Vol. 148, No. 14 — July 2, 2014

Registration

SOR/2014-151 June 13, 2014

MEAT INSPECTION ACT

Regulations Amending the Meat Inspection Regulations, 1990

P.C. 2014-676 June 12, 2014

His Excellency the Governor General in Council, on the recommendation of the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and the Minister of Health, pursuant to section 20 (see footnote a) of the Meat Inspection Act (see footnote b), makes the annexed Regulations Amending the Meat Inspection Regulations, 1990.

REGULATIONS AMENDING THE MEAT INSPECTION REGULATIONS, 1990

AMENDMENTS

1. (1) The definition “flock information document” in subsection 2(1) of the Meat Inspection Regulations, 1990 (see footnote 1) is repealed.

(2) The definitions “ante-mortem examination”, “food animal” and “inspection” in subsection 2(1) of the Regulations are replaced by the following:

“ante-mortem examination” means, in respect of a food animal that is slaughtered in a registered establishment, the examination of the animal, or the examination of a sample from a shipment of animals that includes the food animal, and the examination of the animal information document in respect of the animal or the shipment of animals, by the operator under the supervision of an official veterinarian; (examen ante mortem)

“food animal” means any animal in the class of mammals or birds that is slaughtered and processed as meat products for human consumption and for which an inspection system has been established for the purpose of these Regulations; (animal pour alimentation humaine)

“inspection” includes

• (a) in respect of an animal, product or other thing, the examination of a sample from a shipment or other collection of animals, products or other things,
• (b) in respect of a process, the verification or monitoring of the process, and
• (c) in respect of an animal, the examination of the animal information document in respect of the animal or the shipment of animals that includes the animal; (inspection)

(3) The definition “médecin vétérinaire officiel” in subsection 2(1) of the French version of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

« médecin vétérinaire officiel » Médecin vétérinaire désigné à titre d’inspecteur en vertu du paragraphe 13(3) de la Loi sur l’Agence canadienne d’inspection des aliments. (official veterinarian)

(4) Subsection 2(1) of the Regulations is amended by adding the following in alphabetical order:

“animal information document” means a document completed in accordance with subsection 66(1); (document d’information sur l’animal)

“game animal” means a wild animal, including an animal living in an enclosed territory under conditions of freedom similar to those of wild animals; (gibier)

“on-farm food safety program” means a program that is based on a system that identifies, evaluates and controls hazards on a farm or other place relating to the safety of food derived from a food animal and is implemented by the producer of the animal; (programme de salubrité des aliments à la ferme)

2. (1) Paragraph 3(3)(e) of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

• (e) a meat product derived from a muskox, caribou or reindeer that is a game animal, if the meat product was produced under an inspection system established for the purposes of these Regulations; and

(2) Paragraph 3(5)(b) of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

• (b) certified, by a person who is empowered by the United States Department of Agriculture to enforce the national meat inspection legislation of the United States, as being a product of that country and as meeting the standards set out in these Regulations and as being packaged and labelled in accordance with these Regulations.

3. (1) The portion of subsection 9(1) of the Regulations before paragraph (a) is replaced by the following:

9. (1) Subject to subsections (2) and (3) and section 121, no meat product shall be identified as edible unless

(2) Section 9 of the Regulations is amended by adding the following after subsection (2):

(3) On the request of an operator and with the consent of the President, a meat product derived from a muskox, caribou or reindeer that is a game animal may be identified as edible if

• (a) the meat product was produced under an inspection system established for the purposes of these Regulations;
• (b) the carcass from which the meat product is derived is dressed and subjected to a post-mortem inspection, in accordance with these Regulations; and
• (c) the meat product conforms to the applicable standards prescribed by these Regulations and the Food and Drug Regulations.
  

4. Section 35 of the Regulations is repealed.

5. Section 38 of the Regulations is amended by adding the following after subsection (1):

(2) No carcass of a food animal shall be admitted to an area of a registered establishment where food animals are dressed if the condition of the carcass would or would be likely to constitute a contamination hazard during the dressing of the carcass.

6. Section 40 of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

40. The time interval between the slaughter of a food animal and the evisceration of its carcass shall be such as to prevent deterioration of the carcass.

7. Paragraph 44(1)(a) of the Regulations is amended by striking out “or” at the end of subparagraph (ii) and by adding the following after subparagraph (iii):

• (iv) is derived from a game animal referred to in subsection 44.1(1); or

8. The Regulations are amended by adding the following after section 44:

44.1 (1) This section applies to meat products derived from an eviscerated game animal carcass that have not been inspected under an inspection system established for the purpose of these Regulations.

(2) The meat products shall not be admitted to a registered establishment if their condition would or would be likely to constitute a contamination hazard for other food in the registered establishment.

(3) The meat products shall not be admitted to a registered establishment unless it has the facilities and equipment required to handle them.

(4) The identity of the meat products, except skin, hair, horns, antlers, hooves, feathers and inedible parts of the carcass, shall be maintained while they are in the registered establishment.

(5) The meat products shall not be admitted to any area of a registered establishment other than an area where food animals are dressed unless they are free of apparent defects and, in the case of birds, of feathers, and, in the case of any other animal, of skin, hair, horns, antlers and hooves.

(6) Subject to subsections (7) to (9), the meat products shall not be handled or stored in a room of a registered establishment in which meat products derived from a food animal are present.

(7) A dressed carcass that is free of apparent defects may be stored together with meat products derived from a food animal if there is no contact, either direct or indirect, between the carcass and the meat products.

(8) Meat products that are derived from a dressed carcass and that are packaged and bear a label indicating the name of the person from whom they were received and the species of game animal from which they are derived may be stored in the same room of a registered establishment where meat products from a food animal are stored.

(9) Meat products that are derived from a dressed carcass may be handled in the same room as meat products derived from a food animal for the purpose of combining the two types of meat products.

(10) Sections 89 to 120 do not apply to a meat product.

(11) A meat product that is intended for use as food that is removed from a registered establishment, or the outer receptacle or covering used in connection with the meat product, shall bear a label indicating

• (a) the species of game animal from which the meat product is derived; and
• (b) the name of the person from whom the meat product was received.

(12) If the meat product or a part of it is dressed, boned, cut up, processed or otherwise handled in a registered establishment, the utensils, equipment, room or area used shall be cleaned and sanitized before any food animal meat product is dressed, boned, cut up, processed or otherwise handled in the room or area.

(13) The meat shall be returned to the person from whom it was received together with any food with which it has been combined and, on request of that person, any of the other meat products from the same animal.

9. Section 66 of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

66. (1) Subject to subsection (4), an equine animal and a bird, other than an ostrich, rhea and emu, may be presented for slaughter in a registered establishment only if the operator has been provided with a completed animal information document in respect of the animal by the owner or producer of the animal, or their authorized representative.

(2) The animal information document must include

• (a) the name and contact information of the owner or producer of the animal;
• (b) the identification of the last location at which the animal was raised or kept before being sent to slaughter by specifying the address of the location or a code or number that identifies the location;
• (c) the identification number of each animal or other information that identifies it;
• (d) in the case of an equine animal, the name of any on-farm food safety program in which the owner or producer participates;
• (e) a description of any physical or chemical hazard with respect to the animal of which the owner or producer is aware;
• (f) in the case of birds, other than ostriches, rheas and emus, the time at which the catching of the birds to be loaded started, the last time that the birds had access to water before loading and the last time at which the birds were fed before loading the birds in the transport containers;
• (g) in the case of an equine animal, for the last 180 days of the life of the animal,
  • (i) the name of any disease or syndrome that was diagnosed or a description of the clinical signs of any illness or deviation from normal behaviour or appearance,
  • (ii) the name of any drug or vaccine administered, as well as its Drug Identification Number, if any, its route of administration, the last date of its administration and the dosage administered and either the withdrawal period or, in the case of extra label drug use, a copy of the prescription issued by a veterinarian together with a document attesting to the withdrawal period determined by a competent person or body respecting that use, and
  • (iii) any use of the animal;
• (h) in the case of birds, other than ostriches, rheas and emus, for the last 120 days of the life of a bird that has been used for breeding or egg production or for the life of any other bird,
  • (i) the mortality rate for the flock, the name of any disease or syndrome that was diagnosed in the flock and the date on which the flock recovered from the disease or syndrome, and
  • (ii) the names of the drugs used to treat a disease or syndrome and vaccines administered and the name of any drug used extra label, their route of administration, the first and last date of their administration and the dosage administered and either the withdrawal period or, in the case of extra label drug use, a copy of the prescription issued by a veterinarian together with a document attesting to the withdrawal period determined by a competent person or body respecting this use; and
• (i) in the case of birds, other than ostriches, rheas and emus, in addition to the information referred to in paragraph (h), the name of any drug requiring a withdrawal period that has been used in the last 14 days.
  

(3) For every equine animal and every shipment of birds, other than ostriches, rheas and emus, that is slaughtered in a registered establishment, the operator shall keep and retain, for a period of not less than one year beginning on the day on which the food animal is slaughtered, records that contain

• (a) the information required by subsection (2);
• (b) the date and time at which the slaughtering process began, if any;
• (c) the condition of the food animal on its arrival, and, in the case of a shipment of birds,
  • (i) their average weight, and
  • (ii) the number of birds found dead at the time the shipment was presented for slaughter; and
• (d) if the food animal or its carcass was condemned, the reasons for condemnation.

(4) A food animal referred to in subsection (1) may be presented for slaughter in a registered establishment without the operator being provided with a completed animal information document respecting the animal for the purpose of the operator

• (a) holding the edible meat products derived from the food animal pending the reception of a completed animal information document; or
• (b) preparing animal food or other inedible meat products.
  

10. (1) Subsection 67(1) of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

67. (1) Subject to subsection (9), every operator who slaughters an animal shall perform, within 24 hours before the time of slaughter, an ante-mortem examination of the animal.

(2) Subsections 67(4) and (5) of the Regulations are replaced by the following:

(4) On the request of an inspector, the operator shall present an animal to the inspector for an ante-mortem inspection, even if the slaughter of the animal has been authorized under subsection (3).

(5) The operator shall not slaughter an animal that was the subject of a request under subsection (4) unless an inspector has, after that request, inspected the animal and authorized the slaughter of the animal.

(3) Subparagraph 67(9)(b)(ii) of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

• (ii) the examination of the animal information document for the shipment.

11. The portion of section 79 of the Regulations before paragraph (a) is replaced by the following:

79. Every food animal that is slaughtered, other than a muskox, caribou or reindeer that is a game animal that is slaughtered elsewhere than in a registered establishment, shall, before being bled,

12. Paragraph 92(2)(b) of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

• (b) is suitable for the purpose for which it is to be used.

COMING INTO FORCE

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

REGULATORY IMPACT ANALYSIS STATEMENT

(This statement is not part of the Regulations.)

Executive summary

Issues

Pursuant to the Meat Inspection Act, the Meat Inspection Regulations, 1990 (MIR) prescribe requirements for the registration and inspection of establishments involved in the slaughter of food animals and the processing, packaging, labelling, refrigeration, freezing and storage of meat products for trade inter-provincially and internationally. Meat intended to be traded inter-provincially or internationally must be processed in a federally registered establishment, while meat intended to be sold within the same province or territory where it is processed does not have to be. There are currently approximately 4 000 facilities manufacturing meat that are not federally registered. However, only about 15–20 plants seek to become federally registered per year. To date, there are 730 federally registered establishments.

Most of the non-federally registered establishments involved in the slaughter of food animals and the processing, packaging, labelling, refrigeration, freezing and storage of meat products are small- or medium-sized businesses (2 to 200 employees) that operate locally and have limited production capacity and/or limited financial means to pursue federal registration and, correspondingly, fulfill the requirements of the MIR. For these establishments, becoming federally registered is expensive, with costs varying greatly from establishment to establishment in relation to the volume and nature of product. The cost for new plants to meet federal requirements for establishments is estimated at $200 per square foot.

For several years, federal, provincial and territorial Ministers (FPT Ministers) of Agriculture had been seeking ways to eliminate potential barriers to inter-provincial trade. In response to these discussions and the growing demand from non-federally registered establishments, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) initiated a federal, provincial and territorial Meat Hygiene Pilot Project in September 2010. Government authorities were tasked, under this project, to work with a group of select pilot facilities in order to validate new inspection requirements, conduct evaluations, and collect samples and information. As a result, the FPT Ministers of Agriculture made a commitment, in July 2011, to advance efforts to simplify requirements for establishments involved in the slaughter and the processing or packaging of meat products traded inter-provincially, while maintaining food safety standards. Additional information regarding this commitment can be viewed at the following Web site: www4.agr.gc.ca/AAFC-AAC/display-afficher.do?id=1309901575227&lang=eng.

Objectives

The objectives of this regulatory action are to

• streamline and simplify requirements (e.g. replace prescriptive requirements and/or criteria with more outcome-based requirements) for all existing federally registered establishments as well as future applicants to the federal system while maintaining Canada’s high federal food safety standards;
• contribute to broad Government of Canada initiatives, such as the Red Tape Reduction Commission and the United States-Canada Regulatory Cooperation Council (RCC), both seeking to ease the burden on smaller businesses and facilitate trade;
• develop an outcome-based regulatory framework (one thatrelies on principles and outcome-focused rules) that provides small businesses with additional flexibility to develop approaches to meeting regulatory requirements that are more suited to their business size; and
• make federal registration, and the expanded market opportunity it provides, more achievable for small meat-processing establishments in Canada.

Description

The amendments contained herein implement the following measures.

(1) Streamlining approvals

Subsection 92(2) of the MIR requires that packaging materials meet the requirements of the Food and Drug Regulations (FDR) administered by Health Canada. Paragraph 92(2)(b) imposes two additional requirements: that the materials be suitable for the purpose for which they are to be used and be registered by CFIA in a register kept for that purpose. These amendments remove the requirement that the material be registered, and in doing so align MIR requirements for meat products made in Canada with the current approach for imported meat products. Currently, foreign meat manufacturing firms can use packaging materials, non-food chemicals and construction materials without having to pre-register them with CFIA or with the exporting foreign competent government meat inspection authority.

It is important to note that for food safety and health reasons, the key requirements related to safe packaging and labelling remain, and all materials used in packaging or labelling meat products in a registered establishment continue to be required to be durable, effective and suitable for their intended purpose. In addition, the general safety provisions in the FDR that apply to all foods also apply to meat products. The meat industry can verify the acceptability, if necessary, of construction materials and non-food chemicals by using the voluntary review service available at Health Canada, where applicable.

The amendments also remove section 35 of the Regulations, which allows CFIA to prohibit the use of specific materials or coatings in a registered establishment, and to set up a register of allowed materials. There are already adequate safeguards to ensure that material is safe and suitable for use under the following provisions:

• paragraph 28(1)(c), dealing with the suitability, durability and content of the material;
• subsection 34(8), dealing with the content and coating of building components of a registered establishment (e.g. ceilings) where food animals are slaughtered, carcasses are dressed or meat products are handled; and
• subsection 34(11), dealing with the use, labelling and storage of detergents, sanitizers or other chemical agents used in a registered establishment.

The repeal of section 35 is tied to the repeal of the registration provision for packaging materials outlined in paragraph 92(2)(b) of the MIR and is based on the same rationale given that all substances used in food production, including meat, have to comply with the Food and Drugs Act (FDA) and FDR, which ensures their safety of use in food.

Registration of packaging and labelling materials based on paragraph 92(2)(b) of the MIR was identified as an irritant under the Red Tape Reduction initiative. As a result, the Government of Canada’s Recommendations Report — Cutting Red Tape… Freeing Business to Grow (see footnote 2) recommended that CFIA undertake system improvements through streamlining approvals in certain areas, including meat packaging (www.reduceredtape.gc.ca/heard-entendu/rr/rr10-eng.asp). The amendment to paragraph 92(2)(b) and the repeal of section 35 help CFIA in responding to the recommendation.

(2) Where possible, conversion of prescriptive requirements (requirements that specify how an outcome must be achieved) to outcome-based requirements that rely on principles and outcome-focused rules, and increase of alignment with regulations and policies of Canada’s major trading partners, including the United States and the European Union

The designation for U.S. export certification of products to Canada, outlined in paragraph 3(5)(b), has been modified from veterinarian to inspector. In the mid-1980s, Canada and the United States agreed to change their import re-inspection activities for meat products by conducting sampling of shipments rather than examining every shipment after it crossed the border. Paragraph 3(5)(b) of the MIR was introduced to enable this change and specified that the export certificate document was to be signed by an official veterinarian of the U.S. government, reflecting practices in place at the time. This specification was, however, creating challenges in getting veterinarians to sign documents for meat-processing plants where there was no slaughter, therefore, no resident veterinarian, and was considered unnecessary given the respective animal health situations (e.g. comparable infrastructures and disease status) in both countries and the absence of any certification statements on the subject of animal diseases. It was determined that the regulatory text’s explicitness posed an obstacle to moving forward.

(3) Greater flexibility in the types of activities that can be carried out within a registered establishment

The MIR did not allow the slaughter of animals other than in a registered establishment except in the case of muskox, caribou and reindeer, which are covered by a game animal inspection system. The MIR have been amended to clarify existing provisions that allow carcasses of muskox, caribou and reindeer, covered by a game animal inspection system, entry into federally registered establishments. As well, the amendments allow carcasses of game animals, previously not covered by an inspection system established for the purposes of the MIR, to be cut and boned inside a federally registered establishment only for private use by the owner of the carcass (the hunter). It would be necessary to ensure that these activities are separate from usual activities occurring in federally registered establishments.

To support critical food safety knowledge (e.g. health of the animal), information that is currently collected under existing regulatory requirements on the “flock sheet” for poultry has been revised to now be collected in an “animal information document.” In addition, the information gathered in the animal information document will be used for equines (horses) to ensure that key information for these animals is provided before processing.

Proposed amendments to the MIR to allow on-farm slaughter, as published in the Canada Gazette, Part I (CGI), on April 7, 2012, have not been implemented due to concerns raised during the public comment period following publication in CGI. It was determined that further consultations would be required before such changes could be envisaged.

These amendments are not expected to have any significant economic impacts or implications for business. In general, they provide greater flexibility to federally registered establishments in how they may meet regulatory requirements while removing some redundant requirements, and allow industry stakeholders to focus more of their attention on critically important food safety requirements.

Regulatory and non-regulatory options considered

Option one — No change, maintain status quo

The registration requirement for materials used in packaging or labelling of meat products was streamlined. The previous requirement to register constituted an ongoing irritant to the sector.

The MIR did not allow the carcasses of some game animals to be cut and boned inside a federally registered establishment, thereby presenting a challenge to hunters wishing to have their game carcasses dressed in a federally registered establishment.

Option two — Pursue amendments to address difficulties outlined in option one

Implementing these amendments provides greater flexibility to federally registered establishments in how they may meet regulatory requirements while streamlining certain approvals and removing overly prescriptive non-food safety requirements that constituted irritants to the sector. The amendments also assist Canada in enhancing its alignment with major trading partners such as the United States and/or better position Canada for the future in terms of meat product imports and exports.

This approach was fully supported by the FPT commitment to streamline and simplify requirements (e.g. replace prescriptive requirements and/or criteria with more outcome-based requirements) for all existing federally registered establishments as well as future applicants to the federal system while maintaining Canada’s high federal food safety standards. It will make federal registration more easily achievable for smaller operations thereby expanding trade opportunities. It was, therefore, the chosen approach.

Benefits and costs

Based on CFIA’s knowledge of the sector, these amendments will have a low economic impact. The administrative burden of small businesses will also be reduced as a result of some of these changes.

There are currently approximately 4 000 facilities manufacturing meat that are not federally registered. However, only about 15–20 plants seek to become federally registered per year. While it is hoped that this number will increase as a result of the modifications to the MIR, costs associated with access to federal registration, even under the more flexible rules, remain high. In addition to the costs required for upgrades, federally registered plants will have to carry operating costs to maintain hazard analysis and critical control points (HACCP) systems and pay inspection fees according to the Meat Product Inspection Fees Notice (www.inspection.gc.ca/about-the-cfia/acts-and-regulations/fees-notice/meatproducts/eng/1306469511290/1307762809360). Given the small volumes these plants produce, estimates suggest that only a small number of facilities will seek to take advantage of the more flexible regime, such that the additional number of annual applicants to the federal system will be no more than 5–10 per year (in addition to the baseline group of 15–20).

In regard to the repeal of the MIR, section 35, for the evaluation of chemicals and materials, the reduced administrative burden (filling out paperwork and providing information) will apply to all federally registered establishments. However, smaller operators should have a comparatively greater benefit based on their higher administrative costs. In addition, moving from a mandatory to a voluntary approach, as is used with other commodities besides meat, may save thousands of dollars from not having to fill out as much as 20 data fields on the form previously used to evaluate construction materials and non-food chemicals. The estimated savings per establishment is $1,050 based on 1.5% workload reduction of two administrative coordinators. The industry will save $18,375 per year.

The amendment to paragraph 3(5)(b) [Inspector certifies U.S. exports in lieu of veterinarian], will only impact operations in the United States. Small business in Canada will, therefore, not be impacted by this change. There will be no additional costs or savings to the producers resulting from this change.

Finally, in regard to the amendment to the registration requirement of paragraph 92(2)(b) [Registration of Packaging or Labelling Materials], industry may experience some savings due to no longer having to apply for the registration of materials. Eighteen establishments are anticipated to save a total of $37,163 per year or $2,124 per establishment per year.

“One-for-One” Rule

For several years, federal, provincial and territorial Ministers (FPT Ministers) of Agriculture have been seeking ways to eliminate potential barriers to inter-provincial trade. In July 2011, the FPT Ministers of Agriculture made a commitment to advance efforts to streamline and simplify requirements for establishments involved in the slaughter and the processing or packaging of meat products traded inter-provincially, while maintaining food safety standards.

The commitment to streamline has resulted in the repeal of two specifically prescriptive MIR requirements, namely the requirement for registration of materials under paragraph 92(2)(b) and section 35 which allowed CFIA to prohibit the use of specific materials or coatings in a federally registered establishment, and to set up a register of allowed materials. In the latter case, the meat industry would still be able to verify the acceptability, if necessary, of construction materials and non-food chemicals it uses via current Health Canada services where applicable and on a voluntary basis without CFIA as an intermediary.

Although this regulatory package implements several other amendments, only those pertaining to streamlining requirements as described above, result in the reduction of administrative burden to industry.

Estimated reduction in administrative burden

In total, CFIA estimates that the repeals, as described above, will result in a reduction of administrative burden to industry of $390,000 over a 10-year period using a discount rate of 7% or an annualized average of $55,538.

Assumptions used in the calculation of administrative burden

Number of affected stakeholders

There are currently approximately 4 000 establishments involved in the slaughter of food animals and in the processing, packaging, labelling, refrigeration, freezing and storage of meat products in Canada that are not federally registered. Only approximately 15 to 20 of those seek to become federally registered per year.

• The number of small businesses varies between 0 and 5, the average number of 2.5 being rounded to 3.
• The number of medium and large businesses varies between 15 and 20, the average number of 17.5 being rounded to 18.
• The total number of all affected businesses is 20.

Repeal of section 35 from the MIR for the evaluation of chemicals and materials

This amendment reduces the regulatory burden on all federally registered establishments by eliminating the mandatory requirement to complete as much as 20 data fields on the form currently used to apply for the evaluation, and subsequent registration, of construction materials and non-food chemicals. A similar approach to what is being used by other commodities will apply.

Based on a 1.5% workload reduction of two administrative coordinators possessing an annual salary of $35,000, savings per plant have been calculated to be $1,050. The total administrative costs saved over a year are $18,375.

Amendment to the registration requirement of paragraph 92(2)(b) (Registration of Packaging or Labelling Materials)

The repeal will generate savings to the industry by removing the requirement to apply for the registration of materials. Based on an average of 44 submissions per year and 18 establishments, the anticipated savings amount to $2,124 per establishment per year, or $37,163 per year for the entire industry.

CFIA has verified the accuracy of all of the above estimations and assumptions. Cost estimates herein were based on previous consultations with industry, as well as provinces participating in the pilot project. Fifteen stakeholders were contacted in October 2012, and feedback was received. No further adjustments were required.

Consultation

These issues were discussed for several years by FPT Ministers who had been seeking ways to eliminate potential barriers to inter-provincial trade. In response to these discussions, provincial, territorial and federal government authorities worked with a group of select pilot facilities in order to validate new inspection requirements, conduct evaluations, and collect samples and information.

CFIA also consulted with Health Canada on the amendments related to the repeal of section 35 and the amendment to paragraph 92(2)(b).

Following prepublication in the Canada Gazette, Part I, on April 7, 2012, stakeholders indicated that these amendments constituted a positive step toward reducing administrative burden, and in some cases, introducing a more outcome-based approach to reduce costs and enhance flexibility for operators of federally registered meat establishments. While most stakeholders were supportive of the proposed amendments, some concerns were raised. In particular, comments were received concerning the proposed wording for the new animal information document. These specific concerns were, however, readily accommodated by slightly modifying the regulatory text. In particular, the phrase “or egg production” was added to paragraph 66(2)(h) to provide that the information requirements under that paragraph apply, in the case of birds used for egg production, only for the last 120 days of the bird’s life. In addition, the phrase “for a purpose other than to treat a disease or symptom” has been eliminated from subparagraph 66(2)(h)(ii).

The main concern raised during the public comment period, however, related to the proposed changes to allow slaughter outside a registered establishment. More specifically, stakeholders felt that further consultation was warranted before such changes were conducted. In response, and pending further discussions and consultations with stakeholders on the topic, CFIA has removed these proposed amendments from this package.

Similarly, CFIA has removed the proposed amendment concerning separation of incompatible activities under paragraph 28(1)(i). It was felt that broader discussions with all stakeholders should be held and considered before regulatory amendments are proposed.

Rationale

Pursuing the amendments, as described previously, provided greater flexibility to federally registered establishments in how they may meet regulatory requirements while streamlining certain approvals and removing overly prescriptive non-food safety requirements which constituted irritants to the sector. The amendments also assist Canada in enhancing its alignment with major trading partners such as the United States and/or better position Canada for the future in terms of meat product imports and exports.

This approach was fully supported by the FPT Ministers’ commitment to streamline and simplify requirements (e.g. replace prescriptive requirements and/or criteria with more outcome-based requirements) for all existing federally registered establishments as well as future applicants to the federal system while maintaining Canada’s high federal food safety standards. It will make federal registration more easily achievable for smaller operations, thereby expanding trade opportunities.

These amendments have a low economic impact. This was, therefore, the chosen approach.

Implementation, enforcement and service standards

Other than supportive policy work and training, there are no substantive changes to current compliance and enforcement strategies as a result of these amendments.

Contacts

Mr. David Spicer
Director
Regulatory, Legislative and Economic Affairs Division
Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Telephone: 613-773-5889
Fax: 613-773-5960
Email: David.Spicer@inspection.gc.ca

Parthiban Muthukumarasamy
Director
Meat Programs Division
Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Telephone: 613-773-6156
Fax: 613-773-6281
Email: Parthiban.Muthukumarasamy@inspection.gc.ca

• Footnote a
  S.C. 1993, c. 44, s. 184
• Footnote b
  R.S., c. 25 (1st Supp.)
• Footnote 1
  SOR/90-288
• Footnote 2
  Recommendations Report — Cutting Red Tape… Freeing Business to Grow, Red Tape Reduction Commission, Government of Canada, January 2012.