultry on the vessel having regard to such factors as the species of the livestock or poultry and the duration of the transport.

157 (1) Every sea carrier shall have an appropriate number of trained persons on the vessel to provide for the livestock’s and poultry’s health and welfare and daily care, including feeding, watering and waste removal.

(2) If the vessel’s journey is expected to exceed six hours, the sea carrier or vessel master shall, at least 24 hours before the departure, provide a veterinary inspector with the following information:

  • (a) the planned date and time of departure and arrival at the destination;
  • (b) the name of the person who will be in charge of caring for the livestock and poultry; and
  • (c) the arrangements for communication between the sea carrier or vessel master and the shipper that allow the person who is in charge of caring for the livestock and poultry to obtain veterinary advice as required during transport.

158 No person shall transport livestock or poultry, or cause them to be transported, on a vessel close enough to the engine casing or any boiler room casing to cause the livestock’s or poultry’s suffering, injury or death unless the casing is covered and insulated to prevent that suffering, injury or death.

Feed, Water and Rest

159 No person shall confine, load or transport an animal, or cause one to be confined, loaded or transported, unless the person determines when it was last fed, watered and rested.

159.1 (1) No person shall confine or transport an animal, or cause one to be confined or transported, in a conveyance or container unless the animal

  • (a) is provided with
    • (i) safe water in amounts and at intervals that are sufficient to prevent the animal from becoming dehydrated, and
    • (ii) feed of an appropriate type for the species and in amounts and at intervals that are sufficient to prevent nutritional metabolic abnormality; and
  • (b) is rested in accordance with the animal’s needs and at intervals that are sufficient to prevent the animal from suffering due to fatigue.

(2) The intervals without feed, safe water and rest shall not exceed the following:

  • (a) 12 hours for ruminants that are too young to be fed exclusively on hay and grain, for any compromised animal and for livestock, a camelid or a cervid of eight days of age or less;
  • (b) 24 hours for broiler chickens, spent laying hens and rabbits;
  • (c) 28 hours for equine and porcine;
  • (d) 72 hours from the time of hatching for birds; and
  • (e) 36 hours for any other animal.

(3) In the event that more than one of the periods in subsection (2) applies, the shortest interval governs.

(4) For the purposes of this section, an interval ends and the next interval begins,

  • (a) in the case of water, when the animal has taken sufficient safe water to prevent dehydration;
  • (b) in the case of feed, when the animal has taken sufficient feed to prevent nutritional metabolic abnormalities; and
  • (c) in the case of rest, when the animal has rested for at least eight hours.

159.2 (1) Every person feeding, watering and resting animals shall, at that time, provide

  • (a) sufficient space to allow the animals to lie down without lying on top of each other;
  • (b) equipment designed for feeding and watering the animals;
  • (c) well-drained and clean floors that provide a secure surface to prevent the animals from tripping, slipping, falling or sustaining an injury;
  • (d) sufficient straw or other bedding to protect the animals from suffering or injury;
  • (e) sufficient straw or other bedding to keep the animals clean and dry;
  • (f) protection from meteorological or environmental conditions or humidity in order to prevent suffering, injury or death; and
  • (g) adequate ventilation to prevent suffering, injury or death.

(2) Animals being transported in a conveyance on land may be fed, watered and rested in the conveyance if it is stopped and the requirements of subsection (1) are met.

(3) Every sea carrier shall, before departure, have on the vessel

  • (a) a sufficient amount of feed and safe water for each animal to be transported, having regard to the expected duration of the transport, to prevent each animal from suffering, dehydration, nutritional metabolic abnormality and death; and
  • (b) an additional one-day supply of feed and safe water for every period of four days or less of the expected duration of the transport.

(4) The sea carrier shall

  • (a) have storage on the vessel for the feed and safe water in a place and in a manner that will prevent them from posing a risk to the animal’s health and from otherwise becoming unsuitable for animal consumption; and
  • (b) have dispensing systems for the feed and safe water on the vessel.
Transfer of Responsibility

159.3 (1) No person who transports an animal shall leave the animal at a slaughter establishment, auction market, assembly yard or feedlot unless

  • (a) the consignee or their representative is physically present on the animal’s arrival, accepts responsibility for the animal’s care and records the acceptance in writing; and
  • (b) the person who transports the animal provides the consignee or their representative with information on when the animal was last fed, watered and rested.

(2) The person who accepts responsibility for the animal’s care shall, without delay, take the measures that are necessary to prevent its suffering, injury or death.

Records

159.4 (1) Every commercial carrier shall, for each shipment of animals, make a record in writing at the time of loading that includes the following information:

  • (a) the name and address of the shipper, consignee and person operating the conveyance in which the animals are transported;
  • (b) the identifying number or registration number of the conveyance;
  • (c) the number of square metres or square feet of floor area available to the animals in the conveyance or, if the animals are in a container, in the container;
  • (d) the date on which and place where that the conveyance or container was last cleaned and disinfected;
  • (e) the date on which, time when and place where the animals came into the carrier’s custody;
  • (f) the number, description and gross weight of the animals;
  • (g) the date on which and time when the animals were last fed, watered and rested prior to loading and, in the case of animals in heavy lactation, when they were last fully milked prior to loading; and
  • (h) if the animals are to be transported to a slaughter establishment, an auction market, an assembly yard or a feedlot, its name and address.

(2) Every commercial carrier shall add the following information to the record as it becomes available:

  • (a) the date on which, time when and place where the animals are fed, watered and rested while in the carrier’s custody; and
  • (b) the date on which, time when and place where the animals are unloaded at the destination and the name of the person who accepted responsibility for their care.

(3) The owner of the animals shall, at the time of loading, give to the commercial carrier that is to transport the animals a signed declaration that states the date on which, time when and place where the animals were last fed, watered and rested and if lactating, fully milked.

(4) The person operating the conveyance shall, with each shipment of animals being transported, keep on board the original or a copy of the record and the declaration.

Coming Into Force

3 These Regulations come into force on the first anniversary of the day on which they are published in the Canada Gazette, Part II.

[49-1-o]

  • Footnote 1
    Enns, A. J., and Morrow, L. 2015. Mercy for Animals, Fall 2015 National Survey — Report (online). Available from www.mercyforanimals.org/files/Mercy-for-Animals-2015-Survey.pdf (accessed April 7, 2016).
  • Footnote 2
    Beam, A. L., et al. 2016. Distance to slaughter, markets and feed sources used by small-scale food animal operations in the United States. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems 31: 49–59.
  • Footnote 3
    Haley, C., et al. 2008. Factors associated with in-transit losses of market hogs in Ontario in 2001. Canadian Journal of Veterinary Research 72: 377–384.
  • Footnote 4
    Broom, D. M. 2014. Welfare of transported animals: Factors influencing welfare and welfare assessment. In: Livestock Handling and Transport. 4th ed. Edited by T. Grandin. CABI, Wallingford, Oxfordshire. pp. 23–38.
  • Footnote 5
    Nielsen, B. L., Dybkjaer, L., and Herskin, M. S. 2011. Road transport of farm animals: Effects of journey duration on animal welfare. Animal 5: 415–427.
  • Footnote 6
    Sparling, D., Quadri, T., and van Duren, E. 2005. Consolidation in the Canadian Agri-food Sector and the Impact on Farm Incomes (online). Available from http://www.capi-icpa.ca/archives/pdfs/PapID11_DSparling.pdf (accessed July 7, 2016).
  • Footnote 7
    Minka, N. S., and Ayo, J. O. 2010. Physiological responses of food animals to road transportation stress. African Journal of Biotechnology 9: 6601–6613.
  • Footnote 8
    European Commission. 2016. Attitudes of Europeans towards Animal Welfare: Special Eurobarometer 442 (online). Available from http://www.eurogroupforanimals.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Eurobarometer-2016-Animal-Welfare.pdf (accessed June 7, 2016).
  • Footnote 9
    Flint, H. E., et al. 2014. Characteristics of loads of cattle stopping for feed, water and rest during long-distance transport in Canada. Animals 4: 62–81.
  • Footnote 10
    Roy, R. C., and Cockram, M. S. 2015. Patterns and durations of journeys by horses transported from the USA to Canada for slaughter. Canadian Veterinary Journal 56: 581–586.
  • Footnote 11
    Nielsen, B. L., Dybkjaer, L., and Herskin, M. S. 2011. Road transport of farm animals: effects of journey duration on animal welfare. Animal 5: 415–427.
  • Footnote 12
    Knowles, T. G., and Broom, D. M. 1990. The handling and transport of broilers and spent hens. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 28: 75–91.
  • Footnote 13
    Smith, G. C., et al. 2004. Effect of transport on meat quality and animal welfare of cattle, pigs, sheep, horses, deer, and poultry (online). Available from http://www.grandin.com/behaviour/effect.of.transport.html (accessed February 26, 2016).
  • Footnote *
    From time of hatching
  • Footnote 14
    Nielsen, B. L., Dybkjaer, L., and Herskin, M. S. 2011. Road transport of farm animals: effects of journey duration on animal welfare. Animal 5: 415–427.
  • Footnote 15
    Food and Agriculture Organization. 2013. Gateway to Farm Animal Welfare (online). Available from http://www.fao.org/ag/againfo/themes/animal-welfare/aw-abthegat/aw-whaistgate/en/ (accessed April 7, 2016).
  • Footnote 16
    Enns, A. J., and Morrow, L. 2015. Mercy For Animals, Fall 2015 National Survey – Report (online). Available from www.mercyforanimals.org/files/Mercy-for-Animals-2015-Survey.pdf [accessed April 7 2016].
  • Footnote 17
    McGlone, J. J. 2002. Training and certification of farm animal care in teaching and research institutions. The Professional Animal Scientist 18: 7–12.
  • Footnote 18
    Tannenbaum, J. 1995. Veterinary Ethics. 2nd Edition. Mosby-Year Book Inc., Saint Louis, Missouri.
  • Footnote 19
    Millman, S. T., Mench, J. A., and Malleau, A. E. 2010. The future of poultry welfare. In The welfare of domestic fowl and other captive birds. Edited by I. J. H. Duncan and P. Hawkins. Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht, Netherlands. pp. 279–302.
  • Footnote 20
    Mench, J. A., and Duncan, I. J. H. 1998. Poultry welfare in North America: opportunities and challenges. Poultry Science 77: 1763–1765.
  • Footnote 21
    Newberry, R. C., et al. 1999. Management of spent hens. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science 2: 13–29.
  • Footnote 22
    Weeks, C. A. 2014. Poultry handling and transport. In: Livestock Handling and Transport. 4th ed. Edited by T. Grandin. CABI, Wallingford, Oxfordshire. pp. 378–398.
  • Footnote 23
    Rostagno, M. H. 2009. Can stress in farm animals increase food safety risk? Foodborne Pathogens and Disease 6: 767–776.
  • Footnote 24
    National Farmed Animal Health and Welfare Council. 2012. A National Farm Animal Welfare System for Canada (on-line). Available from http://www.ahwcouncil.ca/pdfs/animalwelfare-statement/NFAHWC%20animal%20welfare%20vision_cover%20page_2012.pdf (accessed April 18, 2016).
  • Footnote 25
    C.R.C., c. 296; SOR/91-525, s. 2
  • Footnote a
    S.C. 2015, c. 2, ss. 95(1) to (6)
  • Footnote b
    S.C. 1990, c. 21