Report Comparison of Canadian and EU Legislation Final 3-1-12

8/2/2019 Report Comparison of Canadian and EU Legislation Final 3-1-12

1/63

A Comparison of Canadian and EUAnimal Welfare Standards

By

Karen LevensonAnimal Alliance of Canada

December 11, 2011


2/63

Current Statutes

Farm animals in Canada suffer from antiquated animal welfare practices that are far below thestandards of the EU. For decades the EU has legislated improvements regarding all aspects of

the care and handling of food animals. Consequently, the EU is leading the way to morehumane food animal practices.

A comparison of Canadian and EU legislation shows how lit tle consideration federal and

provincial governments and Canadas agriculture industry give to humane treatment of animals

raised for food.

Below is a summary of the EUs legislative process and a chart comparing Canadian and EUlegislation and animal welfare practices.


3/63

9

Canada EUSummary

There are three federal laws that apply to thewelfare of food animals in Canada. These are the

Health of Animals Act (Regulations current to10/31/11); the Meat Inspection Act (Regulationscurrent to 10/17/11) and the Criminal Code.

There is no legislation in Canada that governs thetreatment of farm animals or protects theirwelfare on farms (outside of the most egregiousmistreatment, which is covered under theCriminal Code).

The current legislation avoids ethical principlesand does not deal with the keeping, caring andhousing of animals for agricultural purposes.

There is no recognition of the individual needs ofanimals with regard to their species ordevelopment, adaptation and domestication orto their physiological, ethological orpsychological needs. Thus animals are notrequired to have freedom of movement,freedom from fear, freedom from pain or anyother freedom, and there are no provisions foron farm inspections. Thus, there is no regulation

of the intensive farming system in Canada.

Both the Health of Animals Act and the MeatInspection Act fall under the auspices of theMinistry of Agriculture and Agri -foods. TheCanadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA)administers and/or enforces the following acts:

Food and Drugs Act* Canada Agricultural Products Act Meat Inspection Act Fish Inspection Act Consumer Packaging and Labelling Act* Health of Animals Act Administrative Monetary Penalties Act This act governs the financial penalties chargedwhen the above legislation is contravened)

Canadian Food Inspection Act

Summary

There are a significant number of laws and directivesregarding animal welfare in the EU. Some came into

effect early and have been either amended orreplaced. Harmonized EU-wide animal welfare rulesare in place.

In this section, I will deal with the basic Conventions,Regulations and Directives that deal with animalsraised for agricultural purposes. Other regulationsexist for transport, treatment and housing of specificspecies, and slaughter will be dealt with in othersections.

Individual Member States also have their ownregulations and directives which enforce the EU-wide legislation. The EUs regulatory framework foranimal husbandry offers general, basic protection toall farm animals within the EU. Member States are,however, free to adopt more rigorous nationallegislation. The Government of Sweden has seizedthat opportunity and has established animal welfareregulations that are, in several respects, stricter thanthe EU standard.

Animal Welfare is taken a step forward from a

structural and a programmatic point of view with theLisbon Treaty. While it was only part of the protocol(No 31) in the Amsterdam Treaty and thus a part ofthe Treaty by declaration, Animal Welfare has nowbecome an integral part of the new Treaty itself, inthe form of Article No 13 of the ConsolidatedVersion of the Treaty of the Functioning of theEuropean Union, laid down under Title II of theprovisions having general application (please see thetext here below).

Broadening of scopeAnimals are currently more protected not only bythe legal -systematic structure, but also by anenlargement of scope of the Art icle 13. As in theformer Amsterdam protocol, animals are protectedas sentient beings but not only in the context ofagriculture, transport, internal market and research,but now also in the political fields of technological


4/63

10

Health of Animals Act (Part 12)

The Health of Animals Act regulates thetreatment of food animals while they are on thefarm or during transport. The Canadian FoodInspection Agency is responsible for inspectingtransport conditions of farm animals fromloading through to transport and off-loading

Meat Inspection Act

The Meat Inspection Act regulates the welfare ofanimals once they are off the truck and in afederally inspected slaughter facility. TheCanadian Food Inspection Agency is responsiblefor inspecting these federal slaughter facilit iesand for having a qualified inspector on the

premises during slaughter.

Criminal Code, Cruelty to Animals Provisions

Lastly, the Criminal Code governs acts ofdeliberate cruelty to animals, but does not coverstandard industry practices, such as those thatare common animal husbandry practices onfarms, transportation vehicles and slaughter-houses, unless there is evidence of deliberateneglect or distress of so great a nature that it

makes the animal unfit for the food productionsystem.

There is no citizen driven mechanism for makingprovinces comply with the objectives of federallegislation.

Recommended Codes of Practice

The development of the codes is currentlydirected by the federally funded National FarmAnimal Care Council, of which the CanadianFederation of Humane Societies (CFHS) is afounding member. The CFHSis the only animalwelfare organization that is a member of thecouncil. The CFHShas been an activeparticipant in the development of these codes ofpractice since their inception. The Codesaugment the broad federal regulations. Theyhave been developed by industry stakeholders,

development and space policies, while the fisheriessection is also included. This leads to a moreethically sound legislative coverage regarding theuse of animals, also in sensitive areas such as, forexample, cloning of farm animals for food supplyand animals in experiments.

Enhanced power of the European Parliament

Apart from this direct effect of article 13 of theLisbon Treaty there are also indirect effects thatcould be used in a polit ical level in order to furtherthe cause of Animal Welfare. To begin with, theEuropean Parliament (EP) has now more politicalpower in the EU legislation procedures. The co-decision procedure is now the standard procedureused and this means that all three EU institutions

involved in the legislative process have to find aconsensus. In addit ion, as the EP is the onlyinstitution directly elected by EU cit izens, itrepresents the highest awareness level among theEU institutions regarding the protection of animals.

New opportunity to build up a democratic cit izensinitiative. Following the better balance of power inthe legislation process, the European citizens willalso have more political opportunity to express theirinterests: if more than one million people are

demanding the EU to deal with a certain topic, theEU is obliged to start a legislation procedure if itconcerns a polit ical field the EU is competent for. Foranimal welfare, as we have seen, both prerequisitesare present: animal protection is a crucial concernfor the EU citizens and Animal Welfare is currentlyone of the EU basic principles. The Lisbon Treaty istherefore a chance for billions of all kind of animalsfor which we, as humans, are responsible.

THE EUROPEAN CITIZENS' INITIATIVEThe Lisbon Treaty introduces a new form of publicparticipation in European Union policy shaping,the European Citizens Init iative (ECI). As required bythe Treaty, on a proposal from the EuropeanCommission, the European Parliament and theCouncil adopted a Regulation which defines the rulesand procedure governing this new instrument(Regulation (EU) No. 211/2011 of the EuropeanParliament and of the Council 16 February 2011 on


5/63

11

the Canadian Federation of Humane Societies,animal scientists and governmentrepresentatives. These are nationally developedguidelines for the care and handling of specificspecies of farm animals. Most of the Codes areout of date, and do not address the publicsincreased attention to animal welfare concernsor the latest science on husbandry methods.

The Codes are not binding but voluntary; thereare no verification or enforcement standards.The Codes are minimum standards and do lit tleto protect the welfare of food animals in Canada.There are no penalties for failing to adhere to theCodes, nor are there any financial incentives todo so. Government subsidies to the industry donot rely on the industrys compliance to the

Codes.

Among the Codes, only the Dairy Code ofPractice has been updated; it is more welfare-oriented. When I called the Dairy Farmers ofOntario, however, to ask a question about theDairy Code on Nov 18, 2011, the receptionistdidnt know what I was talking about, so shetransferred me to Steve Couture, AssistantDirector of Policy. He didnt know enough todiscuss the codes. Given this fact, it seems that

the Codes, although much stronger thanpreviously, are not well-known even to those incharge of policy. (Steve directed me to RejeanBouchard, the Director of Policy and Production,who was out of the office)

While the vast majority of codes do not promoteanything but the bare minimum standards, andall the codes are voluntary, the industry andgovernment promote Canada as having humanewelfare standards and the best food safety in theworld. (See Animal Welfare and Food SafetySection)

Many commodity organizations (the CanadianPork Council, for example) have developed theirown guidelines, however, these, too, arevoluntary. Some commodity organizations havetaken init iatives to develop an audit process (theChicken Farmers of Canada and Canada Pork

the citizens' initiative).

The ECI will allow 1 million citizens from at least onequarter of the EU Member States to invite theEuropean Commission to bring forward proposals forlegal acts in areas where the Commission has thepower to do so. The organisers of a citizens'init iative, a cit izens' committee composed of at least7 EU citizens who are resident in at least 7 differentMember States, will have 1 year to collect thenecessary statements of support . The number ofstatements of support has to be cert ified by thecompetent authorities in the Member States. TheCommission will then have 3 months to examine theinit iative and decide how to act on it.

In accordance with the Regulation, it will only be

possible to launch the first European Citizens'Initiatives from 1 April 2012.

The European Convention for the Protection ofAnimals kept for Farming Purposes (CE FarmingConvention) is aimed at the practices of industrialstock breeding. (It was opened for signature in1976) The Conventions created by the CE were thefirst international documents setting forth ethicalprinciples for the use of animals in agriculture. AStanding Committee with representatives from each

signatory country was created by the CE FarmingConvention for the purpose of elaboration andadoption of recommendations to the ContractingParties and contained detailed provisions for theimplementation of the principles set out in theConvention. (Source #1: Council of Europe, EuropeanConvention on the Protection of Animals Kept forFarming Purposes, Explanatory Report,http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/EN/Reports/Html/ 087.htm; Source #2: Council of Europe, BiologicalSafety-Use of Animals by Humans )

The CE Farming Convention, purportedly draftedbased on ethical principles, applies to the keeping,care and housing of animals, and in particular toanimals in modern intensive stock farming systems.The general standard of treatment under the CEFarming Convention requires that:

Animals shall be housed and provided with food,


6/63

12

Council, for example).

Unlike the EU, there is a general lack ofgovernment attention to animal welfare. Itreceives scant consideration within the Canadiangovernments Growing Forward agriculturalpolicy framework.

Canada compares poorly to the EU and othercountries such as New Zealand and Australia,which have created national committees with abalanced membership of all stakeholders,including animal protection organizations, toadvise government on animal welfare policy.

Canadas current regulations are well below thestandards recommended by the World

Organization for Animal Health (OIE), whichadvocates the Five Freedoms. There is nomention of the Five Freedoms in any of theCodes or federal or provincial legislation.

water and care in a manner which having regard totheir species and to their degree of development,adaptation and domestication is appropriate to thephysiological and ethological needs in accordancewith established experience and scientificknowledge.

To meet ethological needs, it is necessary that ananimal be able to behave in a way consistent with itsnormal behaviour in a natural setting.

To meet physiological and ethological needs, it is notonly necessary to satisfy physical needs for survival,but also to meet behavioural and psychologicalparameters, so that an animal can live in a wayconsistent with its nature.

Other requirements of the CE Farming Conventioninclude standards relating to freedom of movement,feeding of animals, lighting, temperature andventilation conditions where animals are confinedand inspection requirements.

These requirements can presumably be met by anynumber of types of regulations and the Conventiondoes not attempt to define precisely how thestandards are to be met.

The Committee endeavored to elaborate principleswhich are precise enough to prevent a completelyfree interpretation, but wide enough to allow fordifferent needs. The underlying idea is to avoid anyunnecessary suffering or injury and to secureconditions that shall be in conformity withphysiological and ethological needs of the individualanimals.

In 1998, Council Directive 98/58/EC on theprotection of animals kept for farming purposesgave general rules for the protection of animals of allspecies kept for the production of food, wool, skin orfur or for other farming purposes, including fish,reptiles or amphibians. These rules are based on theEuropean Convention for the Protection of Animalskept for Farming Purposes. They reflect the so-called'Five Freedoms' as adopted by the Farm AnimalWelfare Council in the UK. This directive lays downthe minimum welfare standards for the protection of


7/63

13

all farmed animals.

Here is a summary of the EU Community- widelegislation on animal welfare.

FARM ANIMALS

COUNCIL DIRECTIVE 98/ 58/ EC of 20 July 1998concerning the protection of animals kept forfarming purposes

COMMISSION DECISION 2000/50/EC of 17 December1999 concerning minimum requirements for theinspection of holdings on which animals are kept forfarming purposes (repealed)

COUNCIL DIRECTIVE 91/ 629/EEC of 19 November

1991 laying down minimum standards for theprotection of calves

COUNCIL DIRECTIVE 91/ 630/EEC of 19 November1991 laying down minimum standards for theprotection of pigs

COUNCIL DIRECTIVE 2001/ 88/EC of 23 October 2001amending Directive 91/630/EEC laying downminimum standards for the protection of pigs

COMMISSION DIRECTIVE 2001/93/EC of 9 November2001 amending Directive 91/630/EEC laying downminimum standards for the protection of pigs

COUNCIL DIRECTIVE 1999/74/ EC of 19 July 1999laying down minimum standards for the protectionof laying hens

COMMISSION DIRECTIVE 2002/4/EC of 30 January2002 on the registration of establishments keepinglaying hens, covered by Council Directive1999/74/EC

COUNCIL DIRECTIVE 2007/43/ EC of 28 June 2007laying down minimum rules for the protection ofchickens kept for meat production

SLAUGHTER OR KILLING OF ANIMALS

COUNCIL DIRECTIVE 93/ 119/EC of 22 December


8/63

14

1993 on the protection of animals at the time ofslaughter or killing

COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 1099/2009 of 24September 2009 on the protection of animals at thetime of killing

TRANSPORT

COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 1/2005 of 22December 2004 on the protection of animals duringtransport and related operations and amendingDirectives 64/432/EEC and 93/119/EC andRegulation (EC) No 1255/97

COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 411/98 of 16February 1998 on additional animal protection

standards applicable to road vehicles used for thecarriage of livestock on journeys exceeding eighthours (repealed from 5 January 2007 by CouncilRegulation (EC) No 1/2005. References to therepealed Regulation shall be construed as referencesto Regulation No 1/2005.)

COUNCIL REGULATION(EC) No 1255/97 of 25 June1997 concerning Community criteria for controlposts and amending the route plan referred to in theAnnex to Directive 91/628/EEC

INSPECTION

COMMISSION DECISION 2006/778/EC of 14November 2006 concerning minimum requirementsfor the collection of information during theinspections of production sites on which certainanimals are kept for farming purposes

COMMISSION DECISION 2006/677/EC of 29September 2006 setting out the guidelines layingdown criteria for the conduct of audits underRegulation (EC) No 882/2004 of the EuropeanParliament and of the Council on official controls toverify compliance with feed and food law, animalhealth and animal welfare rules


9/63

15

Provinces

There is no harmonization of animal welfare lawsamong provinces as there is in the EU. In fact,Quebec, North West Territories and Nunavut donot have dedicated animal protection legislation.North West Territories and Nunavut do not havesignificant livestock industries, however.

The Canadian SPCA in Quebec uses the CriminalCode for companion animal cases, but it is notclear how the Act is used for livestock welfareconcerns.

According to Elaine Hughes, professor Faculty ofLaw, University of Alberta, Given the nature ofthe Criminal Code, which can only prohibit and

penalize but not regulate conduct due toconstitutional concerns, a gap remains inCanadian [animal welfare] law

Some provinces have their own animal welfarelaws, although some date back beforeconfederation. There are two commonapproaches to provincial animal welfarelegislation: a) general animal protection legislation:

this protects animals from distress, and

provides the authority to remove animalsfrom situations of neglect or harm. (Thistype of legislation is similar to thelegislation under the criminal code in thatit only applies to situations of egregiousmistreatment and applies to individualsnot to established practices)

b) regulation, controls and licensing:humane slaughter, transport, and healthlegislation

All provinces define liability offences, often usingthe term distress to describe animals in anunfit condition. All of the provincial laws allowanimals to be taken into custody whenconsidered to be in distress.

1. British Columbia (BC), Alberta (AB),Saskatchewan (SK) have the best livestockregulations on the books.

Member States

Throughout the EU, the Animal Welfare Laws areharmonized, however, individual member states canand do supplement the EU legislation with their ownlegislation, which enforces and/or strengthens theEC wide legislation.

At the Member State level, substantial resources aredevoted to the implementation and enforcement ofEU animal welfare policy, especially for farm

animals. Total Member States?expenditures in thisarea greatly exceed those made at EU level. Thereare also significant budgets for animal welfareresearch at EU and Member State level.

UK: Animal Welfare Act 2006 Its your duty to careThis is a general act, which does not lay downspecifics of how to implement the EU-wide animalprotection legislation.

Animals England, Animal Health: The Welfare ofAnimals (Transport) England Order 2006, No. 3260came into force, Jan. 5, 2007. It applies to Englandonly. It deals with the transport of animals andsupports Council Regulation (EC) No. 1/2005 on theprotection of animals during transport and relatedoperations and Council Regulation (EC) No. 1255/97.

It identifies the competent authority as theSecretary of State for both regulations and theenforcement is carried out by a local authority and inparticular cases (more complex) by the Secretary ofState. It also has several derogations with regard toanimals transported on a road journey of less than12 hours. (More under Farm Animal Transport(General)

Sweden: Livestock and Products: Animal WelfareLegislation in Sweden, 2007.

Animal welfare is a priority issue for the SwedishMinistry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries. Withinthe EU, Sweden considers itself to be on theforefront on animal welfare with stricter regulationsthan EU standards in several respects. This reportprovides an overview of Sweden's animal welfarelegislation, focusing on where it differs from EU


10/63

16

2. AB, SK and Manitoba (MB) have protectionregulations for transport

3. AB, Ontario (ON), and Prince Edward Island(PEI) have protection regulations atauctions

4. Veterinarians now have the professionalobligation to report offenses

5. Many provinces include codes of practicein their regulations. However theregulatory language is often weak and non-prescriptive.

BC has some humane slaughter provisions,vague, however, and refer to the federal MeatInspection Act.

Alberta only marginally addresses humane

slaughter under the meat inspection act.

ManitobaIncreasing the maximum fines for animal careoffences to $10,000 from $5,000 for a firstoffence and to $20,000 from $10,000 for asecond or subsequent offence. The maximumterm of imprisonment will increase to 12 monthsfrom six months for a second offence. Also, aperson convicted of an offence could berestricted from owning or caring for animals for

life. Prohibiting the loading and transportation ofanimals that are not f it to transport and thosethat cannot be moved without causing suffering. Prohibiting the acceptance for commercialtrade of animals that are not fit to transport atsites like assembling points, auction markets andshipment yards. Protection for operators of commercial siteswho report the arrival of unfit animals. Protection from liability for veterinarians whoreport suspected cases of animal neglect orabuse. Updating and expanding the authority of animalprotection officers, particularly in their ability totake action to prevent harm or seize animals theyconsider to be in abusive or abandonedsituations.

legislation.

GermanyThe Animal Welfare Act makes it a chargeableoffence:

to abandon or leave an animal kept in a home,on a holding or otherwise in human care toget rid of it or shirk the duty of keeper orcaretaker;

to release into the wild or settle an animalbred or brought up in captivity andunprepared to feed itself in its new habitat ina species-adequate manner and un-adaptedto the climate there; the provisions underhunting and nature conservation law shallremain unaffected;

In the EU, sow tethers were banned in 2006 and sowstalls will be banned in 2013.

SwitzerlandThese provisions ensure that pigs are not keptlocked up endlessly in gestation crates or by othermethods. They require that pigs be given amplerooting time with straw, roughage or other suitablematerial.

When sows are kept in crates, the floors can be no

more than fifty percent slatted, leaving half the floorsolid for comfort. Breeding boars and fattening pigsshall not be kept in crates unless they areunderweight. Sows are allowed to be kept infarrowing pens or gestation crates in Switzerland,however, they must be given sufficient space to turnaround in and long cut hay a few days beforefarrowing. This will allow the sow to perform nest-building activities, which is an instinctive behavior ofthe species. Finally, piglets shall not be kept in cageswith two or more tiers and the tops of the cagesmust be left open.

Finland, Sweden and the UK have already passednational legislation on a unilateral basis to ban sowstalls and tethers ahead of the future EU wide bans.


11/63

17

HOW ANIMAL PROTECTION IS ENFORCED

In most provinces, the provincial SPCA enforcesanimal protection legislation regarding livestock(British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan,Ontario, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick). InManitoba and Prince Edward Island provinciallyappointed veterinarians fill this role. The RCMPor police officers are responsible for animalwelfare law enforcement in the Yukon andNewfoundland/Labrador (veterinariansaccompany the police as expert witnesses).

Financial Incentives

(Source:http://www.canadianpoultrymag.com/content/view/1058/38/ )

Animal welfare quality assurance programs donot include financial incentives for the farmer tochange their animal welfare practices to morehumane standards.

Financial Incentives

(Source:http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/publi/ capexplained/cap_en.pdf)

Common Agricultural Policy within the EU offersfinancial incentives to farmers to harmonize theiranimal welfare standards.

Ensuring food safety and high animal health andwelfare standards is not just a matter of regulations.TheCommon Agricultural Policy (CAP) offers farmersincentives to improve their performance in animalwelfare. Although respecting the standards in thisregard, by applying the principles of cross-

compliance, benefits society as a whole this mayimpose considerable costs on farmers, so financialsupport is available to help farmers makeimprovements in these areas under the scope ofRural Development.

Mechanisms for Bringing Forth New Legislation

There is a long and drawn out process ofindependent bills which can be init iated bymembers of the public and an MP. It can takemany years to get the bill to a first and thensecond reading and then i t is voted on by theMPs and then again by the Senate. There is noguarantee that the bill will make it through eitherof the levels of parliament.

Mechanisms for Bringing Forth New Legislation

The European Commission will allow proposals forlegal acts to be brought forward by citizens such asanimal welfare if 1 million cit izens from at leastone quarter of the EU member states support theproposal. It is called The European Cit izensInitiative.


12/63

18

WTO

While the federal government claims thatCanada's current voluntary framework (Codesof Practice) for farm animal welfare issues isentirely consistent with our internationalcommitments at the WTO in reality it is far fromwhat the WTO recommends.Canada may claim to have the safest food in theworld, that is far from true. (See Food Safety)

WTOThe EU first raised animal welfare within the WTO in2000, an action that led to animal welfare beingidentified as a priority in the Strategic Plan of the OIEin 2001.

Stakeholders include Industry and Government.While the Canadian Federation of HumaneSocieties has a seat at the table, it has beenlargely ineffectual in addressing lax standards ofcare, due, in part, to the CFHS representativeslack of understanding of the animal species beingdiscussed. Recently, however, the CFHS hashired veterinarians to represent them in

promoting stronger animal welfare standards inthe codes. Other Animal Protection Groups arenot included as Stakeholders, however.

Stakeholders include Industry, Government,Veterinarians and Animal Protection Organizations,including Compassion in world Farming, IFAW andthe HSI all of which were asked to report on theSecond EU Strategy on the Welfare and Protection ofAnimals 2011-2015 due for adoption in December2011.

Surveys suggest that there is significant publicinterest in animal welfare issues and there were highlevels of public engagement in EU consultationslinked to reviews of legislation.

Attitudes

In Canada, there is a huge agricultural lobby.Food animals are governed by big moneyindustry; most regulations are designed toprotect this industry.

As property, animals may be treated likemachines, regulated mainly for the benefit of theowner.

Attitudes

Many common Canadian husbandry practices arebeing phased out or have already been banned inEurope.

The cruel practices that are considered common inCanada are becoming violations of animal welfareregulations in the EU. This is due to the status ofanimals.

As sentient beings, animals are endowed with amoral status and human beings have an advancedrole in the protection of these beings. Animals needto be protected for their own sake. Animals cannotbe given a moral status and still be treated as thoughthey have none.

In Europe, there is a variety of lobby's controlling theregulation of animals.


13/63

19

Drivers of Improved Animal Welfare

CAN EUGovernment and Industry Fears

Canada is driven by fears that the OIE will soonadopt the first ever global standards for thetransport of live animals, including pigs.Canada fears that changes in Animal Healthgloballymay impact Canada.

While there is some concern within theagricultural community about harmonized worldstandards regarding animal welfare forinternational trade, Canadas legislation is stillweak, and there does not seem to be a push to

strengthen the legislation or make any of thecodes of practice mandatory.

Government and Industry Fears

There are some Member States that have quiteadvanced animal welfare legislation for farmanimals (UK, Sweden, Switzerland, the Netherlands)and the farmers in these countries fear that thehigher costs they face for implementing higherwelfare standards will negatively affect them in themarket place, because those countries who dontprescribe to high animal welfare standards will beable to sell their animal-based goods for less. Toremedy this eventuality, the EU is attempting toharmonize their animal welfare legislation to the

highest standards, so no country with poor welfarestandards will have an unfair advantage in the EU.Industry

Instead of committing to improve food safety and ensuring animal welfare contributes to this,the industry, instead, attempts to makeunsubstantiated claims about Canadassuperior food safety.

These industry groups also try to discredit theneed for improved animal welfare via improvedhousing and stockmanship.

Fear-mongering tactics are used to maintainsystem of animal welfare as is.

Example: Harry Pelissero (Egg Farmers ofOntario) stated concern about who is driving thechanges in housing systems? The biggerquestion concerning all of intensive livestockproduction is this: have those regulators whobring the changes into the legislation reallydiscussed and debated the potential unintended

consequences of the de-intensification of currentlivestock production systems for the economy,the environment and, most importantly, theworld grain/food supply? We can only hope thatthey have, and that they have a plan B, or theymay well find themselves with a human welfareproblem with which to contend.

Industry

Numerous companies have taken the role ofensuring that their producers raise their standardsto the level that consumers want. Ben and Jerrys,Unilever and others ensure their products meet highwelfare standards.

Farmers lobby for harmonized legislation since itevens the playing field for all of the industry. Thosewith high welfare standards are thus not penalized

financially by those with low standards who can selltheir goods more cheaply.

Major Retailers in UK and other EU Member Statesare drivers of improved animal welfare.Higher animal welfare standards are alsoincreasingly seen to be a prerequisite to enhancingbusiness efficiency and profitability, satisfyinginternational markets, and meeting consumerexpectations. For example, a third of the leadingglobal food retailers with turnovers ranging from

US$25-250 billion, have public animal welfarepolicies.


14/63

20

This seems to be the attitude of a majority of theold guard animal producers: that the change tomore improved animal welfare conditions willcause unintended and detrimental conditions forhuman welfare. Animal welfare will harm humanwelfare. There is lit tle discussion of how animalwelfare will help food safety.

The Five Freedoms

There has been no adoption of the FiveFreedoms in Canada.

In Canada, there is little research on animalwelfare for farm animals. For example, researchby University of Guelph Executive Director of theCampbell Centre for Animal Welfare, TinaWidowski, found that if Canadian consumers are

surveyed while going into a supermarket, most ofus want animals to have what we would think ofas perfect living conditions; however, it appearsthat even when weve said minutes earlier in thesurvey that well pay more for eggs from whatthe general public would consider a morewelfare-friendly environment, Canadianconsumers, dont pay more. At the supermarketwe choose with our wallets.

The Five Freedoms

Introduced in the UK, they are now the basis ofmuch of the legislation in the EU.

Consumers

Animal Industry Groups attempt to obfuscate theconnection between food safety and animalwelfare.

Government doesnt take a role in informingpublic about connection between animal welfareand food safety.

Animal welfare is not key issue amongconsumers.

Gail Campbell (Consumers Council of Canada)verifies that consumers main interests werefood safety, quality and price, with lit tle thoughtof how the food is produced. She believes thisopinion is due to the fact that consumers have aninherent belief and trust in themanufacturer/producer of the product.

Consumers

In EU, 64% of consumers are concerned with animalwelfare.

There is EU consumer-wide recognit ion that foodsafety and animal welfare go hand in hand.

Changing consumer attitudes have had a significantimpact, particularly in EU, on the attitudes to animalwelfare of scientists, the public and, through them,politicians.

Welfare aspects of animal agriculture andassociated consumer preference behaviors haveattracted increasing attention from agriculturaleconomists.

Marketing init iatives by companies that have highanimal welfare standards target these consumers


15/63

21

Economic Benefits of Improved Animal Welfare

Slaughterhouses and the industry animal carecouncils appear to be resistant to any changes toimprove animal welfare. View changes asproviding greater costs with no economicadvantages. Slaughterhouses appear to beunder the radar of most consumers in Canada.Consumers are loath to think about where theirfood comes from and how the animals they eatare killed.Enhanced animal welfare is not considered amarketing strategy for majority of producers orretailers in Canada.

Economic Benefits of Improved Animal Welfare

Slaughterhouses will adopt animal welfare friendlydesigns and measures which go beyond legislativerequirements in order to gain advantage fromthe economic benefits whether these are simplybetter revenues or in order to conform withcustomer requirements which ensures access tocertain markets. (Example is CCTV (Closed Circuit TVMonitors in UK)

Enhanced animal welfare among producers and atretail level (products which can claim to beproduced with higher animal welfare standards) areviewed as a marketing opportunity.

Conferences on Animal Welfare

While there are several animal welfare

conferences, such as Advancing Animal Care andAddressing Market Expectations of the NationalFarm Animal Council, many of these conferencespay only lip service to real animal welfare. Duringthis conference, education was emphasized asthe best way to improve animal welfare onfarms, as opposed to regulation and third partyaudits.

Conferences on Animal Welfare

The Welfare Quality Project , Harry J. Blokhuis,

Animal Sciences Group, The Netherlands;The main thrust of the Welfare Quality project is toprovide practical science based tools and strategiesto improve the welfare of farm animals.

Growing public awareness

Canadian cit izens are slower to make the

connection between food safety and animalwelfare. In part, this is because of governmentand industry propaganda to ensure consumersthat our food system is one of the safest in theworld, and to

Growing public awareness

64% of EU citizens are concerned about animal

welfare for farm animals and demand betterstandards of production.

Growing awareness of farm animal conditions andindustrialized agriculture ensure that, together withfood safety and environmental pollution, animalwelfare now plays a major role in all discussionsabout animal production.

Recent crises such as BSE, swine fever, foot andmouth disease and avian influenza, have furtherincreased awareness that animal production is morethan just an industry. A frequent and worryingquestion is whether or not animal production hasbecome unsustainable for people, animals and theenvironment alike. Indeed, a growing ethicalconcern related to production processes can beidentified as a major trend in European foodconsumer behaviour (Steenkamp, 1996).


16/63

22

Enforcement of Animal Welfare Legislation

Canada EUFunding for animal protection law enforcement isvariable.

Most provinces/ territories receive somegovennment funding (except for New Brunswickand Quebec, which receive none), but it is usuallyfar less than the cost of enforcement.

SPCAs responsible for enforcement often rely onfundraising efforts to cover their costs.

Other agencies may limit their enforcementactivit ies to responding only when a complaint is

received.

In Alberta the provincial government fully fundsthe cost of livestock protection services. TheAlberta SPCA is contracted to provide theseservices.

The main difficulties with vigorous enforcement ofanimal welfare provisions in Canada stem fromunderstaffing and associated under funding.

Enforcement of National and Provincial

Regulations is lax or non-existent.

In the case of horse slaughter, in 2010 a memofrom CFIA directed its inspectors not to be on theslaughter floor because the personnel doing theslaughter were not well t rained and there was nopsychological assessment to ensure they werestable enough to do the job properly and withoutdanger to the inspector.

Based on 2003 Stats for BC: out of 1,940

investigations, only .3% resulted in charges.

Based on 2002 Stats:

AB: out of 1,013 investigations, only 1.1% resultedin chargesSK: Of 492 investigations (only 308 were livestockrelated) only 1.6% chargedMB: out of 218 investigations (107 related to

Enforcement procedures are in place, both inMember States and at EU level.

Enforcement is the responsibility of the MemberStates.

However, if the Commission considers that aMember State has failed to fulfil an obligationunder this Treaty, it shall deliver a reasonedopinion on the matter after giving the Stateconcerned the opportunity to submit itsobservations.

If the State concerned does not comply with theopinion within the period laid down by theCommission, the latter may bring the matterbefore the Court of Justice.

Art icle 226 and 227 of the THE TREATY ONEUROPEAN UNION AND OF THE TREATYESTABLISHING THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITY dealwith member states that do not comply with theTreaty and what other member states can do. Thesystems appear to be functioning, but variations inenforcement undermine progress towards

uniformly high standards across the EU.

Animal protection groups are able to be present atcheck points to ensure transporters comply withregulations.


17/63

23

cattle, horses, swine), only 1.4% chargedON: Of 15,020 investigated (1148 livestock related)only 1.2% chargedNew Brunswick (NB): of 1,344 investigations, (188livestock related), only .4% chargedNo data for other provinces

Voluntary Efforts on Animal Welfare

Canada EU

During a September 2002 workshop on theconsultation of farm animal welfare and the codesof practice, chair of the workshop, Dr. JimBallantyne, Director of Technical Service, Maple

Leaf Pork stated the opinion that most consumersin Canada believe that good farm animal handlingpractices already take place. This belief is alsogenerally held by those individuals whoselivelihood depends on animal agriculture.

Tina Widowski, Director of the Campbell Centre onthe Study of Animal Welfare at the University ofGuelph, recently did a study about consumerattitudes about animal welfare and found that amajority of Canadians favoured good animalpractices; however, their stated beliefs did notconform with their grocery purchases. (ie: when itcame to the time to buy animal products,consumers did not choose cage free eggs, etc.)

During a conference on animal welfarecoordinated by the Poultry Industry Council,Widowski presented her findings, which, inessence, gave producers the message that therewas no need to change over to more humanehusbandry practices.

Farmers do not believe that high animal welfarestandards are a part of sustainable agriculture.Their focus is on the costs involved.

Non-legislative actions are playing a beneficial rolein improving animal welfare, and includestakeholders, including NGO stakeholders, workingtogether to achieve clearly defined objectives, i.e.

Austrias phase out of beak trimming of layinghens, UK stopping the shooting of male calves, andEU Declaration supporting phase out of pigcastration, and retail corporations stopping thesale of cage eggs, and raising the welfarestandards for meat. (McDonalds, Unilever)


18/63

24

Legislation On Imports/Exports

Canada EULegislation

TRADE IN MEAT PRODUCTSSection 7 of the Meat Inspection Act regardingexports does not mention health of animals:(though there is reference to the requirement ofthe meat product meeting the requirements ofthe country to which it is exported. However,Canadas animals from which the meat productscome are well below EU and US standards. )

7. No person shall export a meat product out ofCanada unless

(a) it was prepared or stored in a registeredestablishment that was operated inaccordance with this Act and the regulations;

(b) that person provides an inspector withevidence satisfactory to the Minister that themeat product meets the requirements of thecountry to which it is being exported; and

(c) that person obtains a cert ificate from aninspector authorizing the export of that meatproduct.

Canadian animals that are exported are not

protected by Canadian transport standards, andcan end up in countries where they receive littleor no protection.

A concern is that in the EU, Canada is seen,perhaps, as a progressive country in terms ofanimal welfare. There is reference in discussionof the potential for OIE to set Global AnimalWelfare standards, that Canada has gainedvaluable experience with our voluntary codes ofpractice, and that industry-led quality assurance

programmes might be preferential to regulationsinternationally. (Source:http://www.daff.gov.au/animal-plant-health/welfare/aaws/aaws_international_animal_welfare_conference/the_globalisation_of_animal_welfare_a_new_zealand_and_australian_perspective_on_recent_developments_of_strategic_significance#Animal%20welfare)

Legislation

Article 30 of the TREATY ON EUROPEAN UNION ANDOF THE TREATY ESTABLISHING THE EUROPEANCOMMUNITY specifies that:

The provisions of Articles 28 and 29 shall notpreclude prohibitions or restrictions on imports,exports or goods in transit justif ied on grounds ofpublic morality, public policy or public security;The focus of the legislation is the protection ofhealth and life of humans, animals or plants. Suchprohibitions or restrictions shall not, however,

constitute a means of arbit rary discrimination or adisguised restriction on trade between MemberStates.(Source:http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/agric_e/negs_bkgrnd06_export_e.htm)

Two issues identified:1. The need to harmonize third world countries,

which want to trade with EU, and need toharmonize third countries that want accessioninto the EU.

2. Need for harmonization of animal welfare

standards globally.

Import rules in the European Union for poultry(including hatching eggs) and poultry products(including egg products) are fully harmonised andthe European Commission acts as the competentauthority on behalf of the 27 Member States. TheEU Commission is the sole negotiating partner for allnon-EU countries in questions related to importconditions.

A European Parliament Resolut ion on the AnimalWelfare Action Plan called for imports of eggs intothe EU to comply with the same conditions as thoseof the EU, and for this to apply equally to shell eggsand egg products.


19/63

25

Concerns about International Trade Issues and Animal Welfare

Canada EUA concern is that in the EU, Canada is seen,perhaps, as a progressive country in terms of

animal welfare.

There is reference in discussion of potential forOIE to set Global Animal Welfare standards, thatCanada has gained valuable experience with ourvoluntary codes of practice, and that industry-ledQuality Assurance programmes might bepreferential to regulations internationally.(Source: http:/ /www.daff.gov.au/animal-plant-health/welfare/aaws/aaws_international_animal_welfare_conference/the_globalisation_of_anim

al_welfare_a_new_zealand_and_australian_perspective_on_recent_developments_of_strategic_significance#Animal%20welfare)

There has been a growing concern, particularlyamongst some non-governmental organisations

(NGOs), (Bowles 2000; RSPCA 1998; RSPCA et al1998; RSPCA & Eurogroup for Animal Welfare 1999;RSPCA 2000), that the WTO rules-based tradingsystem does not adequately address consumerinterests and that the credibility of, and publicsupport for, the WTO is thus at risk.

The NGOs involved believe that the outcome of thetuna/dolphin, shrimp/turtle and leghold trap issuessupport their views. These three specific casesessentially support the view that animal welfare

considerations cannot be used as a tradeimpediment (RSPCA 1998). Bayvel (1993, 1996, 2000and 2004) has reviewed the topic from both a NewZealand and international perspective.

Concern that bilateral trade agreements betweennations can circumvent higher EU standards.

A number of OIE member countries, including someEuropean countries, Australia, New Zealand, theUSA and Canada have industry-led quality assuranceprograms, more or less promoting animal welfare

standards. It is preferred to, and seen to be a muchmore cost-effective option than, a prescriptiveregulatory approach by the industry.

Legislation on Farm Animal Transport (General)

CAN EULegislation

Part XII of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency'sHealth of Animals Regulationsdefines conditionsfor the humane transportation of all animals inCanada by all modes of transport.

The Canadian Food Inspection Agencyregulations come into effect when the animal isloaded for transport and continue throughout its

Legislation

Three pieces of legislation govern the transport ofanimals in the EU:

1. COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) NO 1/2005 ONTHE PROTECTION OF ANIMALS DURING TRANSPORTAND RELATED OPERATIONSThis regulation governs transport within EU memberstates and from one member state to another. The


20/63

26

time in transit , including refueling periods andmarket auction stays, until the animal isunloaded at the final destination. (Source:http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/anima/trans/infrae.shtml)

The Health of Animals Regulat ionsPart XII:

prohibit overcrowding, transportation ofincompatible animals in the same stall,transportation of animals unfit to travel; andspecify appropriate conditions for loading andunloading of animals, adequate feeding andwatering regimes, maximum transit times,minimum rest periods, bedding requirementsand states that animals that becomecompromised while in transit must not betransported beyond the closest area where they

can receive proper medical care. segregate animals of different species, of

substantially different weights and ages, or ifincompatible by nature.

allow animals to stand in a natural position. provide for drainage and absorption of urine. either spread sand or have the vehicle fit ted

with safe footholds in addition to adequatebedding.

ensure that animals unloaded for feed, waterand rest remain at least 5 hours, and longer

if necessary for all of the animals tom haveaccess to feed and water.YOU MUST NOT

transport a sick or injured animal whereundue suffering will result, or when theanimal is liable togive birth.

continue to transport an animal that isinjured, becomes ill, or is otherwise unfit totravel.

load or unload animals in a way that wouldcause injury or undue suffering.

crowd animals to such an extent as to causeinjury or undue suffering.

transport animals if injury or suffering islikely to be caused by inadequateconstruction of the vehicle, insecure fittings,undue exposure to the weather orinadequate ventilation.

use ramps, gangplanks or chutes that areinadequately constructed or maintained and

text of the Council Regulation No. 1/2005 ensuresharmonisation across all Member States and is usedto avoid any national interpretation and hencedivergence. Responsibility for the welfare of animalswill be more clearly defined at each stage duringtransport.

2. 2004/ 544/ EC: COUNCIL DECISION OF 21JUNE 2004 ON THE SIGNING OF THE EUROPEAN

CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF ANIMALSDURING INTERNATIONAL TRANSPORT (AS

AMENDED) [OFFICIAL JOURNAL L 241 OF13.7.2004]

(IT AMENDS: The European Convention for theProtection of Animals during InternationalTransport. (1968) )

The amended Convention lays down detailed rulesapplicable to all animal species and which reflectsuccessive amendments to EU legislation. Thisregulation governs the transport of animals from EUmember countries across the frontier into non-member countries.

It does not govern traffic within the non-EU memberstate. The competent authorities of the country ofdispatch shall decide whether the transport is in

conformity with the provisions of this Convention.Nevertheless the country of destination orintermediate countries may dispute whether anyparticular transport conforms with the provisions ofthis Convention. Such a consignment shall, however,be detained only when it is strictly necessary for thewelfare of the animals.

Each Contracting Party shall take the necessarymeasures to avoid or reduce to a minimum thesuffering of animals in cases when strikes or otherunforeseeable circumstances in its territory impedethe strict application of the provisions of thisConvention. It will be guided for this purpose by theprinciples set out in this Convention.

3. EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (ANIMALTRANSPORT AND CONTROL POST) REGULATIONS2006 (S.I. NO. 675 OF 2006).


21/63

27

would be likely to cause injury or unduesuffering to the animals.

confine monogastric animals, such as horsesand pigs, in a motor vehicle for longer than36 hours unless the animals are fed, wateredand rested on a vehicle that is suitablyequipped for the purpose.

confine ruminants, such as cattle, sheep andgoats, in a motor vehicle for longer than 48hours unless they can reach their finaldestination in 52 hours or the animals arefed, watered and rested on a vehicle that issuitably equipped for the purpose.

load an animal for a trip of more than 24hours without first providing food and waterwithin 5 hours before loading.

The Canadian Food Inspection Agency claims toenforce the regulations through routineinspections, unannounced site inspections andresponse to reports of non-compliance. Inreality, this is not true. There is not the will,funding, nor the staff to do so. Transportvehicles can wait until evening to unload animalsat slaughter plants, to by-pass inspection, hidinga bevy of illnesses and injuries.

Long-distance transport is commonplace, and

animals often are transported even longerdistances internationally. When animals fromthe U.S. cross the border into Canada, theirtransport time begins at zero, and is subject toCanadas longer transport regulations, no matterhow long they have been transported to theborder from the time they have boarded thetransport vehicle originally.

Canadian transport standards are all too vagueon issues of temperature control and ventilation.

No driver training in animal welfare, in thespecies they transport, in loading and unloading.Untrained and inexperienced drivers with noexperience handling the animal species theytransport.

Canadian Farm Animal Transport Regulationsgoverning the length of time farm animals can be

It states that whether within or outside the criminaljurisdiction of the State, any person fails to complywith any of the provisions of these Regulations, theAnimal Transport Regulation or the Control PostRegulation, the Minister may have regard to failurein relation to the granting, revocation or suspensionof the approval of a transporter, vehicle, vessel,control post or cert ificate of competence underthese Regulations.

Council Directive 91/628/EEC, 1991 O.J. (L340) 17;Council Directive 95/29/EC, 1995 O.J. (L 148) 52.(Refer below.)

The current regulations allot different travel timesand space requirements to the separate species ofanimals according to a chart indicating the length of

journey and whether there is water on board withthe animals.

Generally, animals are only allowed eight hours ofcontinuous transport in "basic vehicles," then mustbe fed, given water and rested. In "higher standardvehicles," allowable journey times are increased tonine hours for calves and piglets, fourteen hours forother cattle, sheep and goats and twenty-four hoursfor pigs, if there is continuous access to water.

The directive requires that animals kept incompartments have above head ventilation and thatthe compartments be big enough to allow animal tostand in a natural position.

There are also several other provisions concerningmandatory route plans, on-the-spot checks ofcompliance with the regulations, and transportdocuments.

Member States, like Ireland, comprise their ownregulations with regard to enforcing the EU wideregulation within its jurisdiction. Ireland has theEUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (ANIMAL TRANSPORTAND CONTROL POST) REGULATIONS2006Council Regulation (EC) No. 1/2005 of 22 December2004 on the protection of animals during transportand related operations and amending Directives64/432/EEC and 93/119/EC and Regulat ion (EC) Mp1255/97 Council Regulation amending Regulation


22/63

28

transported without food, water and rest areamong the longest in the industrialized world.

No regulations for unloading after transport, notime limits for when animals arriving atdestination must be unloaded. ????No requirements for air flow or continuous watersupply

Cows, sheep and goats may be legally withoutwater, food or rest for 52 hours of t ransportwithin Canada, plus an additional 5 hours forloading and off-loading.

It is legal for transported cattle to go 81 hourswithout food before slaughter (5 hours beforeloading, 52 hours in transport, plus an additional

24 hours upon arrival at the slaughter plant.)Newly hatched chicks can be transported 72hours before a stop is required for water andfood.

Many of the prohibit ions regarding farm animaltransport are vague and subject tointerpretation. For instance Canadas animaltransport regulations permit beating animalsduring loading and unloading, stipulating Noperson shall beat an animal being loaded or

unloaded in a way to cause injury or unduesuffering.

Regulations prohibit transport of any animal thatis ill, injured, pregnant or fatigued, but only ifsuch transportation does not cause unduesuffering. In either case, it is not specified whatconstitutes undue suffering , which is left tothe interpretation of drivers and handlers, eventhough they have no training in animalbehaviour or the animal species they aretransporting.

The United Nations Food and AgricultureOrganization (UN FAO) describes animaltransport as ideally suited for spreadingdisease13 yet Canada puts no limit on howlong the entire journey can be and the food,water and rest intervals are among the longest inthe industrialized world.

(EC) No. 1/2005 on travelling times, spaceallowances and navigation systems.

Food and water must be available in sufficientquantity for voyages lasting longer than 12 hours,NOT including loading and unloading time.


23/63

29

According to the Canadian Food InspectionAgency (CFIA), an ongoing reduction ofslaughter facilities and concentration of theindustry in fewer locations, the size of thecountry and live animal trade ties to the UnitedStates make long distance transportation oflivestock a necessity.

Provinces

ManitobaIt is the only province in which the Codes ofPractice are fully enforceable.

Manitobas Animal Care Amendment Act, whichamends its Animal Care Act, prohibits the loadingor transport of an animal that is unfit by reason

of infirmity, illness, injury, fatigue or any othercause and if the animal is unable to stand orwould suffer unduly during transport.

There is also a prohibition of unloading oraccepting unfit commercial animals, andreporting procedures are required if an animal isnot accepted. It excludes generally acceptedanimal practices.

The amended act does protect persons reporting

information contravening the act from liability,with regard to commercial animals, respectingstandards and requirements for the operation ofcommercial animal markets and commercialanimal assembling stations, including standardsor requirements relating to hygiene, sanitation,recordkeeping and the feeding, watering andhandling of those animals in those premises. Theamended act can impose a lifetime ban fromowning animals.

Alberta

Livestock Transport Regs under Livestock andProducts Act deal mostly with inspection,allowing the inspector to inspect any vehicle.Refers to poult ry, not other animals.

Saskatchewan

Saskatchewan Regulations 242/78 (effectiveAugust 1, 1978) as amended by Saskatchewan

Member State

UKAnimals England, Animal Health: The Welfare of

Animals (Transport) England Order 2006, No. 3260.

This Order came into force, Jan. 5, 2007. It appliesto England only. It deals with the transport ofanimals and supports Council Regulation (EC) No.

1/2005 on the protection of animals duringtransport and related operations and CouncilRegulation (EC) No. 1255/97. It also includesderogations from inspection and approval, forrequirements for continuous access to water, forinsulated roof requirements, from temperaturerequirements, for ventilation system requirementand from temperature monitoring requirements forroad journeys under 12 hours.

Ireland

Member States, like Ireland, comprise their ownregulations with regard to enforcing the EU wideregulation within its jurisdiction. Ireland has theEUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (ANIMAL TRANSPORTAND CONTROL POST) REGULATIONS 2006 that putsthe Council Regulation (EC) No. 1/2005 into effect.It also has addit ional guidelines for Vehicles SeekingApproval for Transportation of livestock (cattle,sheep, goats, pigs) by road and ferry off the Island ofIreland. (See attachment)


24/63

30

Regulations 209/79, 65/83, 106/86, 17/87,112/88, 48/92, 44/95, 84/96, 16/2002, 112/2010and 14/2011.

Saskatchewan has the most extensive legislationon transport. It outlines the minimum spacerequirements for road or train journeys forhorses, sheep, catt le and pigs, details whichanimals must be separated during transport.(b) crippled, injured, sick or disabled animalsmust be separated from otherlivestock by a partit ion;(c) any animal that becomes crippled, injured,sick or disabled duringtransport, or that dies during transport, must beunloaded at the neareststockyard for treatment or disposal at the vehicle

owners expense.

Animals to be unloaded periodically for feed,water and rest:(1) Where animals have been on a vehicle for 12hours or more and the animals are unloaded forfeed and water, such animals shall not bereloaded for a minimum of five hours to ensurethat the animals have ample opportunity foraccess to feed, water and a period of rest.(2) an inspector may demand that animals be

unloaded at any time.

Inspection During Transport

Canada EULegislation

Federal: The Health of Animals Act (Transport ofAnimals)

Alberta: Livestock Transport Regs under Livestockand Products Act(protects animals duringtransport)

Saskatchewan:Livestock Inspection andTransportation Regs under Animal Products Act

Ontario: Transporting Non-Ambulatory Animals

Legislation

Three pieces of legislation govern the inspection ofanimals during transport in the EU:

1.COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) NO 1/ 2005 ON THEPROTECTION OF ANIMALSDURING TRANSPORTAND RELATED OPERATIONS

This regulation governs transport within EUmember states and from one member state toanother. The text of the Council Regulation No.1/2005 ensures harmonisation across all Member


25/63

31

Regs and Livestock inspection during t ransportunder Livestock and Livestock Products Act

Quebec: Regulation Respecting Food under theFood Products Act(Some sections relate to thetransport, holding and slaughter of animals)

The above are the only provinces with legislationdealing with the transport of animals. TheProvinces below have animal cruelty legislationthat would only deal with extreme instances ofnegligence and abuse.

BC hasPrevention of Cruelty to Animal Act MB hasThe Animal Care Act NB hasSPCA Act Nova Scotia hasAnimal Cruelty Prevention

Act Newfoundland hasAnimal Protection Act PEI has Part IV of theAnimal Protection

Section of the Animal Health andProtection Act

Yukon has theAnimal Protection Act Northwest Territories has theHerd and

Fencing Act, which allows officers to killany animal severely injured, diseased orpained that it would be cruel to let theanimal live.

States and is used to avoid any nationalinterpretation and hence divergence.Responsibility for the welfare of animals will bemore clearly defined at each stage duringtransport.

2. 2004/544/ EC: COUNCIL DECISION OF 21 JUNE

2004 ON THE SIGNING OF THE EUROPEANCONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF ANIMALS

DURING INTERNATIONAL TRANSPORT

(IT AMENDS:THE EUROPEAN CONVENTIONFOR THE PROTECTION OF ANIMALSDURING INTERNATIONAL TRANSPORT.(1968)The amended Convention lays downdetailed rules applicable to all animal

species and which reflect successiveamendments to EU legislation.

This regulation governs the transport of animalsfrom EU member countries across the frontier intonon-member countries. It does not govern trafficwithin the non-EU member state.

The competent authorities of the country ofdispatch shall decide whether the transport is inconformity with the provisions of this Convention.

Nevertheless the country of destination orintermediate countries may dispute whether anyparticular transport conforms with the provisions ofthis Convention. Such a consignment shall, however,be detained only when it is strictly necessary for thewelfare of the animals.

Each Contracting Party shall take the necessarymeasures to avoid or reduce to a minimum thesuffering of animals in cases when strikes or otherunforeseeable circumstances in its territory impedethe strict application of the provisions of thisConvention. It will be guided for this purpose by theprinciples set out in this Convention.

3. EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (ANIMALTRANSPORT AND CONTROL POST)REGULATIONS 2006 (S.I. NO. 675 OF 2006).

It states that whether within or outside the


26/63

32

criminal jurisdiction of the State, any person failsto comply with any of the provisions of theseRegulations, the Animal Transport Regulation orthe Control Post Regulation, the Minister mayhave regard to failure in relation to the granting,revocation or suspension of the approval of atransporter, vehicle, vessel, control post orcertificate of competence under theseRegulations.

However, where a person would, in complyingwith such provisions, contravene the criminallegislation of the state in which the failureoccurred (proof of which shall lie on him or her),the provisions of this paragraph shall not apply.Member States, like Ireland, comprise their ownregulations with regard to enforcing the EU wide

regulation within its jurisdiction. Ireland has theEUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (ANIMAL TRANSPORTAND CONTROL POST) REGULATIONS 2006

Health of Animals Act: Sections of Regulations

that pertain to Inspection (Sections 32 -36, 38-41)

INSPECTORSANDOFFICERS

Designation

32. (1) The President of the Canadian FoodInspection Agency may designate under section 13of theCanadian Food Inspection Agency Actanalysts, inspectors, veterinary inspectors andofficers for the purposes of this Act.

Certificate to be produced

(2) Inspectors, officers and veterinary inspectorsshall be given certificates in a form established bythe President of the Canadian Food InspectionAgency or the President of the Canada Border

Services Agency, as the case may be, attesting totheir designation and, on entering any place underthis Act, an inspector, officer or veterinaryinspector shall show the certificate to the personin charge of the place if the person requests proofof the designation.

Council Regulation (EC) No. 1/ 2005: Sections of

Regulations that pertain to Inspection (Article 7,Article 14, Article 15, Article 20, Article 21, Article27, Article 28)

Article 7

Prior inspection and approval of means oftransport

1. No person shall transport animals by road for along journey unless the means of transport hasbeen inspected and approved under Article 18(1).

2. No person shall transport by sea, for more than10 nautical miles, domestic Equidae and domesticanimals of bovine, ovine, caprine or porcinespecies from a Community port unless the

livestock vessel has been inspected and approvedunder Article 19(1).

3. The provisions of paragraph 1 and paragraph 2apply to containers used for the transport ofdomestic Equidae or domestic animals of bovine,ovine, caprine or porcine species by road and/or


27/63

33

INSPECTION

Inspection

38. (1) For the purpose of detecting diseases or

toxic substances or ensuring compliance with thisAct and the regulations, an inspector or officermay

(a) subject to section 39, at any reasonabletime, enter and inspect any place, or stopany conveyance, in which the inspector orofficer believes on reasonable grounds thereis any animal or thing in respect of which thisAct or the regulations apply;

(b) open any receptacle, baggage, package, cage

or other thing that the inspector or officerbelieves on reasonable grounds contains anyanimal or thing in respect of which this Actor the regulations apply;

(c) require any person to present any animal orthing for inspection in such manner andunder such conditions as the inspectorconsiders necessary to carry out theinspection;

(d) examine any animal or thing in respect ofwhich this Act or the regulations apply andtake samples of it ;

(e) require any person to produce for inspectionor copying, in whole or in part, any record ordocument that the inspector or officerbelieves on reasonable grounds contains anyinformation relevant to the administrationof this Act or the regulations; and

(f) conduct any tests or analyses or take anymeasurements.

Operation of data processing systems and copyingequipment

(2) In carrying out an inspection at any place underthis section, an inspector or officer may

(a) use or cause to be used any data processingsystem at the place to examine any datacontained in or available to the system;

by water, for long journeys.

Article 14

Checks and other measures related to journey log

to be carried out by the competent authoritybefore long journeys

1. In the case of long journeys between MemberStates and with third countries for domesticEquidae and domestic animals of bovine, ovine,caprine and porcine species, the competentauthority of the place of departure shall:

(a) carry out appropriate checks to verify that:

(i) transporters indicated in the journey log have

the corresponding valid transporterauthorisations, the valid cert ificates of approvalfor means of t ransport for long journeys andvalid cert ificates of competence for drivers andattendants;

(ii) the journey log submitted by the organiser isrealistic and indicates compliance with thisRegulation;

(b) where the outcome of the checks provided for

in point (a) is not satisfactory, require theorganiser to change the arrangements for theintended long journey so that it complies withthis Regulation;

(c) where the outcome of the checks provided forin point (a) is satisfactory, the competentauthority shall stamp the journey log;

Article 20

Livestock vessel inspection on loading andunloading

1. The competent authority shall inspect livestockvessels before any loading of animals in order toverify in part icular that:

(a) the livestock vessel is built and equipped for


28/63

34

(b) reproduce any record or cause it to bereproduced from the data in the form of aprint-out or other intelligible output andtake the print-out or other output forexamination or copying; and

(c) use or cause to be used any copyingequipment at the place to make copies ofany record or other document.

Issues also included are:

Use of force

Seizure

SEARCHWarrant

Search and seizure powers

Execution of search warrant

Inspection Agency

The Canadian Food Inspection Agencyveterinarians have the responsibility of inspectingfarm animals in transport vehicles. In addition,each province has their own inspection andenforcement personnel, such as SPCA constables,police officers, provincial Minister of Ag

designated inspectors to ensure compliance withtheir own provincial regulations.

There is a paucity of inspectors to ensure alltransport vehicles transporting farm animalscomply with the regulations. As a result spotcheck inspections of animal transport vehicles onCanadian highways are infrequent.

Weak enforcement of transport regulationsmeans animals that are diseased, injured or in

pain are transported in violation of the law.

the number and the type of animals to betransported;

(b) compartments where animals are to beaccommodated remain in a good state ofrepair;

(c) the equipment referred to in Chapter IV ofAnnex I remains in good working order.

2. The competent authority shall inspect thefollowing before and during anyloading/unloading of livestock vessels to ensurethat:

(a) the animals are fit to continue their journey;

(b) loading/unloading operations are being carriedout in compliance with Chapter III of Annex I;

(c) feed and water arrangements are in accordancewith Section 2 of Chapter IV of Annex I.

Other sections deal with cert ificate ofcompetence, compliances with any internationalagreements, long journeys for domestic Equidaeand domestic animals of bovine, ovine, caprineand porcine species, official veterinarians of exit

points and border inspection posts, when animalsare not fit to complete their journey, On-the-spotchecks andTechnical Rules on Fitness for Travel.

1. No animal shall be transported unless it is fit forthe intended journey, and all animals shall betransported in conditions guaranteed not tocause them injury or unnecessary suffering.

2. Animals that are injured or that presentphysiological weaknesses or pathologicalprocesses shall not be considered fit for transport

and in particular if:a. They are unable to move independently withoutpain or to walk unassisted;

b. they present a severe open would, or prolapse;c. They are pregnant females for whom 90% or

more of the expected gestation period hasalready passed, or females who have given birthin the previous week;


29/63

35

d. they are new-born mammals in which the navelhas not completely healed;

e. they are pigs of less than three weeks, lambs ofless than one week, and calves of less than tendays of age, unless they are transported less than100km

3. However, sick or injured animals may beconsidered fit for transport if they are:

a. slightly injured or ill and transport would notcause additional suffering; in cases of doubt,veterinary advice shall be sought;d. animals that have been submitted toveterinary procedures in relation to farmingpractices such as dehorning or castration,provided the wounds have completely healed.

4. When animals fall ill or are injured duringtransport, they shall be separated from theothers and receive first-aid treatment as soon aspossible. They shall be given appropriateveterinary treatment and if necessary undergoemergency slaughter or killing in a way that doesnot cause them any unnecessary suffering.

6. Lactating females of bovine, ovine and caprinespecies not accompanied by their offspring shallbe milked at intervals of no more than 12 hours.

Article 3: Of International Transportation RegulationSpecifies that before animals are loaded forinternational transport they shall be inspected by anauthorised veterinary officer of the exportingcountry who shall satisfy himself that they are fit fortransportation and then issue a certificate whichidentifies the animals, states that they are fit fortransportation and records the type of vehicle used.Each member state has its own veterinaryinspectors at loading station and at designatedborder veterinary inspection posts.

Check Points

There is no separate piece of legislationconcerning check points.

Check Points

Council Regulation (EC) No. 1255/97 of 25

June 1997 concerns the Community criteriafor staging points and applies only to staging

points accommodating for at least 24 hoursdomestic solipeds and domestic animals of the

bovine, ovine, caprine and porcine species in


30/63

36

the Community.

In summary, this legislation recognizes that in

order to improve animal welfare certainconditions must be in place including

obligatory breaks at staging points that areable to accommodate domestic solipeds and

domestic animals of the bovine, ovine, caprineand porcine species;

(Please refer to the Regulation for more)

Animal Welfare and Food Safety

Canada EU

LegislationFederal Meat Inspection Act, 1990 - An Actrespecting the import and export of andinterprovincial trade in meat products, theregistration of establishments, the inspection ofanimals and meat products in registeredestablishments and the standards for thoseestablishments and for animals slaughtered andmeat products prepared in those establishments.No Meat may be exported out of Canada orconveyed from one province to another unless it

was prepared or stored in a registeredestablishment.It authorizes regulations regarding operations ofregistered establishments.Deals with fines for indictable offenses. (Sect. 21)Fines up to $250,000 and 2 yrs imprisonment;Summary convictions: Fines up to $50,000, and 6mos imprisonment.Describes inspection process, equipment andfacilit ies to be used, procedures to be followed,standards to be maintained to ensure humanetreatment during slaughter of animals.The CFIA is the federal government agency that isresponsible for inspection. It is not a forward-thinking body, nor does it provide independentscientific advice on issues of food safety oranimal welfare with regard to food safety. TheCFIA handles inspection of federally licensedplants. Their role is:

LegislationThere is numerous legislation governing food safetyCOUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 1099/ 2009 protectsanimals at the time of killing and incorporates theOIE Terrestrial Animal Health Code guidelines forthe slaughter of animals and for the killing ofanimals for disease control purposes. Thoseinternational guidelines contain recommendationsconcerning the handling, restraining, stunning andbleeding of animals in slaughterhouses and thekilling of animals in cases of outbreak of contagious

diseases.The OIE Terrestrial Animal Health Code emphasisethe responsibility of food business operators toensure food safety. Slaughterhouses are also subjectto a pre-approval procedure whereby theconstruction, layout and equipment are examinedby the competent authority to ensure that theycomply with the corresponding technical rules onfood safety. Animal welfare concerns should bebetter integrated into slaughterhouses, theirconstruction and layout, as well as the equipment

used therein.The European Food Safety Authorit y (EFSA), is therisk assessment body regarding food and feedsafety. It is independent from government andindustry, though it works in close collaboration withnational authorit ies and in open consultation withits stakeholders, including animal protectionstakeholders, EFSA provides independent scientific


31/63

37

a. registration and inspection of slaughterand processing establishments of meatproducts;

b. inspection and grading of exports andmeat products for interprovincial trade;

c. inspection of imported meat products;d. process, formula, labelling policy and

program development, registration andverification;

e. verifying that food advert ising complieswith requirements;

f. retail inspection including enforcing labelregulations at retail; and

g. residue testing.

advice and clear communication on existing andemerging risks.It was established by Regulation (EC) No 178/2002of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28January 2002, which lays down the generalprinciples and requirements of food law.The activities of EFSA are carried out by the Panel onAnimal Health and Welfare (AHAW). The Panelprovides independent scientific advice to theEuropean Commission, European Parliament andMember States on all aspects of animal health andwelfare for food producing animals. Its scientificopinions focus on identifying methods to reduceunnecessary pain, distress and suffering for animalsand to increase welfare where possible .

The Food and Veterinary Office (FVO) serves the

European Commission and is responsible forensuring that Community legislation on food safety,animal health, plant health and animal welfare isproperly implemented and enforced. It conducts:

Veterinary Inspections Plant Health Inspections Contamination of Food and Feed Materials

Inspections Food Hygiene Inspections Food Irradiation Inspections Genetically Modified Food Inspections Pesticides Inspections :

And it prepares reports to the Commission.

Other Regulations pertain to food safety:

Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 of the EuropeanParliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 onofficial controls performed to ensure the verificationof compliance with feed and food law, animal healthand animal welfare rules

Regulation (EC) No 852/2004 of the EuropeanParliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 onhygiene of foodstuffs

Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 of the EuropeanParliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 layingdown specific hygiene rules for food of animal origin


32/63

38

Regulation (EC) No 854/2004 of the EuropeanParliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 layingdown specific rules for the organisation of officialcontrols on products of animal origin intended forhuman consumption.

Those Regulations emphasise the responsibility offood business operators to ensure food safety.

Slaughterhouses are also subject to a pre-approvalprocedure whereby the construction, layout andequipment are examined by the competentauthority to ensure that they comply with thecorresponding technical rules on food safety. Animalwelfare concerns should be better integrated intoslaughterhouses, their construction and layout, as

well as the equipment used therein.Attitudes

There is lit tle recognit ion of the connection ofanimal welfare and food safety, even thoughscientif ic evidence identifies animal welfare asinextricably linked to animal health, public healthand food safety. No regulation of farm practicesis in place to avert the onset or outbreak ofdisease.

NO federal or provincial laws protect animals

from established farm practices that systemicallyundermine animal welfare and health.

Industry organisations such as the Catt lemensAssociation lobby to contain the scope of anynew on farm animal care and housing standardsor regulationsbe restricted to animal healthemergenc[ies]that require a rapid response tocontrol and contain disease outbreaks. 1

In doing so, these industry organizations fail toaddress significant food safety issues that resultfrom poor animal welfare.

Attitudes

National law concerning the protection of animals atthe time of slaughter or killing has an impact oncompetition and, accordingly, on the operation ofthe internal market in products of animal origin. It isnecessary to establish common rules in order toensure fair trade.

Attitudes take into consideration that an animal's

welfare, their health status, level of stress prior toslaughter etc. has a direct impact on the quality ofthe product from that animal.

Reality

The Canadian Medical Association Journalslammed the countrys food-safety system forwhat it called major failings related to thetracking of food-borne illnesses. (Source: Food-safety system failing Canadians, group says,jessica leeder GLOBAL FOOD REPORTER. Globe

Reality

Denmark and UK have best food saf ety.


33/63

39

and Mail, Apr. 13, 2011)Recent University of Saskatchewan study gaveCanada a mediocre rating on its food-safetyperformance compared with 16 other developednations, the editorial cited inadequatesurveillance systems and lack of a national farm-to-fork traceability system as key problems.With regard to food traceability, Canada ranked"poor", the OECD's Food Safety PerformanceWorld Ranking said.

"Canada does not have well-established farm-to-fork traceability systems for any food product,"the report states, noting Canada is the onlycountry to earn a lower grade in this area in 2010than in 2008. (Source:http:/ /www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2010/06/03

/ Denmark-Australia-Safest-food-systems/UPI-54491275577900/#ixzz1fsFZsC4R

11-13 million cases of foodborne illness across

country each year. (Source:http:/ / foodsafety.cpha.ca/pregnant-women/)

2008 Listeriosis Outbreak left 22 people dead.Sheila Weatherill, appointed by Prime MinisterHarper to investigate what led to the listeriosisoutbreak. After a four month study, Ms.Weatherill delivered a report. The majority of MsWeatherills 57 recommendations were aimed atthe Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA).

A nationwide investigation by CBC MarketplaceResearchers found that chicken bought at majorsupermarkets across Canada is frequentlycontaminated with superbugs antibiotic-resistant bacteria. Out of 100 package chickensamples, 2/3 had bacteria and all were resistantto at least one antibiot ic, while some wereresistant to up to 8 different antibiot ics. (Source:


34/63

40

Superbugs in Canadian chicken? Yes, and US too,Maryn McKenna, Wired Science at Wired.com)

The Public Health Agency of Canada is warningB.C. poultry farmers and veterinarians to stopusing a bovine antibiotic on chickens.The agency believes the practice is behind asignificant spike in drug-resistant Campylobacterbacteria found in chicken tested from grocerystores.

The bacteria are resistant to an antibiot iccommonly used to treat respiratory infections inhuman beings and cattle. The dramatic spike inthe bacteria was first noticed during routinesampling of BC chicken from grocery stores in2009. Levels have remained stubbornly above

normal in this province ever since.

Positive tests for the resistant strain ofCampylobacter in retail chicken have ranged ashigh as 40 per cent in BC and 28 per cent inSaskatchewan.

The rate of human Campylobacter poisoning inBC has been about 30 per cent above thenational average during the past 10 years,according to the BC Centre for Disease Control.

InspectionFood inspection deficit.

The CFIA cannot accurately determine thedemand on its inspection resources and thenumber of required inspectors to monitor foodsafety.

The CFIA has not retained third-party experts toconduct a resources audit.

Significant problems with implementationstrategies. No understanding of how many plantsan inspector should be responsible for or theappropriateness of rotation of inspectors.

Inspectors approve of plants food safety systems,even though they are inadequate. Regulatorycapture issues: Inspectors have allegiances toplant management rather than to the public.

Inspection

The FVO works to assure effective control systemsand to evaluate compliance with EU standardswithin the EU, and in third coun

Documents

Report Comparison of Canadian and EU Legislation Final 3-1-12