What we heard report – Consultation on proposed changes to Part XV of the Health of Animals Regulations (Identification and Traceability), Canada Gazette Part I

Comments related to tag costs and concerns with tag retention

The CFIA heard from many stakeholders that a lack in retention of current approved animal indicators used by industry is a significant concern. Standards for tag quality are not covered within the Health of Animals Regulations, however, the list of approved animal indicators will be incorporated by reference in the proposed regulations. The approval of animal indicators is guided by the Animal Indicator Approval and Revocation Framework (Framework) which sets out standards for tags, including tag retention. This Framework is developed and maintained by the National Identification and Methodology Advisory Committee, whose membership includes national industry associations representing each regulated sector, the CFIA, and administrators under the livestock traceability program. These standards are intended to ensure approved animal indicators are suitable for livestock practices in Canada along with the Canadian environment. Furthermore, these standards exceed the International Committee for Animal Recording (ICAR) standards, which are internationally recognized. The CFIA is always ready to evaluate new animal indicator technology put forward by manufacturers and the recommendations for the approval of animal indicators made by responsible administrators.

The CFIA also heard many concerns from stakeholders regarding the high cost of tags. Approved animal indicators are issued to industry by the responsible administrator of each species. It is important to note that these responsible administers are not for profit organizations and are responsible for setting the cost of tags on a cost recovery basis.

Comments related to herd marks for goats

Questions and comments were received in relations to the added option for the goat sector to use herds marks as approved indicators. The regulations simply allow the use of herd marks for certain species (pigs, sheep and goats), however, the actual use of herd mark indicators is subject to consultations between CFIA and industry before they can be used. For instance, the goat industry hasn't yet sought the pre-approval of those indicators. The approval of herd marks can only be accomplished with industry support, the recommendations from the responsible administrator of that species, and the appropriate steps followed to be placed on the approved animal indicator page. The approved animal indicator page will be incorporated by reference. The CFIA Incorporation by Reference Policy sets out the CFIA's roles and responsibilities related to IBR. Any changes made to these IBR documents, whether adding or removing approved indicators, will be consulted on before the change is made. Only when herd marks are listed on the approved animal indicator page would they be an option for industry.

Comments related to pig identification for exports

Stakeholders indicated that the proposed removal of ear tags bearing herd marks and ear tattoo herd marks as approved methods of identifying exported pigs would pose a significant burden on the industry as it is common practice currently.

The CFIA recognizes that these forms of identification is standard practice for exports that has been working well for stakeholders and acknowledges that these changes were an oversight in the regulatory proposal.

The CFIA recognizes the implication of those changes and intends to update the proposed regulations to again allow ear tags bearing a herd mark to be a valid method for identifying all categories of exported pigs and ear tattoo herd marks to be a valid method of identifying isowean and feeder pigs exported to farms in another country. This change will be reflected in the incorporated by reference document – Approved Animal Indicators. It is also important to recognize that the importing country may have further identification requirements.

Comments related to herd inventory and the repeal of the Cervid Movement Permit (CMP)

Industry expressed concern with the CFIA proposal to repeal section 76 of the Health of Animals Regulations, the requirement to obtain a permit before moving cervids, as the CMP is currently being used by industry for herd inventory purposes.

CMPs are documents used by stakeholders to facilitate inter-provincial movements, shipments to slaughter, and exports, among other uses. With the proposed regulatory changes, identification and movement reporting will be reported into a centralized database accessible to authorized users, some of this information (movement reporting with herd of origin, herd of destination, identification numbers, dates) would be accessible through this different mechanism. When further information is needed by industry that is not captured by movement reporting requirements in the regulations, alternative approaches will need to be developed. This initiative will be lead by industry with the involvement of the CFIA, other federal departments, and provincial/territorial government as needed.

Comments related to brucellosis, bovine tuberculosis and CWD programs with the repeal of the CMPs

Cervid stakeholders were concerned about how the repeal of the CMPs would affect the surveillance done for brucellosis, bovine tuberculosis and CWD programs. The CFIA is working with industry and provincial/territorial governments to design a cervid surveillance system for brucellosis and bovine tuberculosis that is independent of cervid movement permits. There is currently no link between CMPs and CWD surveillance. CWD surveillance is mandated by provincial and territorial agriculture and environment departments as well as the Chronic Wasting Disease Herd Certification Programs (for enrolled herds). Mandatory provincial surveillance for CWD exists in Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec and Yukon.

Stakeholders were also concerned about how the movement of CWD positive herds would be controlled if CMPs were repealed. The only CWD condition currently linked to CMP issuance restricts the movement of cervids from confirmed CWD positive premises to terminal locations (abattoirs or hunt farms) where mandatory provincial CWD testing programs exist. At this time, hunt farms are only permitted by provincial authorities in Saskatchewan and Quebec. In the absence of CMPs, section 11 of the Health of Animals Act still applies. Under this section, a license or permit issued by CFIA will still be required to move a CWD-exposed cervid or a cervid from a CWD positive premises. This license/permit may look different than the current CMP, but the conditions for movement will remain the same.

Comments related to the proposed requirements for wild or "unmanaged" herds

The CFIA received comments on whether the Health of Animals Regulations (Identification and Traceability) apply to wild herds. To clarify, the proposed regulations only apply to farmed or captive bison, cattle, sheep, pigs, goats and cervids. As such, there would be no requirement to identify wild herds. This reasoning also applies to some wild herds under human supervision, such as caribou that typically remain within the lands of an indigenous community and are not moved to another site or abattoir, in which there would be no traceability requirements to comply with.

Comments related to the obligations of livestock transporters with regards to the Humane Transport Regulations and Livestock Traceability Regulations and the concern of duplication in recording of information

A number of comments were received regarding the overlap of information required to accompany transported animals as written in the Humane Transport Regulations and Livestock Traceability Regulations. It is important to clarify that livestock transporters can keep the required information on the same document or form (paper or electronically) in whatever mean they choose as long as it is readily available to CFIA inspectors. This means there would be no duplication, livestock transporters may keep 1 record to comply with both the humane transport requirements and livestock traceability requirements.

Additionally, livestock transporters expressed concern that they would be required to report traceability information to the responsible administrators. It is important to understand that the livestock transporter is only required to ensure the required information is provided to the operator of the destination site within 24 hours after the arrival of the animal or carcass at the destination site and to keep a record of that information for a period of at least 2 years. Livestock transporters are not required to report the information to the responsible administrators.

Comments related to the collection and access of livestock traceability information

With regards to questions and comments related to the collection and access of livestock traceability information, the elements of livestock traceability information are deemed personal information, that is information that on its own or combined with other pieces of data, can identify an individual. As such, livestock traceability information is subject to the Privacy Act, the law that governs the personal information handling practices of federal government institutions, such as the CFIA. The act applies to all of the personal information the federal government collects, uses and discloses.

Livestock traceability information is collected by responsible administrators which are organizations authorized by the federal government to receive this information and administer a national identification program in relation to certain species that are located in 1 or more provinces. The responsible administrators then send the traceability information to the CFIA through the Traceability National Information Portal (TNIP). Livestock traceability information may be disclosed to:

• inspectors of the CFIA for the purpose for which the information was obtained or compiled by the CFIA, for example to administer the livestock identification and traceability program
• inspectors of a provincial government that signed a data sharing agreement with the CFIA for the purpose for which the information was obtained or compiled by the CFIA, and
•  an investigative body specified in the Privacy Regulations, on the written request of the body, for the purpose of enforcing any law of Canada or a province or carrying out a lawful investigation, if the request specifies the purpose and describes the information to be disclosed

Comments related to the cost-benefit analysis report

The CFIA heard from many stakeholders concerned with the assumptions made in the cost-benefit analysis report. Stakeholder associations expressed that the predicted costs to industry, the CFIA, and the responsible administrator resulting from the proposed regulatory changes were significantly underestimated. In particular, stakeholder associations commented that the price of approved indicators, the wage rates used, the time required to learn about the proposed regulatory requirements, the time and labour associated with the repeal of record keeping requirements, and the time and resources required to report events were not accurately represented in the report.

The cost-benefit analysis was prepared using data and industry input available at the time of publication. The CFIA will be updating the cost-benefit analysis report for the final publication of the regulatory proposal at Canada Gazette II (CGII) with more current data and information.

Comments related to requests for government funding in order for industry to implement the proposed Regulations

A number of comments were received requesting support from the government with respect to the additional costs associated with implementing the proposed changes to the regulations. Many stakeholders felt that funding will be required in order for them to comply with the regulatory proposal.  

Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC) has provided consistent funding to livestock sectors for the development and implementation of livestock traceability systems and tools. This funding has been available in multiple, 5 year policy frameworks and initiatives (for example Growing Forward, Growing Forward 2, the Livestock Auction Traceability Initiative, the Canadian Agricultural Partnership, the Sustainable Canadian Agricultural Partnership, etc.), and continues today under the current AgriAssurance Program. This funding is available to National Industry Associations to develop, verify, and integrate traceability and assurance systems to address market and regulatory requirements. Similarly, there is a complimentary small- and medium-sized enterprises component that covers market and regulatory requirements as well. Complimentary funding has also been available to livestock producers to meet traceability requirements through provincial/territorial programs.

Comments related to the need for inspector resources to ensure adequate inspection and enforcement activities

Many stakeholders indicated they have significant concerns regarding the absence of inspections and subsequent lack of enforcement of the Health of Animals Regulations. Industry has expressed a desire for consistency in compliance and enforcement actions by CFIA inspectors.

With respect to the concerns regarding inspector resources, it is important to note that inspection tasks are site specific (for example abattoir, assembly point) and tasks for current inspectors will be amended to include inspections of the proposed traceability requirements when on site performing other tasks. It is also important to note that most compliance verification tasks for movement events can be done through the responsible administrators databases and the Traceability National Information Portal (TNIP). The CFIA will modernize inspection activities to focus on risk based inspections and ensure resources are directed to sites at high risk for non compliance to ensure adequate enforcement of the proposed regulations. The CFIA will also ensure effective communication of the regulatory changes to CFIA inspectors as well as provide updated guidance and training.

Comments related to administrative monetary penalties (AMPs) under the Health of Animals Regulations

The Health of Animals Act and regulations are included in the Agriculture and Agri-Food Administrative Monetary Penalties Act (AAMPA) and regulations which establishes a fair and efficient administrative monetary penalty system for the enforcement of the agri-food acts. Under the AAMPA, the CFIA may pursue enforcement measures to encourage compliance with the Health of Animals Act and regulations. Industry and consumers have both indicated that they want CFIA to deal effectively and consistently with instances of non-compliance. This involves issuing administrative monetary penalties (AMPs) as notices of violation with warning or with financial penalty, depending on the nature of the violation. After updates to the Health of Animals Regulations (Identification and Traceability) are published in CGII, the CFIA will make the relevant updates to the Agriculture and Agri-Food Administrative Monetary Penalties Regulations and notify stakeholders of the changes.

The CFIA's Compliance and Enforcement Policy outlines how it conducts enforcement, including the application of AMPs in a consistent, fair and transparent manner. CFIA selects the appropriate control and enforcement actions based on risk and the gravity of the non-compliance. As specific facts relating to cases of non-compliance may vary considerably, the enforcement actions applied may not be the same in each instance. CFIA has the flexibility and authority to select the appropriate enforcement actions based on risk and the nature of the non-compliance. Gravity of non-compliance is determined by considering the potential or actual harm associated with the non-compliance, the compliance history of the regulated party, and the intent associated with the non-compliance. These factors also help determine whether an AMP is issued as a notice of violation with warning or with financial penalty.

Comments related to the coming into force of the proposed Regulations

A number of comments were received requesting clarification on which transition period applies to them. Also, there were a number of comments requesting that the transition period be consistent among all stakeholders and thus, be extended to 2 years for everyone.

For most stakeholders who are already familiar with regulations or with traceability in general, the proposed regulations would provide a 1-year transition period before coming into force to the livestock industry. But to further support all stakeholders, after the proposed regulations come into force, there will be a period where CFIA inspectors will be focused on education and communication. This will allow further time for stakeholders to adjust and comply with the new requirements.

Recognizing some stakeholders may be unfamiliar with the livestock traceability program, the proposed regulations would provide them a 2-year transition period before coming into force. This would apply to owners of livestock animals that are kept for a person's company (for example companion goats), that are used for research purposes, and that are used for entertainment purposes. It is anticipated that this transition period would provide sufficient time to engage and educate these stakeholders on the new regulatory requirements and their responsibilities.

Comments related to guidance materials for Canada Gazette, Part II (CGII) publication

The CFIA appreciates the comments received regarding the importance of proper communication, and the development of helpful guidance materials, to assist industry to become aware of the changes to the regulations and support regulatory compliance. The CFIA will reach out to industry associations to determine the best way to engage with various sectors on the distribution of guidance materials. Working with industry on outreach initiatives will allow us to effectively communicate the proposed requirements to stakeholders, including those with limited internet access.

Industry guidance will be available when the proposed regulations are published at Canada Gazette, Part II. Initial guidance will include sector specific materials (for example goat sector), site specific materials (for example assembly points), webinars, and online decision making tools. Further guidance materials may be developed as needs are identified by stakeholders.