Canada Gazette, Part I, Volume 157, Number 11: Regulations Amending the Health of Animals Regulations (Identification and Traceability)

March 18, 2023

Statutory authority
Health of Animals Act

Sponsoring agency
Canadian Food Inspection Agency

REGULATORY IMPACT ANALYSIS STATEMENT

(This statement is not part of the Regulations.)

Executive summary

Issues

Animal diseases can lead to events such as disease outbreaks and food safety issues and can have multiple effects on the industry, the national herd, the economy, food security and public health. Livestock traceability can mitigate the impact of these events by providing the ability to trace an animal through all stages of its life. While Canada introduced basic livestock identification and traceability requirements in the Health of Animals Regulations (HAR) in 2000, and added swine traceability requirements in 2014, these Regulations need to be updated and modernized to address a number of issues that hinder Canada’s ability to prevent, prepare for and respond to a disease outbreak or other natural disasters in an effective manner. These issues, which are described below, result in costs to industry for lost production and animals, costs to government for disease response activities and compensation to owners, and also negatively impact the ability of Canadian livestock businesses to access international markets. These issues include

1. Species that share diseases are not all subject to traceability requirements. This puts all species that share diseases at risk.

Currently, the HAR regulates certain species by setting traceability requirements for cattle, bison, sheep and pigs. Goats and cervids, who share diseases with these regulated species, are currently outside the scope of the traceability requirements in the HAR and would be included in the proposed Regulations.

There are many diseases that exist between the regulated and non-regulated species. Some of the more impactful include foot-and-mouth disease (FMD), which affects cattle, pigs, sheep, goats and deer, and scrapie, which affects sheep and goats. For example, ongoing efforts to eradicate scrapie are hindered by the lack of goat identification and traceability requirements, putting both the sheep and goat sectors at risk. In addition, the goat and cervid sectors with no traceability requirements are putting the cattle, pig and sheep sectors at risk during a FMD outbreak.

The absence of common requirements, such as the identification of animals, leads to information gaps. It also undermines the effectiveness of the existing animal traceability system and governments’ ability to conduct disease control and surveillance activities, putting all species that share diseases at risk. In addition, without traceability requirements for goats and cervids, Canada’s ability to investigate and control outbreaks from diseases affecting those species is restrained.

It has been decided to exclude horses, the remaining livestock species, from the proposed Regulations at this time. This decision was made based on the following considerations:

• Horses share the least number of diseases with other species that are already subject, or are proposed to be subject, to federal traceability requirements;
• A traceability program for horses would require significant inspection resources since there are many horse-specific sites that do not overlap with the other regulated species;
• Significant engagement with stakeholders would be required as there is a lack of consensus among horse owners on the need for a federal traceability system and on the components of a traceability system. This is in part due to the wide range of uses of horses, including work, hobby, sports and entertainment; and
• Horse traceability could be achieved through means other than federal regulations.

In lieu of federal regulation of horses, the CFIA has worked with one of the larger equine industry associations that plans to launch an industry-led traceability program. The CFIA has worked to ensure this program will be compatible with any future updates to Part XV of the HAR.

2. Current identification and traceability requirements are insufficient in preventing and responding efficiently to a disease outbreak.

To help prevent and efficiently respond to a disease outbreak, accurate, up-to-date, complete and readily available information on the identity, movement and location of animals is required. The current regulatory requirements are insufficient in the following areas:

Need for movement reporting

In the current Regulations, movement reporting is only required for pigs. There is an absence of movement reporting requirements for all ruminant species (cattle, bison, sheep, goats and cervids), which means that the information on the domestic movements of these species is not known nor readily available. This directly impacts the speed and efficiency of any tracing exercise in the event of a disease outbreak, leading to more animals impacted and delays in the response efforts. It also hinders analysis of livestock movement in order to prepare for a disease incursion, including designing surveillance and response programs.

Allowable time to report is too long

The allowable time to report an event, such as the movement or death of an animal, is currently too long for all species, with the exception of pigs. Under the current Regulations, the allowable time to report an event to a responsible administrator^{footnote 1} is up to 7 days for pigs and 30 to 60 days for other species depending on the species and the event.

Disease response investigations rely on accurate and up-to-date traceability information. Allowing a longer time to report an event significantly decreases the availability and accuracy of data when a rapid response is needed in an emergency. The ability to efficiently locate and track where livestock has been moved directly impacts the affected industry sector in the event of an outbreak. Delayed tracing of potentially infected animals moving around, and out of, the country results in more farms and other sites impacted by movement controls, such as quarantines, and has direct costs to the livestock industry.

Geographical information about premises is inadequate

The requirements regarding the identification of geographical location of sites where animals are kept, assembled or disposed of are inadequate. The current location data and associated contact information do not provide the level of accuracy necessary for efficient preparedness and response efforts to disease events or natural disasters.

Requirements for approved livestock indicators need to be modernized

Livestock indicators, such as a tag or chip, provide a way to identify an animal. Currently, certain requirements and practices related to the use of indicators can lead to challenges with respect to compliance verification, safeguards, and animal welfare.

3. The current Regulations need to be updated to be more efficient and agile

Lack of agility in animal indicator requirements

The definition associated with animal indicators in the current Regulations is restrictive. The lack of agility for indicators limits innovation and potential improvements in the industry, such as the use of new technologies for the identification of animals.

Current record-keeping requirements are outdated

The current record-keeping requirements are burdensome on industry stakeholders who must create records and retain them for up to five years. In addition, records are usually difficult to retrieve and can add to the time involved in a response effort. The movement reporting requirements being proposed through these amendments would be more efficient because data would be submitted and kept in a central database, making information more easily accessible. The proposed introduction of movement reporting requirements would therefore make record-keeping requirements redundant and unnecessary.

Background

Legislative and regulatory context

The requirements to identify animals and report their movement and location are found in Part XV of the Health of Animals Regulations (HAR), for which regulation-making authorities are provided under the Health of Animals Act (HAA).

History of livestock traceability in Canada

Animal traceability is the ability to follow an animal through all stages of its life, with the objective of mitigating the impact from a disease outbreak or food safety issue, and limiting the economic impact on the domestic and export markets.

To achieve these benefits , federal traceability requirements in Canada were introduced in 2000 with identification requirements for cattle and bison, followed in 2004 by identification requirements for sheep.

In 2006, the need for a national agriculture and food traceability system was announced. Federal, provincial and territorial (FPT) ministers prioritized four sectors: cattle (including bison), sheep, pigs, and poultry. These sectors were prioritized based on the risk of diseases and on market value. The goat, cervid and horse sectors were not prioritized at that time, but the goat, cervid and horse industry sectors’ representatives had shown interest in developing traceability systems.

Development of the traceability system was led by the national Industry-Government Advisory Committee on livestock traceability, which includes members from national industry associations for all regulated and proposed species, traceability service providers (responsible administrators), provincial and territorial ministries of Agriculture, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC), and the CFIA.

The identification and movement reporting requirements for domestic pigs were introduced in 2014, and for farmed wild boars in 2015. Moreover, all provinces set up premises identification programs to identify premises and collect key information on livestock and poultry. Six provinces (British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Quebec and Prince Edward Island) have made premises identification mandatory through provincial regulations.

In addition to the Industry-Government Advisory Committee, the industry-government Regulatory Implementation Committee^{footnote 2} was created by the CFIA in December 2016 with the objective to collaboratively identify and prioritize actions to prepare for the smooth implementation of the proposed regulatory changes. This committee is made up of representatives of all affected industry associations and provincial and federal governments.

Federal, provincial and territorial (FPT) context

The CFIA and provincial and territorial governments share a mandate of protecting the health of animals and of Canadians through activities such as animal disease control and surveillance. Therefore, the development and implementation of a national livestock traceability system are a shared commitment between provincial and territorial (PT) governments, the federal government, and industry.

Since 2006, the FPT Agriculture ministers have been committed to implementing a cost-effective national livestock traceability system in collaboration with industry. Senior PT officials continue to reiterate the need to update the livestock traceability regulations as soon as possible.

PT governments have developed and implemented premises identification (PID) programs. These PIDs provide precise geographical location data for livestock premises, and are a main pillar of any livestock traceability program. Further, some provinces have enacted their own provincial requirements for the traceability of livestock where gaps exist. For example, Quebec, Yukon and the Western Provinces have adopted various traceability requirements for cervids.

In addition, data sharing arrangements for animal traceability information exist between the CFIA and all provincial governments in order to enhance the ability of the CFIA and the provinces to conduct disease control and surveillance activities and to enforce animal health acts and regulations.

Through these proposed Regulations, the federal government would finally create a regulatory framework for a comprehensive national livestock traceability system. This regulatory framework would incorporate the PID programs that PT governments have each developed and implemented.

The national traceability system would be aligned with existing provincial and territorial requirements and its implementation would likely result in the repeal of some of the province- and territory-specific requirements, reducing the burden on provinces and territories, and reducing potential duplication for stakeholders.

Animal diseases in Canada

There are many examples of diseases that currently affect or could potentially affect livestock in Canada. A list of federally reportable diseases can be found on the CFIA website. Examples of diseases currently affecting livestock in Canada include bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) in cattle, chronic wasting disease (CWD) of deer and elk, bovine tuberculosis (TB) in cattle, and scrapie in sheep and goats. In addition, there are diseases of concern, such as foot-and-mouth disease (FMD) in cattle, pigs, sheep, goats and deer, and African swine fever (ASF) in pigs, that would have significant impacts on Canada’s national herds, Canadians, and the Canadian agriculture economy. For example, an outbreak of these diseases would lead to the mass loss of livestock, closure of international markets, lingering impacts on trade partnerships, and social impacts on affected Canadians.

Disease outbreaks can have a significant impact on the domestic and export market, and, therefore, on the Canadian economy. For example, following Canada’s 19th case of BSE in 2015, seven countries imposed trade embargoes on Canadian beef and beef products, resulting in an estimated total loss in Canadian beef and beef products exports of approximately $98 million. In another example, a TB outbreak in Western Canada in 2016 resulted in 12 000 animals being destroyed and approximately $39 million total compensation costs paid directly to producers. Investigations into potential TB or other disease incursions are conducted on a regular basis. These investigations are resource-intensive and time-consuming, as tracing is limited and slowed by the current traceability requirements, in particular the lack of movement reporting.

The outbreaks of TB and BSE and the resulting economic impact to the agri-food sector highlight the importance of having a robust and comprehensive livestock traceability regime in Canada. The current traceability system needs to be strengthened to improve Canada’s capacity to conduct disease control and surveillance activities. When disease outbreaks occur, there is a high risk that a greater number of markets will close and for a longer period of time without full traceability.

International context

Having a comprehensive traceability regime is a requirement to gain, to maintain or to expand market access in several countries for livestock (meat) commodities.

The implementation of livestock traceability systems is used by some countries as a condition in import requirements and is consistently examined during foreign audits for exported meat products. Examples of such occurrences are South Korea’s requirement for the importation of live cattle and beef, and recent foreign audits done by the European Union, and countries in Asia and in the Middle East. A comprehensive traceability system also helps in limiting the magnitude of import restrictions, such as extended trade embargoes, in the event of a disease outbreak.

As a result, the CFIA regularly provides information on its livestock traceability system to countries when seeking to gain or maintain markets for livestock or livestock products, including during audits and delegation visits.

The proposed amendment would strengthen Canada’s livestock traceability program and put it on par with the traceability programs of other major livestock exporters, such as Argentina, Australia, Brazil, New Zealand, and Uruguay.

There are no international agreements or obligations dealing with livestock traceability.

United States

The proposed amendments do not introduce additional import or export requirements for cattle, bison, sheep and pigs, but does introduce these requirements for goats and cervids. However, these requirements align with the current import requirements of the United States (U.S.) for all species and it is not anticipated that Canada–U.S. trade would be impacted as a result of the proposed amendment, or that it would create any conflicts with the U.S. traceability framework.

The U.S. traceability framework is less centralized, with requirements varying from state to state; however, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has committed to implementing a traceability system that traces animals from birth to slaughter, along with advancing the electronic sharing of data among federal and state officials and industry. Currently, the USDA has implemented an Animal Disease Traceability (ADT) Program, which requires livestock moving between states to be officially identified and accompanied by an interstate certificate of veterinary inspection or other movement documentation. This program applies to the same species that would be under this proposal, in addition to horses and other equines and poultry.

Current animal traceability requirements in Canada

Current federal traceability requirements exist for bison, cattle, sheep, pigs and farmed wild boar. There are no federal traceability requirements for goats and cervids. The following section describes generally the current requirements, which vary between species.

Identification

Pigs and farmed wild boars

Pigs and farmed wild boars are required to be identified, although there are varying identification requirements depending on age, breeding status and destination. For instance, non-bred pigs that move between farms do not require to be identified; however, bred pigs do require identification before leaving their farm of origin. If animals lose their identification (ID) tags, the operator of the site or persons responsible for the animals must apply a new indicator immediately.

In addition, the current regulations permit pig producers to identify their animals with a slap tattoo and be moved from the farm of origin to an abattoir via an assembly point. Slap tattoos are a means of identification for pigs moved directly from a farm to an abattoir and for pigs moved directly from a farm to a site used exclusively for the purpose of collecting animals before they are transported to an abattoir.

Cattle, bison and sheep

Generally, cattle, bison and sheep are required to bear a unique animal ID before leaving the farm of origin. If animals lose their ID tags, the operator of the site or persons responsible for the animals must apply a new indicator immediately.

The Regulations currently allow cattle, bison and sheep in the United States to be identified with a Canadian approved indicator prior to being imported into Canada.

Goats

While no requirements exist for goats, to support compliance with the proposed Regulations, identification tags have been approved and made available to goat producers since October 2017 and can be used on a voluntary basis.

Cervids

Some provinces have adopted various identification requirements for cervids, including Quebec, Yukon, British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba.

While no federal requirements exist for cervids, to support compliance with the proposed Regulations, ear tags with an identification number unique to a cervid have been approved and made available to cervid producers since December 2018.^{footnote 3}

Reporting

Pigs and farmed wild boars

All movements of pigs and farmed wild boars, both at departure and at destination sites are required to be reported. Reporting is also required when applying a new or replacement indicator, at slaughter, at import and at export.

Cattle and bison

Reporting of animal identification for cattle and bison is currently required when applying a new or replacement indicator, at slaughter, for the disposal of carcasses, at import and at export.

Sheep

Reporting for sheep is currently required when applying a new or replacement indicator, for the disposal of carcasses and at import.

Cervids

Reporting of cervid movement is currently required and is accomplished through the application and issuance of a movement permit. This requirement, however, would be repealed under the proposed amendments. Some provinces require farmers to provide an inventory of their cervid animals every year, and Quebec requires the declaration of movement at receipt.

Time to report

Pigs and farmed wild boars

Any event for pigs and farmed wild boars that is required to be reported must be submitted to responsible administrators within seven calendar days.

Cattle and bison

Any event for cattle and bison that is required to be reported must be submitted to the responsible administrator within 30 calendar days, with the exception of 60 days for the import of bison.

Sheep

The import of sheep must be reported within 7 calendar days to the responsible administrator, and the disposal of carcasses of sheep is required to be reported within 30 calendar days.

Record-keeping

Under the current HAR, information required to be reported to responsible administrators must be kept in records for a period of two or five years, depending on the type of information. For example, information on the movement of pigs, on the replacement of tags, or on the death of an animal outside of the farm of origin, must be retained in records.

Premises identification

Premises identification provides information related to sites where livestock is kept, such as contact information, the geographical location, the animal species kept at that location and the type of operation. Under the HAR, there is no requirement for the identification of livestock premises. However, premises identification is mandatory for livestock in seven provinces, including Quebec, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Prince Edward Island and British Columbia. There is a voluntary approach to premises identification in Ontario, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, and Newfoundland and Labrador.

Objective

The Canadian livestock traceability system is an industry-government partnership with a goal of sustainably meeting the diverse needs of the Canadian agriculture and food industries to protect animal health and food safety, and enhance industry competitiveness and market opportunities. The overall objective of the proposed regulatory amendments is to enhance this traceability program through increasing its scope and national consistency so that the impact of a disease, food safety or natural disaster on agriculture industry stakeholders is limited and reduced, and the amount of resources required by both industry and government in order to conduct response activities and support market access is reduced. Updating the requirements for animal traceability will also increase agility and efficiency throughout the system.

Description

Overall, the proposed Regulations would create an animal traceability system in Canada that includes consistent requirements for all regulated species, namely pigs and wild boars, cattle, bison, sheep, goats and cervids. Specifically, the proposed regulatory amendments would

• (1) Add goats and cervids to the scope of the national traceability system. This includes
  • introducing identification requirements; and
  • introducing event and movement reporting requirements.
• (2) Modify existing traceability requirements by
  • introducing movement reporting requirements for all ruminants;
  • shortening reporting time requirements for cattle, bison and sheep;
  • introducing requirements for the identification of premises; and
  • amending indicator requirements to improve the collection of information and to allow for innovation and flexibility.
• (3) Update the Regulations to increase agility and efficiency by
  • modernizing the requirements for the use of approved indicators; and
  • repealing the record-keeping requirements.

1. Adding goats and cervids to the national traceability requirements

The scope of the federal traceability program under the HAR would be broadened by adding goats and cervids. This would subject them to existing and proposed requirements, namely identification, reporting and premises identification requirements. This would address the information gap that currently exists between regulated and non-regulated species, reduce the risk of shared diseases between species, and result in more robust and comprehensive disease control and surveillance activities. This would allow the CFIA to rapidly and effectively investigate and control outbreaks from diseases that are shared among the ruminant species.

New identification requirements for goats

Each goat would be required to be identified with an approved indicator with an identification number unique to the animal before leaving its farm of birth.^{footnote 4} The types of approved indicators for goats include ear tags, tail web tags and leg bands.

Persons buying approved indicators would be required to report to the responsible administrator, at the time of purchase, the premises identification number of the site where the indicators would be applied to the animals.

Additional specific identification requirements are also being proposed in the following cases:

• A goat aged 12 months or younger that is moved directly from the farm of origin to an abattoir could bear an identification number unique to a group of goats originating from the same site (referred to as a “herd mark”^{footnote 5}) instead of unique to the animal. This approach would facilitate reporting the identity of the goats being transported;
• An approved indicator would have to be applied to a goat if it is received without one; however, operators of abattoirs would be exempted from this requirement if they report the source of the goat received; and
• The carcass of a goat or parts of a goat carcass moved to another site would have to bear an approved indicator if it represents more than 50% of the animal’s dead weight.

To support compliance with these identification requirements, the indicators have been made available to goat producers since October 2017,^{footnote 6} and in 2018, a list of “pre-approved” indicators for both goats and cervids was published on the CFIA website. These are available for purchase through the responsible administrator, the Canadian Cattle Identification Agency (CCIA).

New reporting requirements for goats

Under the proposed Regulations, it would be a requirement to report events, such as the movement or death of a goat bearing an approved indicator, to the responsible administrator within seven calendar days of the event.

When a goat is moved from one site to another, by means of a conveyance or otherwise, the operator of the destination site would be required to report information to the responsible administrator within seven calendar days of the receipt of the goat.

Reporting the disposal of goat carcasses on a farm would not be required if the carcass does not bear an approved indicator; otherwise, the disposal would be required to be reported to the responsible administrator within seven calendar days of the disposal.

New identification requirements for cervids

Each cervid would be required to be identified; however, with their normal behaviour, cervids may easily lose one indicator. Therefore, cervids would be required to be identified with two approved indicators: an approved ear tag and an approved secondary ear tag, both tags bearing the same identification number unique to the animal, before leaving their farm of birth.^{footnote 7} The use of dual indicators would help ensure that the identity of cervids is maintained, and aligns with current practice in the farmed cervid sector.

Persons buying approved indicators would be required to report to the responsible administrator, at the time of purchase, the premises identification number of the site where the indicators would be applied to the animals.

Additional specific identification requirements are also being proposed in the following cases:

• Approved indicators would have to be applied to cervids received without either of its tags (approved ear tag and approved secondary ear tag);
• The carcass of a cervid and parts of a cervid carcass moved to another site would have to bear an approved indicator if it represents more than 50% of the animal’s dead weight; and
• Reporting the disposal of cervid carcasses on the farm would not be required for the purpose of these proposed regulations (this may be required by provincial regulations) if the carcass does not bear an approved indicator; otherwise, the disposal would be required to be reported to the responsible administrator within seven calendar days of the disposal.

To support compliance with these identification requirements, ear tags with an identification number unique to a cervid have been pre-approved, made available to cervid producers since December 2018^{footnote 8} and published on the CFIA website. These are available for purchase through the responsible administrator, the Canadian Cattle Identification Agency (CCIA). The pre-approved cervid tags that have a provincial identification numbering scheme different from the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) will be approved under the proposed regulations until their prevalence in the market is low enough to support their revocation in order to mitigate impacts for regulated parties.

New reporting requirements for cervids

Under the proposed regulations, it would be a requirement to report events, such as the movement or death of a cervid bearing approved indicators, to the responsible administrator within seven calendar days of the event. However, conversely to all other ruminant species, when a cervid is moved from one site to another, by means of a conveyance or otherwise, the operator of the departure site, instead of the destination site, would report the information. This different reporting requirement was at the request of the cervid sector because it would be consistent with the current cervid movement permit process.

The requirement for a Cervid Movement Permit under section 76 of the HAR, to be issued when movement of cervids occur, would be repealed because it would be redundant with the new identification and movement reporting requirements.

2. Modifications to existing traceability requirements

Improving the accessibility, timeliness, and accuracy of animal identification and movement information and applying it to currently regulated species (pigs, bison, cattle, and sheep) and proposed new species (goats and cervids), would enhance CFIA’s traceability program by equipping it with the information required to effectively trace animals and manage disease outbreaks. The proposed regulations add new traceability requirements, along with certain exceptions, to support national traceability.

Introduction of movement reporting requirements for regulated species

The proposed Regulations would introduce movement reporting requirements for cattle, bison, sheep, goats, and cervids to bring alignment with pigs and farmed wild boars which are already subject to such requirements. This means that when regulated species are moved from one site to another, by means of conveyance or otherwise, it would generally be the responsibility of the operator of the destination site to report the movement to the responsible administrator within seven calendar days. An exception to this rule is proposed for cervids, where the operator of the departure site would be responsible to report the information, as described in section 1 above.

The report would include the following mandatory information:

• the animal’s identification number;
• the premises identification number of the departure and destination sites;
• the date and time of departure and arrival of the conveyance; and
• the conveyance identification.

Additional specific requirements

While the movement reporting requirements will be generally aligned across the system, the proposed Regulations would include additional specific requirements to take into consideration the speed of commerce and nuances between various sites and species.

Departure site reporting for cervids

There is a proposed exception for the movement of cervids, whereas it would be the responsibility of the operator of the departure site to report the departure of the animal to the Responsible Administrator.

Movement reporting within a farm

The operator of a farm keeping bison, cattle, sheep, goats, cervids, or pigs, or their carcasses, would be exempt from reporting their movement within the farm (land, and all buildings and other structures on that land, which is used under one management).

Movement reporting between a farm and a leased pasture

There would be no requirement for operators of a farm to report the movement of bison, cattle, sheep, goats, cervids, or pigs between a farm and a pasture that is leased for grazing purposes and where all animals assembled and co-mingled on the pasture originate from that farm.

Movement reporting to community pastures

Community pastures where animals from more than one farm are assembled and commingled often have multiple entry sites and may not be managed by a specific operator. Reporting the receipt of animals at these sites is therefore not practical. For this reason, the operator of a community pasture would be exempted from the movement reporting requirement.

In the proposed Regulations, when cattle, bison, sheep, goats, cervids, or pigs are moved from a farm to a community pasture, by means of a conveyance or otherwise, the operator of the departure site would have to report to the Responsible Administrator the departure and the return of the animals. Individual identification numbers of the animals would not have to be reported, but instead the species and number of animals of each species that were transported or moved would be required.

Group movement reporting at assembly points (auction markets and assembly yards)

While the general requirements for movement reporting will apply to assembly points, the operator of an assembly point would be exempted from declaring the individual identification number of each animal and instead, would be required to report animals as a group. This would include the species of each animal received at the assembly point and the number of animals of each species that were transported rather than their individual identification numbers.

Even though these types of sites are high risk for spreading disease due to co-mingling of animals, this exemption was given with the understanding that the beef cattle industry could not support the individual reporting of animals received because of the associated costs and impacts on the speed of commerce.

Movement reporting for abattoirs

Pigs, cattle, and bison already require reporting at slaughter. The proposed Regulations would include all regulated species arriving at an abattoir, and the operators of abattoir^{footnote 9} would be required to report the following information:

• the identification number of approved indicators on the animals (after slaughter) or carcasses; or
• if there is a herd mark, the number of pigs and pig carcasses; and
• the premises identification number of the departure site and the abattoir.

The following information would be required to be reported or kept in record (ruminants only):

• date and time of loading and unloading of the animals; and
• the conveyance identification (licence plate or other ID).

If animals that have arrived at an abattoir are moved to a temporary site, are not commingled with other animals, and then moved back to the abattoir, the operator of the abattoir would be exempt from reporting individual animal identification in this instance but would be required to report the number of animals returning.

The operators of abattoirs would no longer be exempted from reporting the identification number of foreign indicators applied to bison and cattle imported for immediate slaughter.

Movement reporting for rendering plants

Cattle, bison, and sheep already require reporting when disposed of at a rendering plan. With the proposed regulations, the operators of rendering plants would be required to report the identification number of approved indicators applied to the carcasses of bison, cattle, sheep, goats, and cervids disposed of at their site.

Movement reporting for importers and exporters

Reporting requirements exist for importers of cattle, bison, sheep, and pigs, and for exporters of cattle, bison, and pigs. The proposed amendments would require persons importing or exporting any regulated species to follow the general requirements for movement reporting and to report the foreign country and subdivisions of that country (e.g. a state of the United States) from which the animals were imported or to which they were exported.

Movement reporting for fairs, exhibitions, veterinary clinics, and other sites

Operators of sites where animals are kept and commingled would be responsible for reporting the minimal information (detailed above) to the Responsible Administrator within seven days of reception of animals at their site.

Responsibilities for livestock haulers (carriers)

With the proposed Regulations, commercial carriers of all regulated livestock would be required to ensure that information accompanies a load of regulated animals or load of their carcasses being transported.

The information would need to be in a form that can be read without delay by an inspector and the operator of the destination site. The information could be provided in an electronic or paper format, with no required template. Every person required to make certain the information accompanies an animal or carcass would be required to keep a record of the document for a period of two years.

The proposed requirements would align with the existing requirement for pigs and pig carcasses. They would also align with Part XII of the HAR respecting the transportation of live animals.

The proposed requirement for a document to accompany a load of animals or load of animal carcasses being transported would not apply to

• animals and carcasses of animals being transported for import and export because import permits and export certificate requirements already apply;
• bison, cattle, sheep, goats and cervids and their carcasses transported within a farm, because their movements would not be required to be reported; or
• pigs or pig carcasses that are transported between contiguous parts of a farm, as this exemption is already in place.

The prohibition to transport bison, cattle and sheep without bearing an approved indicator would be maintained and be extended to goats and cervids. However, the prohibition to receive bison, cattle, sheep, goats or cervids without bearing an approved indicator would be repealed because the responsibility to identify the animals belongs to the person loading the animals and is outside the control of the operator of the destination site.

Passive-reading principle for reading an approved indicator

In order to be compliant with the requirement to report the identification number of an approved indicator, the operator of the site (for example a feedlot) could decide to manually read and report the information or to use animal indicator reading equipment. As long as certain conditions are met, the operator of the site (see exceptions below) using reading equipment would not be required to report the identification number of approved indicators that were not read on the first try.

Exceptions to the rule above exist. The operator of an abattoir receiving the animal for the purpose of slaughter, the operator of any site receiving an animal for the purpose of disposal, and the operator that is importing or exporting the animal would be required to report the identification number of indicators even if the first read by the reading equipment was not successful.

This “passive-reading principle,” which would only apply to indicators that are designed to be read with animal indicator reading equipment and applied to an animal or carcass, was added to support compliance for those who are not currently subject to animal movement reporting requirements.

Amendments to time to report requirements

The proposed amendments to the time to report requirements would bring consistency across all regulated species (cattle, bison, sheep, pigs, farmed wild boars, cervids, and goats). It is proposed that requirements for cattle, bison and sheep be amended so that when animals are moved from one site to another, by means of a conveyance or otherwise, the operator of the destination site would have to report information to the responsible administrator within seven calendar days of the receipt of the animal. The reduction in time to report would also apply to all other reportable events, such as slaughter, new tag application, and carcass disposal.

Introduction of premises identification requirements

Operators of sites where regulated livestock species are kept, assembled, or disposed of would be required to obtain a premises identification number of the site in order to purchase animal indicators and to report the movement of animals. The identification of premises would enable the rapid and accurate determination of the departure or destination points of animals.

The provincial and territorial governments are responsible for the identification of sites where animals are kept, assembled or disposed of. In order for premises to be identified and receive a unique identification number, the operator of a site would provide information related to those sites (contact information, location, animal species kept, and type of operation) to the government of the province where the premises are located. Once the information is validated, the provincial government would assign a premises identification number of the site. All provincial governments currently have in place either a mandatory or voluntary system for issuing premises identification numbers of sites.

If a premises identification number of the site was not assigned by the provincial or territorial government, the operator of the site would be required to report the same information it would have reported to a provincial government to the responsible administrator for the latter to assign a temporary identification number to those premises. Provincial governments would later validate the information provided to the responsible administrator and provide an official premises identification number of the site.

Efforts have been made (e.g. through regulations, cross-compliance, communications) to identify all premises where livestock may be kept, assembled or disposed of prior to the proposed Regulations coming into force. At this time, more than 100 000 premises where animals are kept, assembled or disposed of have been identified by provinces.

While the existing requirements for pigs and farmed wild boars are comprehensive, the additional information requirements on geographical location of sites where animals are located will greatly aid in disease responses, specifically to an African Swine Fever (ASF) outbreak, which would entail zoning and other geographical restrictive measures. Many smaller “backyard” producers who are at high risk for inadvertently introducing ASF into Canada would be required to provide much more information on their premises through the provincial premises identification (PID) programs.

Modifications to requirements related to the use of animal indicators

The existing identification requirements for bison, cattle, sheep, pigs, and farmed wild boar would remain largely the same. However, some amendments are proposed to the use of animal indicators to improve the location information collected. Additionally, the proposed amendments would allow for improved flexibility when approved indicators are broken or applied incorrectly, or when there is an animal welfare concern.

Cattle, sheep, and bison

Producers would still be required to apply an approved indicator to bison, cattle or sheep before it leaves the farm of origin and when they receive it from another operation if it does not bear one already.

The proposed amendments would require persons buying approved indicators to report to the responsible administrator, at the time of purchase, the premises identification number of the site where the indicators would be applied to the animals or the equivalent information.

Additionally, the application of an approved indicator to an animal received from another operation that does not bear one would be an event required to be reported to the responsible administrator within seven calendar days. Currently, such information is only required to be recorded.

Under the proposed amendments, only bison or cattle that may cause serious injury or death to any person who attempts to identify them or that would be seriously injured during an attempt to identify them would be permitted to be transported without bearing an approved indicator to an approved identification site. Approved identification sites (tagging sites) would be restricted to assembly points (auction marts, assembly yards). Sites like feedlots and farms would no longer be eligible to be designated as approved identification sites.

Finally, it would be clarified that parts of a ruminant^{footnote 10} carcass moved to another site would be required to bear an approved indicator if it represents more than 50% of the ruminant’s dead weight.

Pigs and farmed wild boars

Slap tattoos are currently a means of identification for pigs moved directly from a farm to an abattoir and for pigs moved directly from a farm to a site used exclusively for the purpose of collecting animals before they are transported to an abattoir. Under the proposed regulatory amendments, slap tattoos would still be an acceptable method of identification for sending pigs from a farm directly to the abattoir; however, pigs moving via a collection site (such as an assembly yard) would need to be identified with an approved tag. This is because the use of slap tattoo herd marks for pigs going to slaughter via a collection site has led to compliance verification challenges. It can be difficult to determine that a site is being used exclusively for collection purposes, and to verify that pigs are properly identified due to legibility issues. These challenges reduce inspectors’ ability to verify compliance, which negatively impacts the effectiveness of the traceability system, as pigs could be moving through a commingling site without proper identification.

In addition, the proposed amendments would also require that approved indicators issued by the responsible administrator be applied to pigs before export. This aligns generally with the current requirement that pigs must be identified before export by an indicator approved by the importing country.

Use of approved indicators outside Canada

The distribution of Canadian approved indicators to another person for the purpose of identifying regulated species (bison, cattle, sheep, goats and cervids) outside of Canada would be prohibited. This would prevent potential misrepresentation of the animal’s country of origin for those conducting investigations if the diseased animal is not ultimately imported into Canada.

Permitting the removal of indicators in some cases

Under the current Regulations, there are no instances that allow for the removal of an approved indicator from an animal other than at slaughter or carcass disposal. The proposed amendments would introduce options for stakeholders to remove approved indicators applied to an animal if the indicator is damaged, not functioning, applied to the wrong species, or causing harm to the animal. The stakeholder would be required to provide evidence to a CFIA inspector who would then authorize the removal of the tag. In cases involving animal welfare concerns, the evidence may be presented up to seven days after the removal. In all instances, a new approved indicator would be required to be applied to the animal.

3. Increasing agility and efficiency in the Regulations

Agility with the approval of animal indicators and revised record-keeping requirements would support the development of innovation in the sector, such as new technologies and digital solutions, and increase efficiency across the system.

Modernizing the definition of animal indicators

The proposed amendments would not impose the use of a particular technology for approved tag requirements, allowing for innovation of livestock identification technology as the industry evolves. This would be accomplished by replacing the word “tag” with “approved indicator” in the Regulations. A framework for approving new indicators exists outside of the Regulations, but is also currently being updated to allow for innovation and the development of new animal identification technology.

Incorporation by reference of approved indicators

In addition, providing agility to the requirements surrounding animal indicators would be accomplished by incorporating by reference in the HAR the two following documents:

1. List of approved indicators and the circumstances upon which the indicator is approved; and
2. List of revoked indicators.

These documents would contain the current list of approved indicators for cattle, bison, sheep, and pigs, as well as the current list of pre-approved indicators available for cervids and goats. Documents incorporated by reference have the same force as the regulation into which it is incorporated. As a result, there would be increased rigour for approved indicators, their approval, and their methods of application while maintaining agility. They would be made available through CFIA’s website, and approved and updated by the CFIA on a biannual basis by recommendation of responsible administrators.

Repeal of record-keeping requirements

The proposed amendments would require that records be maintained through reporting into the databases of the responsible administrators. Also, with movement and location reporting requirements in place, vital tracing information would be available to investigators without delay via digital database solutions, thereby eliminating the need for stakeholders to retain records. The current requirement to keep records of reported information on-site and make them available to an inspector upon request would be repealed. This would constitute a benefit for industry as the database would be easily accessed in the event of an outbreak, and record-keeping obligations would be removed.

In conclusion, achieving these objectives would directly benefit Canada’s ability to protect livestock, human health and the agricultural economy through an efficient and modernized process. In addition, the proposed Regulations would play a role in enhancing access to global markets and maintaining market access for Canadian exports of animals and animal products.

Regulatory development

Consultation

Since 2013, the CFIA conducted multiple rounds of consultations to discuss and obtain feedback on possible options to address the identified issues with the federal traceability system.

The Canadian livestock production system is complex and includes a wide range of sectors (e.g. beef cattle, dairy cattle, pigs, bison, sheep, goats, farmed cervids), involving a diverse set of stakeholders, all of whom handle animals and animal carcasses (producers, operators of auction markets, assembly yards, community pastures, fairs and exhibition halls, abattoirs and rendering plants, transporters, and veterinarians) or sell and distribute approved indicators. Businesses range from small operators, for instance transporters moving one animal at a time, to companies able to move hundreds of animals at the same time for short and long distances.

The CFIA consulted with numerous stakeholders throughout the regulatory development process, including

National associations

• Canadian Association of Bovine Practitioners (veterinarian association)
• Canadian Association of Fairs and Exhibitions
• Canadian Bison Association
• Canadian Cattle Association
• Canadian Cervid Alliance
• Canadian Livestock Dealers Association
• Canadian Meat Council
• Canadian Meat Goat Association
• Canadian National Goat Federation
• Canadian Pork Council
• Canadian Sheep Federation
• Canadian Small Ruminant Veterinarians
• Canadian Trucking Alliance
• Canadian Veterinary Medical Association
• Dairy Farmers of Canada
• Livestock Markets Association of Canada
• National Cattle Feeders Association

Provincial associations

• Alberta Auction Markets’ Association
• Alberta Beef Producers
• Alberta Lamb Producers
• Alberta livestock associations (various)
• Alberta Pork
• Beef Farmers of Ontario
• British Columbia Cattlemen’s Association
• Fédération des producteurs d’agneaux et moutons du Québec
• Fédération des producteurs de bovins du Québec
• Les Éleveurs de porcs du Québec
• Les Producteurs de lait du Québec
• Manitoba Beef Producers
• Manitoba Livestock Markets Association
• Maritime livestock associations (various)
• New Brunswick Pork
• Ontario Beef
• Ontario Goat
• Ontario Livestock Auction Market Association
• Ontario Livestock Dealers Association
• Ontario Pork
• Ontario Sheep Farmers
• Ontario Veterinary College
• Sask Pork
• Saskatchewan Stock Growers Association
• Saskatchewan livestock associations (various)
• Small Ruminant Veterinarians of Ontario
• Union des producteurs agricoles
• Veal Farmers of Ontario
• Several other regional or local associations

Industry-government groups

• Cattle Implementation Plan Committee
• Industry-Government Advisory Committee on livestock traceability, which represents national industry associations for all regulated and proposed species, traceability service providers, provincial and territorial ministries of Agriculture, the CFIA, and AAFC
• National Farmed Animal Health and Welfare Council (now Animal Health Canada)
• Regulatory Implementation Committee (RIC), which includes Attestra, Canadian Bison Association, Canadian Cattle Association, Canadian Cattle Identification Agency, Canadian Cervid Alliance, Canadian National Goat Federation, Canadian Pork Council / PigTRACE Canada, Canadian Sheep Federation, Dairy Farmers of Canada, Provinces of British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia, the CFIA, and AAFC
• Sheep Value Chain Roundtable

Third-party service providers

• Attestra (formerly Agri-Traçabilité Québec)
• Canadian Cattle Identification Agency
• Lactanet
• Livestock Identification Services

In addition, the CFIA consulted with individual companies, such as abattoirs, veterinary practices, livestock dealers, and producers.

Pre-regulatory consultation round 1 (2013)

The CFIA conducted public consultations in 2013, during which it presented options and recommendations for program design to address the issues with the current traceability system that were identified by FPT ministers of Agriculture in 2006. Key issues noted by stakeholders included that livestock species that share diseases are not all subject to traceability requirements, and current identification and traceability requirements are insufficient in responding efficiently to a disease outbreak or natural disaster.

Pre-regulatory consultation round 2 (2015)

The CFIA continued its engagement with stakeholders in 2015, which was targeted towards national and provincial industry associations, associations representing intermediate sites (e.g. leased or community pasture, feedlots, assembly points, fairs, and exhibition halls) and terminal sites (e.g. abattoirs, rendering sites), and provincial governments.

The focus on this round of consultation was on movement reporting design. Various options on reporting scenarios (move-in, move-out, double reporting, group movement, etc.) at different portions of the value chain were discussed and evaluated for suitability within the Canadian livestock context and for their effectiveness in risk mitigation.

During the public consultation period, the CFIA provided a summary of the livestock identification and traceability regulatory proposal through a number of webinars, which were attended by internal and external stakeholders representing various species sectors.

As well, during these consultations, most stakeholders expressed that animals kept for a person’s company should remain within the scope of the Regulations. They stated that animals of the same livestock species share the same diseases, regardless of whether they are commercially farmed or kept for a person’s company. Furthermore, if animals for a person’s company were excluded, issues could arise through the interpretation of the definition of that type of animal. CFIA disease experts agreed that excluding these animals would reduce the effectiveness of the traceability program and impact the government’s ability to complete disease investigations in a timely manner in the event that a regulated disease is found in the pet population. For example, on several occasions, goats kept as pets have been implicated in scrapie investigations.

Pre-regulatory engagement (2016–2019)

During this time, ongoing consultations and engagement were held with provincial and territorial governments, who generally agreed with the planned regulatory proposal and continued to provide input on refining proposed requirements and implementation.

After the prior general consultations, this period was also used to consult on and resolve specific sector issues with the regulatory proposal. In addition, the CFIA reached out and maintained ongoing engagement with its stakeholders on the proposed regulatory changes through a variety of committees, including the Industry-Government Advisory Committee and the industry-government Regulatory Implementation Committee. The consultation efforts included

• Newsletters developed by RIC, describing the proposed regulatory requirements were published on the CFIA website and circulated to national and provincial industry associations and provinces.
• A list of pre-approved goat and cervid indicators, through work with the goat and cervid stakeholders, as published on the CFIA website. These indicators are available now to producers on the Canadian Cattle Identification Agency website for purchase. As a responsible administrator for the program, the Canadian Cattle Identification Agency has also published information to cervid and goat producers on the upcoming requirements, and on how to purchase tags and report information.
• A communications blitz was conducted in the summer of 2017 to encourage the identification of premises by provinces before it would become mandatory across the country under the regulatory proposal. This blitz generated the identification of a significant number of additional sites.
• The Traceability Task Team, a provincial-territorial government working group along with AAFC as the secretariat, met regularly to advance provincial premises identification programs as well as data sharing agreements between the provinces.
• Bilateral engagement with species-specific organizations, which are members of the committees mentioned above.
• Collaboration with the Canadian National Goat Federation to develop the proposed regulatory amendments. The Canadian National Goat Federation initiated the development of traceability resources for goat producers and its voluntary National Goat Traceability Committee. Working through a National Goat Traceability Committee, launched in 2014, various outreach and engagement activities have helped raise awareness among goat producers in preparation for the regulatory amendments.
• Engagement with various industry stakeholders and associations to provide updates on the status of the Regulations.

Sharing of detailed proposed regulatory changes prior to prepublication in Canada Gazette, Part I (2020)

With the objective of transparency, mitigating stakeholder concern and confirming support for the proposal, the CFIA prepared a side-by-side document that provided plain language descriptions of each of the proposed changes to Part XV of the HAR in contrast to the current traceability regulations. In 2020, this document was shared with members of the Regulatory Implementation Committee for review, as this committee included all affected stakeholder groups as well as provincial representatives.

Subsequent meetings were held for some organizations to further discuss and increase understanding of the regulatory proposal, including the Canadian National Goat Federation, the Canadian Meat Goat Association, the Canadian Meat Council, the Canadian Cattle Association, the Canadian Association of Fairs and Exhibitions, the Council of Chief Veterinary Officers, the Canadian Association of Bovine Practitioners, the Canadian Small Ruminant Veterinarians, and the Small Ruminant Veterinarians of Ontario.

The Canadian Cervid Alliance and the cervid sector as a whole were also further consulted in February 2021, specifically on the repeal of the cervid movement permit requirement, which is included as part of the proposed amendments. Through this consultation, the CFIA found that the cervid industry is generally in favour of the proposed repeal of the cervid movement permit requirement.

Following their review of the side-by-side document, the Canadian Cattle Association, the Canadian Pork Council, the Canadian Meat Council, and the Canadian Cattle Identification Agency shared their concerns with the CFIA. In response, modifications were made to the proposed text prior to its prepublication to allow for the flexibility they were asking for. These included providing flexibility for abattoirs in reporting conveyance identification details to address the Canadian Meat Council concerns, and allowing for group movement reporting when animals must temporarily leave an abattoir to address the Canadian Cattle Association concerns. The Canadian Association of Fairs and Exhibitions was engaged and continued to express concerns with the added responsibilities for fair employees or volunteers as a result of being required to report the movement of livestock arriving at a fair or exhibition.

Consultation in a COVID-19 pandemic context (2020–2022)

The CFIA has engaged with stakeholders throughout the pandemic to discuss the detailed regulatory proposal and has had the opportunity to understand any potential economic impacts of the proposed changes, specifically in the evolving pandemic context. The CFIA engaged with each of the impacted sectors (cattle, bison, sheep, goats, cervids and pigs), and the abattoir sector.

In addition, the CFIA has engaged with other stakeholder groups, such as the rural veterinary community and the Canadian Association of Fairs and Exhibits. Through this ongoing engagement, the CFIA heard general support for the proposed Regulations but some specific concerns were also noted, which are described below.

To solicit further feedback, the CFIA engaged in July 2022 with key contacts in the impacted veterinary community (rural, small ruminant and cattle vets); however, limited feedback was received. The CFIA shared sector-specific documents, which described proposed requirements such as the requirement for veterinary practices to report movement information for ruminants. This would be in addition to reporting the movement for pigs, which is already a requirement under the current Regulations. Veterinary practices would also be required to tag goats and farmed cervids that arrive at their site, in addition to regulated species that are already required to be tagged. To facilitate quick and easy reporting, all responsible administrator databases have tools in place or options to accept spreadsheets or prepopulated files containing the traceability information as well as linkages to common herd management software. This reporting is an administrative task and could be accomplished by various employees of a veterinary practice on a weekly basis. The CFIA will conduct further outreach with this sector at prepublication to ensure stakeholders are aware and understand the proposed requirements, and that they take part in the public consultation.

Most recently, in September 2022, an Industry-Government Advisory Committee meeting was held where all impacted sectors and provinces were in attendance. The main purpose of the meeting was to gauge industry readiness and support for the prepublication of the proposed regulatory amendments. All sectors agreed that the regulatory package should move to prepublication and were supportive of planned CFIA efforts to engage with stakeholders during the consultation period.

The CFIA met again with the Canadian Association of Fairs and Exhibitions on November 17, 2022, to provide members with an overview of the current traceability requirements and the proposed requirements, and information on providing feedback during prepublication. The presentation was well received and questions and comments were mainly focused on the ability for fairs and exhibitions, who are volunteer-driven, to comply with the proposed movement reporting requirements. The views and concerns of this particular stakeholder group are further described below in the “Stakeholder feedback and issues raised” section.

Stakeholder views

Over the course of the various engagements with stakeholders, many stakeholders indicated support for the proposed seven-day reporting requirement. The CFIA also received general support for the expansion of the scope of the Regulations to include goats and cervids. Representatives from the goat industry acknowledged the need to be a responsible player in the agriculture community for disease management. Representatives from the cervid industry indicated the sector is close to having a full traceability system in place, and streamlining federal and provincial requirements is important to avoid duplicative requirements.

The provinces and their Chief Veterinary Officers were all vocal in their support of the regulatory amendment, have been participating in the Regulatory Implementation Committee, and have been working on developing and implementing their own premises identification programs to align with the amendment.

In response to the side-by-side document that was shared in 2020, associations, provinces and industry stakeholders were supportive of the regulatory proposal moving forward. The CFIA received letters of support from the Dairy Farmers of Canada, the Canadian Meat Goat Association, the Canadian National Goat Federation, the Canadian Goat Society, the Canadian Cattle Association, and the Canadian Sheep Federation to move forward with the proposed regulatory amendments.

In 2021, the CFIA received support on the proposed changes from the Canadian Association of Bovine Practitioners, the Canadian Small Ruminant Veterinarians, the Canadian Veterinary Medical Association, the Ontario Veterinary College, and the Small Ruminant Veterinarians of Ontario.

At the Industry-Government Advisory Committee meeting in September 2022, species groups subject to the proposed Regulations individually and collectively emphasized the importance of traceability for protecting their sectors and reaffirmed their unanimous support for moving the regulatory package forward to Canada Gazette, Part I.

Stakeholder feedback and issues raised

This section provides an overview of the main feedback and areas of concern heard throughout the various phases of engagement.

Issue 1: Some sectors have expressed concerns associated with the cost of additional traceability requirements, namely for the purchase of indicators, reading equipment and software, and for personnel.

CFIA response

The cost-benefit analysis for the regulatory amendments took into consideration all costs identified by industry (e.g. purchase and repurchase of indicators) as presented in the “Regulatory analysis” section below. After careful analysis of the costs and benefits, the regulatory amendments result in a net benefit to industry, mainly attributed to supporting international trade and to reducing costs associated with containing and eradicating disease outbreaks. The benefits also include savings and administrative burden relief to the industry from the repeal of the current record-keeping and cervid movement permit requirements.

To address concerns with the cost of implementation, the CFIA is proposing to provide a transition period to allow stakeholders to make adjustments to their current business operations. This includes

• a one-year transition period for cattle, bison, sheep, pigs, goats and cervids; and
• a two-year transition period for animals that are kept for research purposes, entertainment purposes or for a person’s company in order to provide more time for outreach and education.

With regard to the cost of purchasing reading equipment, the proposed Regulations would not specify the method for reading and reporting the identification numbers on the approved indicators. Regulated parties could choose electronic readers (fixed or hand-held) or to read the numbers manually.

Issue 2: Industry expressed concerns with the proposed requirements for operators of intermediate sites to read and report individual animal ID because it could impede the speed of commerce. The industry recommended that the movement of animals to intermediate sites be reported as a group.

CFIA response

Recognizing industry’s concerns, the CFIA has proposed that operators of intermediate sites report the receipt of animals as a group. For example, exemptions to assembly yards and auction markets are proposed to allow for group movement reporting, which would eliminate the need for businesses to purchase reading equipment for individual movement reporting.

An epidemiological study^{footnote 11} conducted by the CFIA indicated that this group movement reporting approach at intermediate sites may limit the efficiency and completeness of disease investigations because it would not result in a full traceability system. This approach could also be detrimental to market access; however, it was concluded, based on industry’s feedback, that it was the maximum achievable effort at this time to facilitate implementation and support compliance.

Issue 3: Livestock species vary greatly in the nature in which they are handled, transported and marketed, and concern was expressed that this could lead to inconsistencies between species. Industry expressed that the intent of the proposed Regulations needs to remain consistent for all species.

CFIA response

During the consultation and subsequent program design, the CFIA was cognizant of the various agricultural practices between species. The proposed amendments have general rules on livestock identification and domestic movement reporting, but have also included many requirements, exceptions and exclusions specific to species or agricultural sites, such as community pasture movement reporting, herd marks for pigs and smaller ruminant species and abattoir reporting exemptions.

Issue 4: While the Canadian Association of Fairs and Exhibitions (CAFE) is supportive of the proposed Regulations, they have expressed concerns regarding movement reporting, indicating that the requirement to report the move-in of animals was too burdensome to their sector, which is driven by volunteers.

CFIA response

The proposed requirement for move-in reporting at fairs and exhibitions is meant to mitigate the risk associated with the commingling of animals who share diseases. Compliance, and the resulting risk mitigation is expected to be much higher when there is a single party, such as the fair or exhibition operator, that is responsible for reporting the information compared to requiring multiple animal owners to report at move-out.

The CFIA recognizes that fairs and exhibitions are driven by volunteers who may or may not have an agricultural background, and those who do not may be less familiar with traceability requirements. Through multiple recent engagements with the CAFE, the CFIA offered practical solutions to help address concerns and to support compliance, without changing the proposed Regulations. For instance, in order to meet current regulatory requirements, it is recommended that fair and exhibition operators clearly communicate to participants at the outset on the need for all regulated animals sent to their site already arrive tagged. The CFIA has also shared existing guidance on movement reporting to the CAFE that describes current requirements and how they apply to fairs and exhibitions.

To continue to support fairs and exhibitions operators and volunteers understand and meet the proposed requirements, the CFIA will publish sector-specific guidance documents at prepublication. The CFIA will also organize training in collaboration with the CAFE prior to publication of the proposed Regulations to show how to easily capture and report livestock movement information to the responsible administrators’ online databases via the web or existing apps. While exemptions or exceptions are not currently being proposed for fairs and exhibitions, the CFIA will further engage and evaluate the CAFE’s concerns along with new feedback received during the public consultation period.

Issue 5: As a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, abattoirs and packers stakeholders expressed concerns with the specific economic challenges their sector is facing and with regard to the reporting requirements. Industry asserted that larger abattoirs would require significant investments in resources and data management software in order to report and reconcile the departure site ID, time of loading/arrival and conveyance ID (obtained at the receiving dock) along with animal ID obtained and already reported at slaughter.

CFIA response

Following engagement with these stakeholders, the CFIA is proposing flexibility in specific reporting requirements for abattoirs that would allow the requirement to be met without a need for additional investments in a time of economic challenges for the sector. The requirements would be achieved through a combination of reporting and record-keeping instead of requiring all information be reported. This would include the reporting of animal ID, abattoir ID, and departure site ID, and the option to continue to keep in record, as is done now, the date and time of loading and arrival, and the conveyance ID.

Issue 6: The Canadian Pork Council (CPC) expressed concerns with the removal of the exception to allow unbred pigs bearing a slap tattoo herd mark to move to a site used exclusively for the purpose of collecting animals before moving to an abattoir. The pork industry prefers slap tattoo herd marks over ear tags as a means of identification because slap tattoos are much more cost-effective, and they are quicker and easier to apply. While the CPC is supportive of the regulatory amendments, it will submit a rationale to keep the exception for slap tattoos in the proposed Regulations during the prepublication consultation because parts of the industry still rely on this method of identification. The CFIA will further engage and evaluate CPC’s concerns along with new feedback received during the public consultation period.

CFIA response

The removal of this exception is based on challenges for the CFIA with respect to compliance verification. It can be difficult to verify that a site is being used exclusively for the purpose of collecting animals before moving to an abattoir, and to determine if pigs are properly identified due to legibility issues with tattoos. These challenges reduce the CFIA’s ability to determine whether animals are properly identified and negatively impacts the effectiveness of the traceability system. The CFIA will evaluate any rationale submitted by CPC after the public consultation and will further engage with industry in order to determine the most agreeable solution.

Issue 7: Currently, a site may be designated as a “tagging site,” where untagged cattle or bison are transported to be tagged with indicators from their farm of origin. Under the proposed amendments, tagging sites would be referred to as “approved identification sites” and would be restricted to assembly points (auction marts, assembly yards). Sites like feedlots and farms would no longer be eligible to be designated as identification sites. The National Cattle Feeders Association (NCFA) has indicated that they would like feedlots to continue to be eligible to be approved as identification sites because feedlots are already well equipped to tag animals in a way that protects farmers, workers and animals.

CFIA response

During consultation with industry, the CFIA found that there was overuse of tagging sites, which resulted in too many untagged animals being transported. The proposed definition for “approved identification site” was streamlined to reduce the number of untagged animals being transported and the overuse of these sites for general tagging purposes. Under the proposed Regulations, these sites would only be used for dangerous bovine (such as bulls) and bison where the risk to tagging on the farm of origin is too great. The NCFA is supportive of the proposed regulatory amendment but will submit a rationale during the prepublication in the Canada Gazette, Part I, to advocate for feedlots to be included as eligible sites for “approved identification sites.” The CFIA looks forward to evaluating any rationale submitted during consultation on this topic and will further engage with industry in advance of Canada Gazette, Part II, publication.

Modern treaty obligations and Indigenous engagement and consultation

This proposal is intended to introduce identification and movement reporting requirements for goats and cervids, as well as new movement reporting requirements for currently regulated species (i.e. cattle, bison and sheep). It would impact all stakeholders moving livestock, which could include Indigenous peoples but did not have specific implications or impacts on Indigenous peoples. Accordingly, specific consultations with Indigenous peoples were not undertaken. It is anticipated that this proposal would not have an impact on the Government’s modern treaty obligations.

As mentioned previously, the CFIA has been actively involved in consulting with stakeholders in advance of completing this regulatory proposal. The CFIA has engaged as many stakeholders as possible throughout the consultation period. During this consultation period, it was not brought to the attention of the CFIA that there are significant populations of Indigenous peoples who are actively involved in the movement of livestock; therefore, the impact of the changes to Part XV of the Health of Animals Regulations would be minimal. As required by the Cabinet Directive on the Federal Approach to Modern Treaty Implementation, the proposal’s possible treaty implications were assessed. No such implications were identified, including with respect to the issue of jurisdiction.

Instrument choice

A range of regulatory and non-regulatory options were considered, including the status quo (no action) and any other feasible regulatory and non-regulatory actions. Other options under consideration were beyond what industry is prepared for technologically.

Under the status quo, the gaps in Canada’s current traceability system that are impacting the effectiveness of the program would not be addressed. Not expanding the current scope of the traceability system could continue to jeopardize the health status of the current regulated animal species. Further, the CFIA would continue to face challenges in its ability to effectively conduct disease control and surveillance activities. The poor geographical precision of the traceability information coupled with no domestic animal movement information readily available in the database means that trace-related activities to locate implicated animals would continue to be time-consuming and inefficient. Finally, federal and provincial requirements would remain inconsistent, and there would be no integration between the federal traceability framework and the extensive effort put into provincially implemented PID programs. It would also place Canada under scrutiny by international trading partners as Canada’s goal and work towards full livestock traceability has been communicated widely.

The regulatory approach is the chosen option because it best addresses the identified issues in the current traceability system. It would also support evidence-based decision-making for conducting disease surveillance and control activities in a more efficient, timely, and accurate manner while taking into consideration industry readiness to adopt regulatory requirements and, consequently, facilitating higher compliance.

Regulatory analysis

Benefits and costs

The detailed methodology, stakeholder descriptions, assumptions and sources used in the cost-benefit analysis have been fully documented in a cost-benefit analysis report, which is available from the CFIA upon request (cfia.trace-trace.acia@canada.ca).

The cost-benefit analysis assessed the potential impacts (i.e. costs and benefits) representing the differences between the baseline and regulatory scenarios. The baseline scenario describes the situation under the current federal regulatory framework for livestock traceability. It also includes all other relevant provincial and territorial regulatory requirements. The regulatory scenario describes the future situation when the proposed Regulations come into force.

The key differences between the baseline and regulatory scenario of the proposal are presented in Table 1.

Table 1: Summary — Baseline versus proposed regulatory scenario

Category	Baseline	Proposed change	Provincial/industry considerations
Animal identification requirements	The current livestock identification and traceability system requires the identification of cattle, bison, sheep and pigs. Cattle, bison, sheep: Producers need to apply approved ear tags to the animal before it leaves the farm of origin. Unidentified cattle, bison, sheep or carcasses: Identification upon receipt at intermediate sites. Pigs: Identification requirements with an approved ear tag upon receipt. Exception for pig producers to use slap tattoos in the event that the animal is sent to an abattoir via an assembly point.	Scope extended to include goats and farmed cervids. Goats: Producers would need to purchase and apply electronic or non-electronic indicators. table a1 note 12 Producers would need to purchase a tag applicator. Cervids: Producers would need to purchase and apply two approved indicators (primary electronic ear indicator, and secondary, non-electronic ear indicator); Producers would need to purchase a tag applicator. Unidentified goats, cervids, or carcasses: Identification upon receipt at intermediate sites. table a1 note 13 Goat, cervid carcasses: Identification when departing a site for disposal. Pigs: Producers who currently send their pigs to an abattoir via an assembly point would need to purchase and apply an approved tag to these pigs.	Cervid producers in British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, and Yukon are already required to identify all animals with a non-electronic tag. Cervid producers in Quebec are already required to identify all animals with a non-electronic and electronic tag.
Premises identification requirements	No federal requirement to report a premises identification number issued by province or territory.	All livestock operators would need to report the premises identification number issued by the province or territory. Identification and reporting of sites not yet identified.	Already mandatory in Quebec for premises where cattle, sheep, and/or cervids are kept. Already mandatory in British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, and Prince Edward Island premises for all livestock. Cross-compliance requirements in Ontario for all livestock. Voluntary approach in New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, and Newfoundland and Labrador.
Animal movement reporting requirements	The following are the current movement reporting requirements for bison, cattle and sheep: A person who issues approved tags must report to the responsible administrator within 24 hours. Identification information on bison, cattle and sheep that is required to be reported to the responsible administrator must be reported within 30 or 60 days, depending of the event. Movement reporting requirements for pigs: Both the operators of the departure site and of the destination site must report the movement of pigs within seven days of their departure or receipt.	By default, all livestock operators would be required to report upon receipt the identification number of live and dead animals within Canada within seven days. Operators of assembly yards and auction markets would be subject to group reporting, i.e. reporting the movement information record accompanying animals. All exports of sheep, goat, and cervids would need to be reported. All imports of goat, cervids would need to be reported. Additional reporting information for imports/exports would be required.	Reporting receipt of Cattle, sheep and cervids is currently required in Quebec; Dairy cattle is currently required for members of Dairy Farmers of Canada; Each animal in feedlots is currently required in Quebec; and Each bovine at large feedlots is currently required in Alberta. Currently, in all provinces, operators of abattoirs are required to report the slaughter of bison and cattle, as well as exports of cattle, bison, and pigs, and imports of cattle, bison, sheep, and pigs. Operators who handle pigs are already required to report all movements.
Movement information record	Currently, information accompanying animals is required for all species (subject to part XV of the Health of Animals Regulations) under part XII of the Health of Animals Regulations respecting the transportation of live animals across all provinces. The proposed requirements are the same requirements under part XII of the Health of Animals Regulations, except for the requirement to include the premises identification number.	Persons who transport animals intra-provincially need to provide information on the movement of those animals. Provinces would be required to provide information on the movement of animals. A template is being provided by the CFIA for provincial use. People who are required to ensure the information accompanies an animal or carcass will also need to retain a copy of the document containing the information for two years.	British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba currently have provincial requirements for movement information accompanying animals that satisfies the proposed requirements.footnote 12
Record retention requirement	The current Regulations require livestock operators of cattle, pigs, bison and sheep to keep a record of information for reporting to responsible administrators. The retention period for those records is either two or five years.	The requirement to keep a record of information for reporting to responsible administrators would be repealed.	N/A
Movement permits	The current Regulations require a permit issued by veterinarian for deer/elk transported off-site.	Repealed for deer/elk	N/A
Table a1 note(s) Table a1 note 12 List of approved indicators can be found on the CFIA website. Note that additional indicators for cervids and goats are being proposed to be added under these proposed Regulations. Return to table a1 note 12 referrer Table a1 note 13 Intermediate sites are auction markets, as well as showing events, fairs, rodeos, community pastures, or assembly yards or veterinary sites. Return to table a1 note 13 referrer Table a1 note 14 The cost to include the premises identification number is minimal and was not monetized in the cost-benefit analysis. Return to table a1 note 14 referrer

Affected stakeholders

The Canadian livestock production system is complex and includes a wide range of sectors. The stakeholders who would be impacted by the proposal are

• persons who own, have care of, or control of livestock, for example
  • operators of feedlots, auction markets and farms,
  • operators of fairs, showing events, veterinary practices, assembly yards and rodeos,
  • operators of abattoirs (inspected by the federal government and others),
  • operators of rendering plants, deadstock collection centres,
  • transporters of livestock;
• responsible administrators;
• distributors of approved animal indicators;
• government (CFIA, provinces, territories, and AAFC); and
• consumers.

Benefits and costs

Methodology, assumptions and data sources

• The monetized costs and benefits were estimated over a period of 20 years (starting in 2024), based on the assumption that an animal disease outbreak could occur within a 20-year period.
• All costs, benefits and assumptions are reported in 2018 prices and were discounted to 2024 (the base year, or registration date) using a 7% discount rate.
• An industry compliance rate of 100% was assumed in estimating all costs and benefits.
• Publication in the Canada Gazette, Part II, was assumed for 2024. Based on this date, the transition periods are as follows:
  • (a) One-year transition period for cattle, bison, sheep, goat, and cervid owners. Costs have been monetized for this group, and these costs would start in 2025, one year after the registration date.
  • (b) Two-year transition period for animals that are kept for research purposes, entertainment purposes or for a person’s company (e.g. companion animals) in order to provide more time for outreach and education. Any impacts would therefore start in 2026. Note that given the broad range of stakeholders in this group and data gaps, costs have not been monetized for this group.
• All costs and benefits were estimated based on livestock animal movements since the proposed traceability requirements are based on the movement of animals. Livestock animals raised and kept as a person’s company or for hobbies (e.g. pet) are included within the scope of the proposed Regulations because the same livestock species, regardless of whether they are commercial livestock or pets, share the same diseases. While it is also possible that the animal considered to be a pet may become commercial livestock at some point, the majority would have very little cross-premises movement during their lifetimes compared to a commercial livestock animal. Hence, the costs to pet animal owners are not expected to be significant and are not monetized in the analysis. This is consistent with the approach used in the benefit-cost analysis of the National Animal Identification System (NAIS), prepared by the NAIS benefit-cost research team for the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA).^{footnote 12}
• The CBA did not monetize the cost for veterinary clinics to report the receipt of animals nor the cost to tag unidentified goats and cervids, although veterinary clinics would be impacted by the proposed Regulations. Since the majority of veterinarian visits happen on a farm, and because the additional requirement would only result in minor administrative tasks, the impacts on veterinarians are expected to be minimal. However, cost to veterinary clinics to identify their premises was taken into account.
• Assumptions and data were provided by the CFIA subject matter experts, unless otherwise stated. Other data sources include the CFIA’s Compliance Verification System database, published data/research, and the input obtained from industry consultations.
• The standard cost model was used to estimate costs and benefits related to impacts on labour (i.e. time). The model reflects the time required for individuals to perform a task, the individuals’ wage rate and how often the task must be performed.

During summer/fall 2017, the CFIA consulted livestock industry associations and provincial agriculture ministries, seeking their input on the assumptions used in the cost-benefit analysis. All comments^{footnote 13} received were thoroughly assessed and the majority were incorporated in the analysis. In order to determine the incremental costs to beef cattle and dairy cattle abattoirs, the CFIA developed a questionnaire that was sent to the Canadian Meat Council. The cost estimates provided by the Canadian Meat Council represented 26 federally inspected cattle abattoirs and were fully incorporated into the analysis.

North American Animal Disease Spread Model

The North American Animal Disease Spread Model (NAADSM) was used to simulate and estimate the benefits of the proposed enhanced livestock traceability. The model was originally developed by the USDA’s text-center for Epidemiology and Animal Health. Over the years, it was enhanced through international collaboration involving researchers in the United States and Canada.
The analysis ran simulated foot-and-mouth disease (FMD) outbreaks reflecting traceability capacity levels that are comparable to current and proposed regulatory requirements. The proposed regulatory scenario that was simulated in the model was the recommended option (detailed under the section “Instrument choice” above), with required individual livestock movement reporting and group movement reporting for auctions and assembly yards.

Limitations

This analysis focuses on the reduction of the costs associated with trade embargoes due to an FMD outbreak (instead of other diseases) for the following reasons:

• FMD is among the animal diseases with the largest economic impact with regard to required efforts to contain/eradicate the disease and subsequent trade embargoes.
• FMD is a realistic threat to the Canadian livestock sectors. Various regions across the world are not disease free, and recent large outbreaks have caused damage to affected countries.
• FMD is probably the best researched disease with regard to disease spread outcomes under different traceability and disease control measures. Hence, information from FMD disease spread simulations using accepted models, such as the NAADSM, is available to estimate outbreak costs for different traceability scenarios.

However, enhanced traceability would not be developed to solely address an FMD outbreak; enhanced traceability would also help to address any identified livestock disease outbreak. To estimate the benefits regarding other diseases (e.g. BSE), additional models would be required — one for each type of disease. Due to the lack of availability of such models, it was not possible to estimate the traceability benefits associated with all disease outbreaks. Therefore, the monetized benefits are underestimated and are expected to be higher if considering all disease outbreaks.

Monetized benefits

(a) Repeal of the record-keeping requirement

Currently, information required to be reported to the responsible administrators must also be kept in records on-site and made available to inspectors upon request. The repeal of this current requirement would reduce the record-keeping burden (paper and electronic) of stakeholders in the beef cattle, dairy cattle, pig, cervid, bison and sheep industries, as well as operators of intermediate sites and terminal sites in those industries.

Refer to the “One-for-one rule” section for details.

(b) Reduced cost of controlling an animal disease outbreak

The proposed Regulations would play a role in tracing diseased animals and in reducing the extent and duration of a disease outbreak. This would benefit industry stakeholders, as there would be fewer operations disinfected and animals destroyed and disposed of because outbreaks are contained faster.

This benefit measures the reduced cost due to fewer zones contained, shorter time of containment, and fewer animals culled. The difference in total costs of containment and eradication between the regulatory and baseline scenarios represents the benefit in the event of an FMD outbreak.

Containment: Containment costs were estimated based on the number of control zones, the expected duration of control measures, and the costs of establishing and maintaining control zones.

The following are the key assumptions:

• A likelihood of a foreign animal disease (specifically FMD) outbreak once every 20 years.^{footnote 14}
• A set-up cost of $2.5 million per zone and operating cost of $6,250 per day per zone.^{footnote 15}

An industry compliance rate of 100% (to all proposed regulatory requirements, including movement reporting within seven days).^{footnote 16}

Eradication: The costs of eradication were based on the number of animals requiring culling under the regulatory and baseline scenarios, and the average cost of culling per animal. The values include the animal cost, plus associated costs for disinfection and cleaning. The values are based on CFIA compensation and industry input.

(c) Support to international trade

When an animal disease outbreak occurs, international trading partners are quick to close their markets to animals and meat products from Canada, resulting in negative economic impact.

In the event of a disease outbreak, the CFIA would be better positioned to identify exposed and potentially exposed animals and their movements within the supply chain more quickly, develop controls and impose them faster. This would provide assurances that Canada is capable of controlling the spread and not exporting potentially infected animals, thereby benefitting industry stakeholders by reducing the length of trade embargos. Canada’s traceability system is of interest during foreign audits and delegations hosted by the CFIA. Since 2011, Canada has presented on livestock traceability to 18 countries or association of countries, including Japan, China, the European Union and Australia. In addition, when Canada is seeking to gain, maintain or expand access for livestock and livestock products, the CFIA is requested to complete technical questionnaires, which include sections seeking information on traceability systems.

In addition, identifying movement of livestock provides key information when designing disease surveillance systems that are effective and efficient. These surveillance systems for both foreign and domestic animal diseases are important in gaining or maintaining market access for livestock and livestock products.

This benefit measures the potential avoided losses from a two-year to a one-year trade embargo imposed by importing countries. The benefits were estimated conditional on an FMD outbreak occurring on a cattle farm and pig farm^{footnote 17} respectively. The following assumptions were used: (i) the annual probability of an outbreak is 5%; and (ii) if an outbreak does occur, there is an equal probability (50%) that it begins on either type of farm. Since outbreak duration (i.e. time required to contain and eradicate the disease) is the most measurable risk signal to importing countries, it was used as a proxy for the duration of the trade embargo. Probabilities were assigned to different outbreak sizes and to embargo duration based on the outcomes of the model. The costs (i.e. damages) of the embargos were then weighted by their respective probabilities to yield their expected costs.

The benefits from a trade embargo were determined by calculating the difference between two scenarios that were simulated in the NAADSM model: the baseline (i.e. current Regulations) and the regulatory option (i.e. proposed requirements).

For each scenario, the total expected cost was calculated by taking the sum of the expected cost of the two-year trade embargo and the one-year trade embargo. Note that over the entire period of analysis, the probability of occurrence for a one-year trade embargo and a two-year trade embargo is 1, which implies that there is no probability of any other occurrence for consideration in this calculation.

Visually, the formula for the expected cost for each scenario (baseline or regulatory option) is

(cost of a two-year embargo * the likelihood of a two-year trade embargo occurring) + (cost of a one-year embargo * (1 − the likelihood of a two-year trade embargo occurring).

(d) Reduced cost of conducting animal traceability and investigation of animal diseases

Every year, the CFIA conducts disease control and surveillance activities (e.g. in the control of CWD^{footnote 18} for deer and elk, and scrapie for goats and sheep) that involve traceability investigations. With the regulatory proposal, less work would be required for such activities, as information would be more readily available and the tracing of diseased animals would be faster. As a result, the CFIA would need fewer resources to support traceability activities for regulated species. Also, with more effective tracing of all exposed animals in a disease investigation, there would be less risk of diseased animals going undiscovered and causing further outbreaks in future years.

The annual costs to the CFIA of conducting investigations of CWD, scrapie, and BSE, and specifically on animal traceability, is assumed to be reduced by 50%.^{footnote 19} The anticipated savings are determined by the reduced time spent on traceability activities and their frequency, combined with the employee’s salary.

(e) Savings from the animal identification requirement for the pig sector

Currently, the Regulations permit pig producers to identify their animals with a slap tattoo and to move them from the farm of origin to an abattoir via an assembly point. With the proposed regulatory amendments, this practice of using a slap tattoo would be prohibited and replaced by an approved tag. Therefore, these pig producers would avoid the cost associated with the application of slap tattoos and the purchase of related equipment (i.e. hammer, ink and digits). However, the need to use an approved tag would generate additional costs as described in the “Monetized costs” section.

• (i) Labour cost savings for pig farm operators under the animal identification requirement
  • Pig producers would avoid the time (10 seconds) spent to apply slap tattoos to animals sent to an abattoir via an assembly point. Approximately 4% of pig farm operators would benefit from these savings.
• (ii) Capital cost savings for pig farm operators under the animal identification requirement
  • Pig producers would not assume costs of purchasing a hammer ($79.98/hammer), ink ($30.98/L), or digits ($24.75 for 5 digits) for the application of slap tattoos of animals sent to an abattoir via an assembly point. Approximately 4% of pig farm operators would benefit from these savings.

(f) Repeal of cervid movement permit

The current Regulations require a permit (free of charge) to be issued by a veterinarian for cervids transported from the farm of origin. All costs related to these permits would be entirely eliminated as a result of the proposed regulatory provisions and would benefit the industry and the CFIA. The annual savings to the industry are the avoided costs associated with the time spent for the veterinarian’s visit and for completing the movement permit form. The savings to the CFIA would be equivalent to the time spent by a veterinarian in issuing a permit and visiting the premises. This is equivalent to a resource reduction of 1.71 full-time equivalents (FTE).

Refer to the “One-for-one rule” section for details of benefits to industry.

Qualitative benefits

(a) Enhanced protection of animal and human health

The proposed enhanced traceability system would add health and safety protection to animals in Canada. The CFIA’s ability to identify and locate animals that had been or may have been exposed to a disease would be improved, enabling a faster and more efficient response and control to an animal disease outbreak. Health-related benefits would extend to humans because some diseases (e.g. BSE) can be transmitted from animals to humans. The proposed changes would also enhance food safety because of a faster trace back of animals fed or injected with tainted or prohibited material. This would benefit Canadians and industry stakeholders.

The magnitude of public health benefits would depend largely on the potential reduction in time to find diseased animals due to enhanced traceability and the corresponding prevention in the transmission of animal diseases to humans. This benefit could not be quantitatively measured because of the nature and complexity involved in assessing the risk of transmission of the disease from animals to humans.

(b) Public security

The proposal would help Canada effectively respond to an agro-terrorism attack, for example chemical, entomological and biological warfare, which can cause a devastating impact in the agricultural sectors and food security. In the event of an emergency, having an enhanced traceability system would facilitate a faster trace of the source and/or the spread of an attack within the livestock sector.

(c) Tourism industry

Outbreaks can lead to the closure of certain rural areas that are important for tourism. In the event of an outbreak, increased traceability and faster containment would benefit the tourism sector by reducing the size of controlled areas.

(d) Consumer confidence

There could be an improved consumer confidence and trust in domestic meat products as a result of strengthened livestock traceability requirements.

(e) Other indirect benefits

There could be indirect benefits as a result of the regulatory proposal such as

• reduced costs carried by industry and different levels of government (federal and provincial) on collaboratively funded assistance programs during an animal disease outbreak; and
• reduced economic impacts from an animal disease outbreak to other sectors of the Canadian economy beyond the agriculture and food industry (e.g. wholesale, retail and trucking sectors).

Monetized costs

(a) Costs for industry stakeholders of event reporting requirements including domestic movement and imports and exports

The costs to handlers of ruminants (e.g. cattle) include labour (time) associated with (i) reading the identification number of an approved indicator; (ii) reading the information collected on the document accompanying animals, and (iii) calling the responsible administrator’s call centre or going online and reporting the animal identification numbers and the movement information collected.

Affected abattoirs are already required to report at slaughter; however, they would bear incremental costs associated with reporting additional data fields upon request. Due to the large amount of beef and dairy cattle slaughtered annually, these abattoirs would need to upgrade their systems/operations. This includes (i) purchasing equipment/software; and (ii) training employees. There could also be costs for collecting and matching of information under event reporting.

(i) Labour cost for operators handling livestock under the event reporting requirement

Operators handling livestock would carry incremental costs to read the animal movement information (i.e. from animal indicators) and enter it into the responsible administrator’s database, every time an animal is received.

Refer to the “One-for-one rule” section for further details.

(ii) Labour cost to abattoirs under the event reporting requirement

The estimates were provided by the Canadian Meat Council for 26 federally registered abattoirs dedicated to dairy and beef cattle operations. Labour costs to abattoirs include additional time for collecting and matching additional information to report upon request. Refer to the “One-for-one rule” section for details.

(iii) Capital cost to abattoirs under the event reporting requirement

Based on the estimates provided by the Canadian Meat Council for the 26 federally registered abattoirs, there would be capital costs associated with purchasing new equipment, updating systems/operations, and developing software.

(b) Cost of animal identification requirements

(i) Labour cost to goat and farmed cervid producers under the animal identification requirement

The goat and farmed cervid producers would bear costs to purchase tag applicators and indicators, as well as to apply indicators on the animals. The following assumptions were used to estimate the time to apply the indicators:

For goats and cervids, with a squeeze:^{footnote 20}

• 25% of feedlots, farms and exhibits who handle goats already have a squeeze.
• 75% of feedlots, farms and exhibits who handle cervids already have a squeeze.
• 50% of animals are restrained for another purpose.^{footnote 21}
• It would take 30 seconds to apply the indicator on restrained animals.
• It would take 96 seconds to restrain and apply an indicator on unrestrained animals.

For goats and cervids, without a squeeze:

• 75% of feedlots, farms and exhibits who handle goats do not have a squeeze.
• 25% of feedlots, farms and exhibits who handle cervids do not have a squeeze.
• 50% of animals are restrained for another purpose.
• It would take 60 seconds to apply the indicator on restrained animals.
• It would take 120 seconds^{footnote 22} to restrain and apply the indicator on unrestrained animals.

(ii) Capital cost for goats and farmed cervids under the animal identification requirement

Goat producers would bear costs associated with purchasing small visual panel indicators ($1.46/indicator) and tag applicators ($13.29/applicator).^{footnote 23} Approximately 6% of goats are already being identified with pre-approved indicators voluntarily.^{footnote 24}

Cervid producers in Ontario and in the Atlantic provinces would bear costs from purchasing both electronic indicators ($1.89/indicator) and non-electronic indicators ($1.03/indicator).^{footnote 25} Producers in British Columbia, Saskatchewan, Alberta, Manitoba, and Yukon would only carry costs from purchasing an additional electronic indicator.

(c) Cost from animal identification requirements for the pig sector

Pig producers who currently send pigs from the farm of origin to an abattoir via an assembly point would have to replace the slap tattoo with tag indicators. The costs to pig producers would include the purchase of tag applicators and indicators, as well as the application of the tags on the animals.

(i) Labour cost for the pig sector under the animal identification requirement

Pig producers who currently send their animals to an abattoir via an assembly point would spend time (one minute) to apply the tag on the animal.

(ii) Capital cost for the pig sector under the animal identification requirement

Pig producers who currently send their animal to an abattoir via an assembly point would bear costs associated with purchasing visual indicators ($0.78/indicator) and tag applicators ($27.31/applicator)^{footnote 26}. Approximately 4% of pig farm operators would bear these costs.

(d) Cost under the premises identification requirements

Affected industry stakeholders would carry costs associated with completing provincial forms to obtain a premises identification number. For some provinces, this is already mandatory for stakeholders.

Refer to the “One-for-one rule” section for details.

(e) Costs to become familiar with new information obligations

Affected stakeholders in the industry would need to learn and familiarize themselves with new information obligations and obtain a Canadian Livestock Tracking System (CLTS) account number because of regulatory changes.

Refer to the “One-for-one rule” section for details.

(f) Costs to responsible administrators to add staff and enhance database

Third-party responsible administrators would bear costs for additional staff required to support the increased volume of event reporting. They would have to enhance databases (one-time capital investment) to cover new data fields that would now be required to be reported. They would also have to develop a mobile application for movement reporting, develop a temporary premises identification system and invest in equipment to process paper forms.

The estimated additional number of staff required for responsible administrators is based on existing staffing levels and the change in the volume of animal movements to be reported. For the first two years of the implementation of the proposed Regulations, 20 staff (e.g. CCIA) would be added in anticipation of a surge of activity related to the new regulatory requirements. After which, the number of staff reduces gradually by 25% every year to reach 7 staff by sixth year and thereafter. This is because of staff efficiency improvement over time and the anticipated increase in use of computer applications by stakeholders, instead of reporting information by calling the CCIA for example. In addition, there would be capital costs associated with database upgrade, temporary premises identification development, mobile application development, phone system upgrade, paper processing equipment investment, and maintenance costs.

(g) Costs to CFIA to develop guidance and increase inspections

CFIA would carry one-time costs associated with program support, updates to existing training, implementation and outreach of the new regulatory requirements, and with the development and maintenance of the Traceability National Information Portal. More specifically, these activities would include development and delivery of training and compliance promotion materials (e.g. guidance documents, training materials) to support consistent, clear implementation of the regulatory amendment by the inspectorate and regulated parties.

There would also be additional ongoing time spent by CFIA employees in performing compliance verification inspections. Currently, an inspector conducts interviews, makes on-site observations, consults databases and inspects records of operators handling cattle, pigs, bison, and sheep. As regulated parties would no longer be required to keep records, record-keeping verification in the course of inspections would no longer be needed. The time required for inspectors to verify records in the course of an inspection would now be reallocated to other new inspection tasks, including the inspection of newly regulated goat and cervid farms under the proposal. Inspection tasks at various sites would be prioritized and conducted based on risk.

It is anticipated the CFIA will add 3.14 full-time equivalent employees ($72,856 per employee, EG-04 level) to perform additional activities with respect to compliance verification inspection. The additional full-time equivalent employees represent the total additional time spent during inspections, net of the time it takes in the baseline to look at records during inspections.^{footnote 27} There would also be a one-time cost for training and outreach/communication support.

Qualitative cost

(a) Potential increase in price of tags by the responsible administrator

Responsible administrators may choose to mitigate any potential future costs by increasing the price of tags; however, this analysis assumed that the fee will not change for a few reasons.

For one, data derived from the domestic livestock movement demographic study conducted by Serecon Inc. estimated that 92% of the additional movements that would be reported would be attributable to the beef and dairy cattle sectors, which already have tagging. In addition, engagement with the responsible administrator indicates that the price of tags would be maintained at a consistent and predictable level as much as possible.

For example, responsible administrators have already undertaken measures to harmonize the price of tags across the species. This was a gradual implementation that was completed in 2020 in preparation for the new requirements. They have also put substantial reserves aside for communication, training (staff and regulated parties) and hiring additional temporary staff during the implementation period of the new requirements. Finally, in July 2022, the responsible administrator took ownership of tag distribution, which was previously done by a third party, in order to have more control on cost and potential additional revenues from tags.

However, the CFIA acknowledges that there may be some risks and unknowns in the future for responsible administrators. For example, all sectors (i.e including goats and cervids) will now be reporting movement. There may be specific impacts such as whether these stakeholders will opt to report movement electronically or by other means (e.g. fax), or how long any additional staff may be required to answer questions from goat and cervid producers. These specific impacts are currently not known but could be informed through further consultation and engagement.

To date, the responsible administrator has undertaken measures and already completed work with respect to preparing for the proposed Regulations; therefore, the probability of an increase in the price of tags in the first few years under the new regulations would be low.

Cost-benefit statement

• Number of years: 20 (2024 to 2043)
• Base year for costing: 2018
• Present value base year: 2024
• Discount rate: 7%

Table 2: Monetized costs, in millions of Canadian dollars

Impacted stakeholder	Description of cost	Year 1 Base year (transition period)	Year 2	Year 10 Middle year	Year 20 Final year	Total (present value)	Annualized value
Government	Labour and capital	$0.02	$0.22	$0.12	$0.06	$2.39	$0.23
Responsible administrators	Labour and capital	$0.00	$1.95	$0.24	$0.12	$7.41	$0.70
Industry	Labour cost for livestock animal species (ruminants), event reporting requirement	$0.00	$8.78	$5.11	$2.60	$97.13	$9.17
Industry	Capital cost to abattoirs, event reporting	$0.00	$3.35	$0.18	$0.09	$6.46	$0.61
Industry	Labour cost to abattoirs, event reporting	$0.00	$0.32	$0.18	$0.09	$3.51	$0.33
Industry	Labour cost for goats and farmed cervids, animal identification requirement	$0.00	$0.05	$0.03	$0.02	$0.60	$0.06
Industry	Capital cost for goats and farmed cervids, animal identification requirement	$0.00	$0.28	$0.17	$0.09	$3.15	$0.30
Industry	Labour cost for pigs, animal identification requirement	$0.00	$0.17	$0.10	$0.05	$1.85	$0.17
Industry	Capital cost for pigs, animal identification requirement	$0.00	$0.38	$0.22	$0.11	$4.11	$0.39
Industry	Labour cost, identifying premises	$0.00	$0.14	$0.00	$0.00	$0.14	$0.01
Industry	Labour cost, learning new information obligations	$0.00	$1.56	$0.00	$0.00	$1.56	$0.15
	Total costs to Industry	$0.00	$15.02	$5.99	$3.05	$118.51	$11.19
All stakeholders	Total costs	$0.02	$17.20	$6.35	$3.23	$128.31	$12.11

Table 3: Monetized benefits, in millions of Canadian dollars

Impacted stakeholder	Description of benefit	Year 1 Base year (transition period)	Year 2	Year 10 Middle year	Year 20 Final year	Total (present value)	Annualized value
Government	Savings from traceability investigations	$0.00	$0.08	$0.05	$0.02	$0.92	$0.09
Government	Savings from repeal of cervid movement permit	$0.00	$0.17	$0.10	$0.05	$1.86	$0.18
Industry	Savings due to repeal of record-keeping requirement	$0.00	$8.12	$4.73	$2.40	$89.81	$8.48
Industry	Labour cost savings for pigs under animal identification requirement (restricting the use of slap tattoo)	$0.00	$0.03	$0.02	$0.01	$0.31	$0.03
Industry	Capital cost savings for pigs under animal identification requirement (restricting the use of slap tattoo)	$0.00	$0.04	$0.01	$0.00	$0.16	$0.02
Industry	Supports international trade	$0.00	$4.66	$2.71	$1.38	$51.54	$4.86
Industry	Reduced costs of containing and eradicating a disease outbreak	$0.00	$1.22	$0.71	$0.36	$13.52	$1.28
Industry	Savings from repeal of cervid movement permits	$0.00	$0.03	$0.02	$0.01	$0.34	$0.03
	Total benefits for industry	$0.00	$14.10	$8.19	$4.17	$155.68	$14.70
All stakeholders	Total benefits	$0.00	$14.35	$8.34	$4.24	$158.47	$14.96

Table 4: Summary of monetized costs and benefits, in Canadian dollars

Impacts	Year 1 Base year (transition period)	Year 2	Year 10 Middle year	Year 20 Final year	Total (present value)	Annualized value
Total costs	$0.02	$17.20	$6.35	$3.23	$128.31	$12.11
Total benefits	$0.00	$14.35	$8.34	$4.24	$158.47	$14.96
NET IMPACT	-$0.02	-$2.85	$1.98	$1.01	$30.15	$2.85

Qualitative impacts

Positive impacts to stakeholders and Canadians

Livestock industry

• Added health and safety protection to Canadian livestock herds and Canadians
• Enhanced food safety for consumers
• Improved consumer confidence and trust in domestic meat products as a result of a strengthened livestock traceability requirements
• Reduced regulatory differences and increased regulatory compatibility with provincial and territorial governments who have adopted livestock identification and movement reporting requirements and provincial premises identification programs
• Supports market continuity from trade embargos, cease movement orders and animal depopulation activities
• Supports gaining, expanding or maintaining market access by demonstrating Canada’s enhanced livestock traceability system
• Enables a greater compatibility with traceability objectives in the United States with the exception of the U.S. requirements for traceability of horses and poultry

Canadians

• Having a traceability system would facilitate a faster trace of the source and/or the spread of an agro-terrorism attack against the livestock sector.
• A robust traceability system would limit the spread of animal disease as it would be contained and controlled faster resulting in an expedited reopening of rural areas and protecting the agricultural economy.

Multiple stakeholders (i.e. industry, government, and other sectors)

• Reduced costs incurred by industry and different levels of government (federal and provincial) on collaboratively funded assistance programs during an animal disease outbreak
• Reduced direct and indirect economic impact from an animal disease outbreak to other sectors of the Canadian economy beyond the agriculture and food industry (e.g. wholesale, retail and trucking sectors)

Negative impact to stakeholders

A potential increase in animal tag prices in the future would result in higher costs to the livestock industry.

Small business lens

The small business lens (SBL) applies. The estimated number of impacted small businesses with fewer than 100 employees is 119 515, which represents 99.8% of total businesses.

The SBL requires that regulators consider the direct compliance and administrative costs imposed on small businesses. In order to mitigate the regulatory burden and account for small business needs, the regulations would take the following measures:

• Operators of assembly points (auction markets and assembly yards) would not be required to report the individual receipt of animals; instead they would report the receipt of animals as a group. Most of these assembly points are small businesses (approximately 99%).
• The proposed Regulations would provide a one year’s transition period after coming into force, to producers/owners of cattle, bison, sheep, goats, and farmed deer and elk (cervids). Additionally, recognizing some stakeholders will have had no previous experience with the current regulations, the proposed regulations would provide a two years’ transition period after coming into force to owners of animals that are kept for a person’s company (e.g. companion animals), that are used for research purposes, and that are used for entertainment purposes. It is anticipated that this transition period would provide sufficient time for stakeholders to adjust their current business operations.

In addition, the proposed Regulations have built in flexibility by incorporating by reference approved indicators for livestock. This would give businesses a wider range of choices on indicator devices to identify livestock as new technology develops, potentially reducing costs and increasing the efficiency in operations. Having the document incorporated by reference would also allow for a quicker adoption of any type of new identification device in the future.

As noted previously, the incremental costs to owners of animals kept primarily for research, entertainment or for a person’s company were not monetized due to data limitations. Costs to the owners of these animals are expected to be insignificant due to low cross-premises movement during their lifetime.

The estimated total annualized costs to small businesses would be approximately $1.9 million (or $130 per impacted business).

Small business lens summary

• Number of small businesses impacted: 119 515
• Number of years: 20 (2024 to 2043)
• Base year for costing: 2018
• Present value base year: 2024
• Discount rate: 7%

Table 5: Compliance costs, in Canadian dollars

Activity	Annualized value	Present value
Purchasing animal ID tags (goats and cervids)	$296,509	$3,141,222
Applying animal ID tags (goats and cervids)	$56,744	$601,148
Purchasing animal ID tags (pigs)	$386,644	$4,096,109
Applying animal ID tags (pigs)	$173,889	$1,842,182
Purchasing / Updating software and equipment (abattoirs)	$45,654	$483,656
Training employees to be familiar with upgraded systems / operations and procedures (abattoirs)	$3,121	$33,061
Total compliance cost	$962,560	$10,197,378
Avoided capital costs / savings from applying animal ID slap tattoo (compliance relief)	$(15,104)	$(160,013)
Avoided labour costs / savings from applying animal ID slap tattoo (compliance relief)	$(28,981)	$(307,030)
Total compliance benefit / relief	$(44,086)	$(467,043)
Net compliance cost	$918,475	$9,730,335

Table 6: Administrative costs, in Canadian dollars

Activity	Annualized value	Present value
Data entry and matching information for event reporting (abattoirs)	$181,407	$1,921,831
Reading, collecting and reporting data/information of animal movements	$9,152,161	$96,958,126
Familiarization with new regulatory obligation	$ 147,237	$1,559,834
Submitting information to get a premises identification number	$13,162	$139,436
Total administrative costs	$9,493,968	$100,579,228
Repeal of record-keeping requirement (administrative relief)	$(8,460,895)	$(89,634,840)
Repeal of cervid movement permit (administrative relief)	$(31,771)	$(336,587)
Total administrative benefit / relief	$(8,492,666)	$(89,971,427)
Net administrative cost	$1,001,301	$10,607,800

Table 7: Total net compliance and administrative costs, in Canadian dollars

Totals	Annualized value	Present value
Total net cost (all impacted small businesses)	$1,919,776	$20,338,135
Net cost per impacted small business	$130	$1,360

One-for-one rule

The one-for-one rule applies since there is an incremental increase in the administrative burden on business, and the proposal is considered a burden in under the rule. No regulatory titles are repealed or introduced.

The proposed regulatory amendments would impose new administrative burden costs associated with the reporting of animal information, identifying premises and learning new information obligations. There would also be administrative burden relief associated with the repeal of the record-keeping requirements.

Following the methodological requirements as prescribed in the Red Tape Reduction Regulations, a 7% discount rate and a 10-year forecast period for the valuation of INs and OUTs were used; the price base year is 2012 (values are in constant dollar 2012 prices); and the present value base year for the valuation is 2012 (i.e. the impact of all INs and OUTs was discounted back to 2012).

The total annualized administrative impact for all businesses would be $478,335. The annualized administrative impact per affected business would be approximately $3.99.

The standard cost model was used, and the key assumptions are documented below. The industry was consulted on the assumptions used in the analysis (please refer to the methodology description in the “Benefits and costs” section for consultation details). Additional details are provided in the cost-benefit analysis report, which is available from the CFIA upon request.

(A) Labour costs for beef cattle, dairy cattle, bison, sheep, goat, and cervid under event reporting requirement, including domestic movement and import and exports (increase in administrative burden)

There would be no requirement to purchase a radio frequency identification reader to comply with the proposed Regulations. This means that operators could decide to manually (visually) read and report the identification number of approved indicators borne by animals received at the site.

Operators of auction markets and assembly yards would be subject to group movement reporting. They would therefore be exempted from reporting the identification number of approved indicators borne by the animals received at their site, but would instead report the species of animals received and their quantity. All other operators would be subject to individual movement reporting.

The assumptions are the following:

• The group movement reporting would be done manually;
• All livestock movement data was taken from the Serecon Inc. domestic livestock movement demographic study which was conducted on behalf of the CFIA in 2015;
• The costs for operators of auction markets and assembly yards would be the time to read information provided on manifests and the time to report information provided on manifests to the responsible administrator;
• It would take 30 seconds to read the information collected on the document accompanying animals for one group movement reporting;^{footnote 28}
• It would take 30 seconds to read the information collected on the document accompanying animals for one individual movement reporting;^{footnote 28}
• It would take 1.25 minutes to report the information on one document (manifest) accompanying animal movements to the responsible administrator database by calling the responsible administrator’s call centre or going online;^{footnote 29}
• It would take 1.25 minutes to load the responsible administrator application used for event reporting via the Internet;^{footnote 29}
• It would take 1.25 minutes to reach a call centre operator to report information via telephone;^{footnote 29}
• There would be no equipment required for the movement reporting. The operators can report the information on the manifest manually to the responsible administrator’s database;
• The wage rate for an employee to read or report movement information would be $20.31 (including overhead);^{footnote 30} and
• It would take the same amount of time to report data to the responsible administrator’s database for individual and group reporting.

The assumptions on reading the indicator are the following:

For the beef and dairy cattle, bison, sheep, cervid and goat sectors with a squeeze:

• For the beef, dairy, bison, sheep and cervid sectors, 75% of feedlots, farms and exhibit halls already have a squeeze;
• For the goat sector, 25% of feedlots, farms and exhibit halls already have a squeeze;
• 50% of animals are restrained for some other purpose. For these animals, the time to read is 15 seconds;
• For animals that are not restrained for some other purpose, it would take 66 seconds^{footnote 31} to place an animal into a squeeze and 15 seconds to read the identification tag once (total time of 81 seconds);

For the beef and dairy cattle, bison, sheep, cervid and goat sectors without a squeeze:

• For the beef, dairy, bison, sheep and cervid sectors, 25% of feedlots, farms and exhibit halls do not have a squeeze;
• For the goat sector, 75% of feedlots, farms and exhibit halls do not have a squeeze; and
• 50% of animals are restrained for some other purpose. For these animals, the time to read is 60 seconds. For animals that are not restrained for some other purpose, the time to read is 2 minutes.

(B) Labour cost to abattoirs under event reporting (increase in administrative burden)

The assumptions are the following:

• It would take 0.24 minutes (or 14 seconds) to validate and successfully transmit the additional information required for each animal identification number to a responsible administrator;^{footnote 32} and
• The wage rate for an employee to report the additional information would be $18.66 (including overhead).^{footnote 33}

(C) Premises identification requirements (increase in administrative burden)

The assumptions are the following:

• Provinces would issue premises identification numbers;
• Premises identification costs would only apply to stakeholders that currently do not have their premises identified and operate in a province that currently does not have mandatory premises identification requirements. These provinces are the following: British Columbia, Ontario, Quebec (for bison, goats, and pigs only), New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Newfoundland and Labrador, Yukon, Northwest Territories, and Nunavut;
• Subject matter experts determined the number of premises that remain to be identified as of October 2017. Costs to identify those premises were monetized;
• One employee (at the manager level) per business would need to complete the required forms;
• Wage rate of $27.64/hour (including overhead);^{footnote 34}
• It would take 15 minutes^{footnote 35} to complete the required forms to identify premises; and
• Identifying premises is a one-time cost.

(D) Learning the new information obligations (increase in administrative burden)

The general assumptions are the following:

• Learning includes what information needs to be reported and to which administrator’s database; where to find this information; when applicable, how to create an account and fill out the required form with the administrator; and how to navigate the database to report. Producers of the cattle, sheep and bison sectors would need 30 minutes to learn. They already have a CLTS account, which is reflected in the short time for learning;
• All operators for the cervid and goat sectors would need to learn and create a CLTS account, which is reflected in the longer time for learning;
• The time to learn and to create an account for the operators of goats that are already aware of the implementation of the proposed Regulations is 2 hours;
• The time to learn and to create an account for the operators of goats that are not yet aware of the implementation of the proposed Regulations is 4 hours;
• The time to learn and to create an account for the operators of cervids is 4 hours;
• One employee (at the manager level) per business would need to learn the new information obligation;
• Wage rate of $27.64/hour (including overhead);^{footnote 34} and
• Learning is a one-time cost.

(i) Goat sector

Based on an online survey conducted by Canadian National Goat Federation (CNGF) in 2016, it is estimated that approximately 10.34% of the goat industry would already be aware of the potential implementation of traceability requirements.^{footnote 36} Since 2016, the CFIA has engaged with national and provincial goat industry associations, including sharing a side-by-side document comparing current and proposed requirements, and through multiple meetings to discuss the proposed Regulations. In addition, the responsible administrator for goats (the Canadian Cattle Identification Agency) has launched information campaigns to inform goat producers of the proposed requirements.

The assumptions are the following:

• Time spent to become familiar with the proposed Regulations for those businesses not aware (89.66% of industry) is four hours;^{footnote 37} and
• Two hours for the remainder of industry (10.34% ).

(ii) Cervid sector

The assumptions are the following:

• Learning would only be required for stakeholders for which proposed amendments would be new;
• New to cervid producers in Ontario and the Atlantic provinces (not new to those in British Columbia, Saskatchewan, Alberta, Manitoba and Yukon, who are already required to apply non-electronic indicators to cervids);
• For all operators handling cervids, the requirement of event reporting would be new except in Quebec; and
• Time spent to become familiar with the proposed Regulations is four hours for cervid producers in Ontario and the Atlantic provinces, and for operators of assembly yards, abattoirs and exporters.

(iii) Beef and dairy cattle, bison, and sheep sectors

Producers (except in Quebec, where they are already compliant) would carry costs to become familiar with the new proposed requirement to report information to the responsible administrator’s database. The learning includes (1) what information needs to be reported to the responsible administrator’s database; (2) where to find the information; and (3) how to create an account with their responsible administrator and navigate to report to the database.

The assumption is the following:

• The time spent to become familiar with the proposed regulatory requirements is 30 minutes.^{footnote 38}

(E) Repeal of record-keeping requirement (decrease in administrative burden)

Currently, the information required to be reported to the responsible administrators must also be kept in records on-site (for two years for beef and dairy cattle, cervids, bison, and sheep, and for five years for pigs). The record-keeping requirements would be repealed under the proposed regulatory amendment, resulting in a paperwork burden reduction and savings to stakeholders in the beef and dairy cattle, pig, cervid, bison, and sheep industries, as well as operators of intermediate sites and terminal sites in those industries.

The savings are based on the number of impacted stakeholders, the number of records kept, time spent to perform the task, and wage of a worker.

The assumptions are the following:

• One record is required for each movement or shipment of animals received;
• 50% of records are kept electronically and 50% are kept manually;
• It takes 30 seconds to prepare/create the data with respect to each record;^{footnote 39}
• The time required to maintain each electronic record and manual record is one minute and three minutes, respectively ;^{footnote 40} and
• Wage rate of $20.31 (including overhead).^{footnote 41}

(F) Repeal of cervid movement permit (decrease in administrative burden)

The savings are based on the time spent in completing each movement permit form and the number of movement permits submitted per year.

The assumptions are the following:

• According to the CFIA subject matter expert, 11 500 cervids are moved annually from their farm of origin;
• 10 cervids are moved per consignment;
• It would take one hour to complete each permit form; and
• Wage rate of $27.64 (including overhead).

Table 8 presents the estimates of the administrative impacts for the one-for-one rule.

Table 8: Estimated annualized values of administrative impacts for the one-for-one rule^{table 1 note a} (Canadian dollars, constant year 2012 prices, 2012 PV base year, 7% discount rate)

Total annualized administrative impact on all businesses	$478,335
Estimated number of affected businesses	119 768
Average annualized administrative impact per affected business	$3.99
Table 1 Notes Table 1 Note a Number used under one-for-one rule. The analysis covered a 10-year time period (January 1, 2024 to January 1, 2034). Return to table 1 note a referrer

Regulatory cooperation and alignment

Provinces and territories

The federal, provincial, and territorial governments and industry share responsibilities in managing animal health issues and natural disasters. In order to support their mandate, federal, provincial and territorial governments have adopted, at different degrees, policy instruments (e.g. regulations) that support the ability to trace animals. In addition, governments have ratified arrangements to enable the sharing of animal traceability data under their control. Most of those instruments and arrangements were initiated in 2006, when the federal, provincial, and territorial ministers of Agriculture agreed to develop the National Agriculture and Food Traceability System. Under this system, the provinces and territories are responsible for the identification of premises, and the federal government is responsible for animal identification and movement. Some provinces and territories put into place their own livestock identification and movement reporting requirements for certain species before 2006, because they felt progress was not being made quickly enough at the national level.

Through data sharing arrangements between federal, provincial and territorial governments, all orders of government would benefit from the regulatory proposal, as more timely and complete animal traceability information would be made available.

The federal regulatory proposal would be consistent with livestock identification and traceability requirements adopted by provinces and territories for certain species, the most relevant of which would be the identification and reporting of movement of cattle, sheep and cervids (requirements adopted in Quebec); the identification of sites where livestock is kept; and the requirement for information to accompany livestock.

The federal regulations would require the identification of sites where bison, cattle, sheep, goats, cervids and pigs are kept, assembled or disposed of; however, sites already identified by provinces and territories would not be required to be re-identified through the federal regulations. The provincial programs already in place would be used to meet the federal requirements.

The federal requirement for information to accompany animals and carcasses would build on the movement document requirements already in place in the western Canadian provinces. This is not a requirement under Quebec’s regulations or in any eastern provinces. The rationale for information accompanying animals and carcasses (either through paper or electronic document) is to support compliance for the person who receives animals as he/she would be required to report the source location of the animals (information that would be recorded in the document). This proposed federal requirement will align with information required to accompany animals in part XII of the Health of Animals Regulations respecting the humane transport of live animals across all provinces.

The means by which cervids are required to be identified in the western provinces and Yukon would be temporarily approved under the federal regime to support compliance. The approval will not be permanent, as the identification number is not unique to an animal in these provinces, which is one of the requirements of the federal traceability program.

United States and international

In the United States, the USDA has implemented an Animal Disease Traceability (ADT) Program that requires livestock moving between states to be identified and accompanied by an interstate certificate of veterinary inspection or other documentation. This applies to the same species that would be under this proposal in addition to horses and other equines, and poultry.

The ADT is well aligned with the proposed Regulations. For example, under the ADT, livestock moving between states are now required to be identified and accompanied by an interstate certificate of veterinary inspection or other documentation. This aligns with the proposed Canadian Regulations, which would require livestock to be identified before leaving their farm of origin, and information would always be required to accompany livestock and carcasses. As import and export policy are not changing under the proposal, it is not anticipated that Canada–U.S. trade would be impacted as a result of the proposed amendments.

In addition, the proposed traceability system would be compatible with the World Organisation of Animal Health (WOAH, formerly the OIE) guidelines, in which traceability is a core element in demonstrating a country’s ability to establish a zone for the purpose of disease control, with particular application and relevance for international trade. It would also address recommendations for the Canadian livestock traceability program made by the WOAH during a Performance of Veterinary Services evaluation in 2017, namely to “develop a comprehensive whole of life traceability programme for all livestock species using electronic transaction recording.”

Strategic environmental assessment

In accordance with the Cabinet Directive on the Environmental Assessment of Policy, Plan and Program Proposals, a preliminary scan concluded that a strategic environmental assessment is not required.

Gender-based analysis plus

The analysis focused on the potential economic impacts of the proposed Regulations on the industry, by animal species and sector and geographic region and province in Canada.

The economic impact by species is reported in Table 9 and the key results are the following:

• The savings presented in Table 9 below come from the repeal of the record-keeping requirement ($8.5 million annualized; 57.7% of total industry benefits), from the savings associated with changes to the animal identification requirements to the pig sector ($0.04 million annualized; 0.3% of total industry benefits) and from the savings associated with the repeal of cervid movement permits ($0.03 million annualized; 0.2% of total industry benefits). All other estimated benefits (reduced eradication and containment and impact of trade embargo) are difficult to break down by sector and therefore, are not presented.
• The cattle sector would assume the highest share of costs. This is primarily driven by the relatively higher number of animals and animal movements that would have to be reported to a responsible administrator.
• The pig sector would only assume minimal costs as they already have the majority of traceability requirements of the proposed Regulations. However, this sector would reap the largest share of benefits due to the repeal of the record-keeping requirement.
• There would be no savings associated with the record-keeping requirement in the goat and farmed cervid sectors, as this requirement currently does not apply for these two species.

Table 9: Distribution of incremental costs and benefits to industry

Sector	Share of cost, by sector (%)	Share of benefit (from repealed record-keeping and animal identification), by sector (%)
Beef cattle	81.43%	37.39%
Dairy cattle	2.09%	10.88%
Sheep	6.25%	5.86%
Pig	5.03%	45.32%
Goat	4.70%	0%
Cervid	0.36%	0.38%
Bison	0.14%	0.17%

Note: Percentages may not add up to 100 due to rounding.

Based on the number of impacted animals and varying levels of traceability requirements in each province, the distribution of total costs is estimated as follows: 41% in Alberta; 20% in Saskatchewan; 14% in Ontario; 9% in Quebec; 10% in Manitoba; 4% in British Columbia; and 2% in the Atlantic provinces.

Finally, Statistics Canada gathers agriculture census data on farm operators (crops and livestock), which provide a better understanding of the characteristics of those who would be impacted by the proposed Regulations. For instance, in 2021, the majority of farm operators were over the age of 55, where the average age was 56 years old, as shown in the graph below.^{footnote 42} Furthermore, it is also known that the majority of farm operators are male (70% in 2021). Therefore, these regulatory changes will disproportionately impact farm operators that are male and over the age of 55, beef cattle operators and operators in Alberta.

Figure 1: Proportion of farm operators by age group

Figure 1: Proportion of farm operators by age group - Text version

A bar chart contains three bars showing each percentage of farm operators by age group. The first bar is 9% and corresponds to the group of farm operators who are under 35 years. The second bar is 31% and corresponds to the group of farm operators who are from 35 to 54 years. The third bar is 61% and corresponds to the group of farm operators who are 55 years and older.

Rationale

This regulatory proposal would meet the fundamental objective to improve the effectiveness of Canada’s traceability system. It would help in addressing the identified issues and enable access to timely, accurate and relevant information. Access to this information would enable the CFIA to respond as quickly as possible to a sanitary issue or a natural disaster that affects livestock.

The goal of the CFIA’s livestock identification and traceability program is to provide rapid access to accurate and up-to-date traceability information. By addressing the identified issues, Canada’s traceability system would be more effective.

Expanding the scope of animals subject to regulatory traceability requirements would address an identified gap in the current system and would reduce the risk of jeopardizing the animal health status of other species that share diseases. The addition of goats and farmed cervids to the scope of animals subject to traceability requirements was determined based on two considerations, namely the level of risk mitigated and the industry’s readiness to adopt new regulatory requirements.

The proposed amendment would also align federal requirements with those already existing in certain provinces, and further support their respective provincial mandates. With few exceptions, site identification is currently required for all regulated species by provincial regulations in Quebec, Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba and Prince Edward Island. The remaining provinces and territories support the proposed requirement for the identification of sites across the country with voluntary programs for the identification of sites. The proposed Regulations also build on the current animal identification and movement reporting requirements adopted by the Quebec and Alberta governments.

Through readily and timely available domestic animal movement and location information, as well as information on additional species, this regulatory amendment would allow Canada to better provide assurances that it is capable of controlling the spread of disease and preventing potentially infected animals from being exported. It is anticipated that the length of trade embargos would be reduced, as the CFIA would be better able to identify and respond to exposed and potentially exposed animals and their movements faster. Improved consumer confidence and trust in Canada’s meat products would result because of strengthened livestock traceability requirements.

The cost of controlling an animal disease outbreak would be reduced, as it is anticipated that this regulatory proposal would contribute to reducing the extent and duration of a disease outbreak and, in some cases, prevent the disease from reoccurring at a later date. Less work would be required for governments and industry, as traceability information would be more readily available and the tracing of diseased animals would be faster and more complete. The CFIA would be able to utilize current resources more efficiently in supporting traceability activities for regulated species.

Implementation, compliance and enforcement, and service standards

Implementation

There would be a transition period after the date on which the Regulations are registered:

• A one-year transition period for cattle, bison, sheep, pigs, goats and cervids; and
• A two-year transition period for animals that are kept for research purposes, entertainment purposes or for a person’s company in order to provide more time for outreach and education.

This transition period would provide additional time for parties to learn and adapt to the proposed changes. Stakeholder organizations are aware of the proposed amendments and have already been actively working with the CFIA to provide education and awareness materials out to their members.

A two-year transition period is proposed for owners of animals kept primarily for research purposes, entertainment purposes or for a person’s company, including the carcasses of those animals. The two-year transition period would alleviate some of the burden and give the CFIA further time to identify and raise awareness within these sectors.

The operational activities within this regulatory proposal will rely on existing resources with a small incremental increase, as identified in the cost-benefit analysis. Repurposing of inspection tasks based on the repealed requirements, changed requirements and new requirements, has been planned. Some of the funding associated for these activities is time-limited, and the CFIA will seek to renew this funding at the appropriate time.

Compliance and enforcement

Compliance promotion

An industry-government Regulatory Implementation Committee has been formed with the objective to collaboratively identify and prioritize actions to help prepare for a smooth implementation of proposed amendments to the Regulations. The Regulatory Implementation Committee identified a number of objectives that would support effective and efficient implementation of the regulatory proposal. Many compliance promotion activities have already taken place and further activities are still to come to facilitate implementation. These objectives include

Regulated parties are aware of the proposed requirements:

• Guidance documents on the proposed Regulations will be available on the CFIA website at prepublication to support stakeholders during the public consultation. Updated guidance documents that take into consideration any changes to the proposal following the public consultation would be available to stakeholders at final publication;
• Social media will be leveraged, including the social media of industry associations, to engage target audiences to encourage feedback during the consultation, with emphasis on harder to reach audiences including smaller producers, newly impacted sectors (goats and cervids), pet owners and hobby farmers;
• Newsletters have been circulated to the Regulatory Implementation Committee members, who further distribute this information to industry associations on a bimonthly basis since March 2018;
• A summary of the proposed requirements has been made available on the CFIA website;
• Presentations will be delivered through consultation webinars and meetings; and
• Online and hard-copy communication products will be distributed before the proposed Regulations come into force.

Regulated parties can report required information to responsible administrators:

• Responsible administrators’ databases have been modified to receive the new type of information;
• Online applications were developed by responsible administrators to facilitate data reporting;
• Call centre training and upgrades were conducted by responsible administrators; and
• Responsible administrators continue to improve their websites and/or application software to provide an easy and quick reporting experience for stakeholders.

Newly regulated animals can be identified with approved indicators prior to the proposed Regulations coming into force:

• Indicators for goats and cervids have been pre-approved and are published online;
• Indicators pre-approved for goats and cervids are available for purchase from responsible administrators; and
• Indicators approved for cervids by provincial governments are temporarily approved.

Premises where animals and carcasses are kept have been identified:

• Provincial premises registries are available to receive and validate registration information;
• At this time, over 100 000 premises where animals are kept, assembled or disposed of have been identified by provinces; and
• Communications blitz and flyers (postcards) have been distributed by the RIC.

Animal movement reporting requirement is facilitated:

• A list of electronic indicator readers that have met performance standards are available on the website of responsible administrators; and
• A voluntary movement document template for transporters has been developed by the Regulatory Implementation Committee and shared with national industry associations and provincial governments.

CFIA inspectors are aware of the new requirements:

• Training course and manuals for inspectors will be amended before the proposed Regulations come into force.

Compliance verification

The CFIA would verify compliance through inspections using a risk-based approach in which the verification tasks are undertaken through a combination of planned and “stumble upon” inspection activities. Under this approach, planned inspections target higher-risk sites (intermediate sites such as auctions, assembly yards) at a greater frequency than lower-risk sites (farms, community pastures). Intermediate sites are considered higher risk because animals are on the move and may commingle with other species, increasing disease transmission risk. Planned inspection activities include, for example, verifying that animals are identified properly, that movement has been reported through database searches, and verifying that transporters have movement documents. The “stumble upon” activities can be used for lower-risk sites. These activities take place when inspectors conduct other inspection tasks and come across a potential non-compliance. For example, in the event of a disease outbreak, the CFIA would undertake any necessary disease control and enforcement measures on any implicated animals.

Animals kept primarily for research purposes, entertainment purposes or for a person’s company are not typically found where CFIA inspections would take place (e.g. farms, community pastures, auctions, abattoirs and assembly yards). The CFIA would develop an approach targeted at owners of those animals to support stakeholder awareness and compliance. After the two-year transition period for this group, the CFIA would take a “stumble upon” approach to compliance verification.

Enforcement

Enforcement tools available to inspectors under the livestock traceability program include letters of non-compliance, administrative monetary penalties and prosecution. It is anticipated that the Agriculture and Agri-Food Administrative Monetary Penalties Regulations will be amended to reflect the new HAR requirements. The use of administrative monetary penalties for updated and new requirements would come into force at the same time as the HAR amendments come into force, which is one year after the time the HAR are registered and published. As for the inspectors’ training course and manuals, they would be revised with the new requirements and delivered prior to the proposed Regulations coming into force.

Program evaluation

The federal, provincial, and territorial governments have identified performance criteria for livestock traceability systems. For example, within 48 hours of the relevant Chief Veterinary Officer or Competent Authority being notified of a sanitary issue or natural disaster or the prevention or preparedness of such issue, it must be possible to establish, among other things

• the locations where a specified animal has been kept during its life;
• from where animals at a given site were received; and
• a listing of all animals that have been kept on the same location as the specified animal at any state during those animals’ lives.

A third-party baseline evaluation of the traceability program was completed in 2018. Building on this, the CFIA intends to conduct a second evaluation approximately three years after the coming into force of the Regulations. If performance criteria fail to be met, the CFIA will work with stakeholders to explore whether further policy or regulatory amendments will be required to improve the program design in order to meet the performance criteria.

Contact

National Manager
Livestock Identification and Traceability Program
Canadian Food Inspection Agency
59 Camelot Drive
Ottawa, Ontario
K1A 0Y9
Email: cfia.trace-trace.acia@inspection.gc.ca

PROPOSED REGULATORY TEXT

Notice is given that the Governor in Council proposes to make the annexed Regulations Amending the Health of Animals Regulations (Identification and Traceability) under subsection 64(1)^{footnote a} and section 64.1^{footnote b} of the Health of Animals Act ^{footnote c}.

Interested persons may make representations concerning the proposed Regulations within 90 days after the date of publication of this notice. They are strongly encouraged to use the online commenting feature that is available on the Canada Gazette website but if they use email, mail or any other means, the representations should cite the Canada Gazette, Part I, and the date of publication of this notice, and be addressed to the National Manager, Livestock Identification and Traceability Program, Canadian Food Inspection Agency, 59 Camelot Drive, Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0Y9 (email: cfia.trace-trace.acia@inspection.gc.ca).

Ottawa, March 9, 2023

Wendy Nixon
Assistant Clerk of the Privy Council

Regulations Amending the Health of Animals Regulations (Identification and Traceability)

Amendments

1 (1) The definition tag in section 2 of the Health of Animals Regulations ^{footnote 43} is repealed.

(2) The definition level 2 containment laboratory in section 2 of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

level 2 containment laboratory

means a laboratory that meets or exceeds the physical containment and operational practice requirements for the containment of pathogens at containment level 2 according to the Canadian Biosafety Standard, as amended from time to time, prepared by the Agency and the Public Health Agency of Canada and published on the Public Health Agency of Canada’s website; (laboratoire de niveau de confinement 2)

(3) The definition farine de viande ou résidus de graisse in section 2 of the French version of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

farine de viande ou résidus de graisse

Tout ou partie d’une carcasse équarrie et séchée (meat meal or tankage)

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

carcass

means the body of a dead animal; (carcasse)

2 (1) Paragraph 5(1)(c) of the French version of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

• c) d’abattre l’animal et de prendre des mesures de disposition à l’égard de sa carcasse,

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

• b) soit abattu au moment et à l’endroit qu’il fixe, et que sa carcasse fasse l’objet d’une mesure de disposition comme il en décide.

3 Paragraph 6.23(2)(d) of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

• (d) the identification number of the approved indicator, as defined in subsection 172(1), that is on each carcass or, in the case of a carcass not bearing an approved indicator, enough information about the carcass to enable its origin to be traced, including – if known – the premises identification number, as defined in subsection 172(1), of the site from which it was removed and the date of removal;

4 Section 76 of the Regulations is repealed.

5 Paragraph 91.4(4)(c) of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

• (c) remove any mark, sign or other notice that the disease agent or thing is under quarantine; or

5.1 Section 94 of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

94 Every person conducting a public sale, auction or market of livestock, Camelidae, Cervidae, chickens, turkeys or game birds shall keep and make available for inspection by an inspector a record showing

• (a) the complete legal names and addresses of the consignor of each animal received and the purchaser of every animal sold at the sale, auction or market; and
• (b) the date of the sale or reception.

6 (1) The portion of section 95 of the French version of the Regulations before paragraph (a) is replaced by the following:

95 L’inspecteur peut ordonner à la personne en possession d’un bovin destiné à être vendu dans un lieu de vente, d’enchères ou de marché publics d’animaux de ferme, à la fois :

(2) Paragraph 95(a) of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

• (a) mark or otherwise identify the animal; and

7 Paragraph 95.1(1)(a) of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

• (a) the bovine is marked or otherwise identified and is examined by an inspector or a person approved by the Minister under subsection (2);

8 Section 96 of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

96 No person shall offer an animal for sale at a public sale, auction or market of livestock unless the animal is marked or otherwise identified or is one of a lot confined to a pen.

9 Sections 98 to 101 of the Regulations are replaced by the following:

99 An inspector may mark or cause an animal or thing to be marked, or identify or cause an animal to be identified by any other means as the Minister may direct, so as to

• (a) identify the animal or thing preparatory to a test for disease; or
• (b) indicate that the animal or thing
  • (i) has reacted positively to a test,
  • (ii) is suspected of being affected with a communicable disease, or
  • (iii) has received a vaccine or a treatment required by an inspector.

99.1 An accredited veterinarian may mark or cause an animal or thing to be marked or identify or cause an animal to be identified by any other means as the Minister may direct.

100 Subject to sections 99 and 99.1, no person shall, unless authorized by an inspector, place or affix a mark or other means of identification referred to in section 99, 99.1 or 201 on an animal or thing.

101 No person shall, unless authorized by an inspector, remove or deface a mark or other means of identification placed on an animal or thing under section 99, 99.1 or 201.

10 Section 114 of the Regulations and the heading before it are replaced by the following:

Disposal of Carcasses

114 A veterinary inspector may order a person who owns or has the possession, care or control of an animal that has died of or is suspected of having died of a communicable disease or that is destroyed under the Act to dispose of the carcass in any manner that the veterinary inspector specifies.

11 Part XV of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

PART XV
Animal Identification and Traceability

Interpretation

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

approved identification site

means an assembly point that is approved by a responsible administrator as an approved identification site under subsection 175(1). (installation d’identification approuvée)

approved

means, with respect to an indicator or a secondary indicator, that the indicator or secondary indicator, as the case may be, is listed as an approved indicator in the document entitled Approved Animal Indicators, published on the Agency’s website, as amended from time to time. (approuvé)

assembly point

means an auction market, assembly yard or other site where animals are temporarily collected to be sold or redirected to another site, but does not include an abattoir, farm, feedlot, community pasture, fairground, artificial insemination unit, zoo or the site of an event such as a rodeo or a circus. (lieu de rassemblement)

bison

means an animal, other than an embryo or a fertilized ovum, of the subspecies Bison bison bison, Bison bison athabascae or Bison bison bonasus and includes a cross between a bison and a member of another species and their progeny. (bison)

bovine

means an animal, other than an embryo or fertilized ovum, of the species Bos taurus or Bos indicus and includes a cross between a bovine and a member of another species and their progeny. (bovin)

caprine

means an animal, other than an embryo or fertilized ovum, of the genus Capra. (caprin)

cervid

means an animal, other than an embryo or fertilized ovum, of the family Cervidae. (cervidé)

community pasture

means a pasture that is managed by or leased from the Government of Canada, a provincial government or a municipality, or that is owned by, managed by or leased from a community pasture association, grazing association or a grazing cooperative and where animals from more than one operator of a farm are assembled and commingled. (pâturage communautaire)

distributor

means an individual, partnership, corporation, cooperative, association or organization that has been authorized by a responsible administrator in writing to sell or distribute approved indicators or approved secondary indicators. (distributeur)

farm

means land, and all buildings and other structures on that land, that is used under one management for breeding or raising animals, but does not include an artificial insemination unit. (ferme)

farm of origin

means the farm on which an animal is born or, if an animal is not born on a farm, the first farm to which it is moved after its birth. (ferme d’origine)

herd mark

means a number or marking issued by a responsible administrator for the purpose of identifying groups of pigs, caprines or ovines that originate from the same site. (marque de troupeau)

indicator

means a means of identification of ruminants or pigs or their carcasses. (identificateur)

ovine

means an animal, other than an embryo or fertilized ovum, of the genus Ovis and includes a cross between an ovine and a member of another species and their progeny. (ovin)

pig

means an animal, other than an embryo or fertilized ovum, of the genus Sus. (porc)

premises identification number

means the number assigned to identify a site by the government of the province in which the site is located for the purpose of tracing animals that are kept or collected at the site or, if no number has been assigned by the government of the province, the number assigned by the responsible administrator for that purpose. (numéro d’identification de site)

responsible administrator

means a person who is authorized by the Minister to receive information in relation to animals or things to which the Act or these Regulations apply and who administers an identification program in relation to certain animals of all or part of one or more genera, species or subspecies that are located in one or more provinces. (administrateur responsable)

revoked

means, with respect to an indicator or secondary indicator, that the indicator or secondary indicator, as the case may be, is listed as a revoked indicator in the document entitled Revoked Animal Indicators, published on the Agency’s website, as amended from time to time. (révoqué)

ruminant

means a bison, bovine, caprine, cervid or ovine. (ruminant)

secondary indicator

means a supplementary means of identification of a cervid or its carcass. (identificateur secondaire)

site

means a place where ruminants or pigs or their carcasses are kept or collected, but does not include a conveyance. (installation)

(2) For the purposes of this Part,

• (a) if a conveyance carrying an animal or carcass has components with separate licence plates, a reference to the conveyance’s licence plate number is a reference to the licence plate number of the component in which the animal or carcass was transported;
• (b) if an abattoir, assembly point or approved identification site is located on a farm, it constitutes a separate site from the farm;
• (c) if an abattoir is located at an assembly point, it constitutes a separate site from the assembly point;
• (d) any part of the carcass of a ruminant or pig that exceeds 50% of its weight is considered to be a carcass;
• (e) despite section 26 of the Interpretation Act, holidays are included in the calculation of any time period for reporting information;
• (f) other than in section 182.1, any reference to the carcass of an animal or to a part of a carcass does not include any part of the carcass that is intended for human consumption; and
• (g) Despite subsection 33(2) of the Interpretation Act, other than for the application of paragraph 181.2(1)(b) of these Regulations, every person who is required to report the unique identification number of an approved or a revoked indicator borne by an animal is only required to report the unique identification number of one of the approved or revoked indicators if the animal bears more than one.

Non-application of this Part

172.1 This Part does not apply to

• (a) ruminants that are used as service or companion animals and ruminants that are used for entertainment purposes and the carcasses of any of those ruminants; and
• (b) ruminants and carcasses that are used for research purposes, as well as the carcasses of ruminants that died during research.

Division 1

Sites

Reporting of Information — Site

173 (1) If the operator of a site is required under this Part to report to the responsible administrator the premises identification number and a premises identification number has not been assigned for that site, the operator shall report the following information to the responsible administrator:

• (a) the legal description of the site, or if the site has not been surveyed, the longitude and latitude coordinates taken inside or on the perimeter of the site;
• (b) the operator’s name and telephone number;
• (c) a list of the animal species that the operator expects to be present at the site; and
• (d) the type of agricultural or agri-food operation that is carried out at the site.

(2) The operator shall report any changes in the information to the responsible administrator within seven days after the day on which the change occurred.

Registration of Linked Sites

174 (1) On application from the operators of two farms where pigs are kept, the responsible administrator shall register the two sites as linked with each other for the purposes of this Part for a period of six months if

• (a) the two sites, and all sites having linked health status with either of them, are all located in only one of the following parts of Canada:
  • (i) the eastern part of Canada that includes Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland and Labrador, or
  • (ii) the western part of Canada that includes Manitoba, British Columbia, Saskatchewan, Alberta, Yukon, the Northwest Territories and Nunavut;
• (b) pigs have been transported by means of a conveyance or otherwise moved between the sites at least six times within the six-month period preceding the date on which the application was made;
• (c) in the case of sites that were not registered as linked with each other during the three-month period before the application was made, the operators of the sites have reported to the responsible administrator movement information required to be reported under this Part for that period and the reports of each operator have been done within the prescribed time and are consistent with those of the other operator; and
• (d) the operators of the sites have confirmed that the only conveyances that were used to transport pigs between the sites are ones for which the information referred to in paragraph (c) has been reported to the responsible administrator.

(2) If, by the last day of the third month of the six-month period for which two sites are registered as linked, the operators of both sites have not reported to the responsible administrator the total number of pigs that were transported or moved between the sites and the number of times that pigs were transported by means of a conveyance or otherwise moved between the sites during the first three months of that period, the responsible administrator shall cancel the registration for the remainder of the six-month period.

(3) If, by the last day of the six-month period for which two sites are registered as linked, the operators of both sites have not reported to the responsible administrator the total number of pigs that were transported or moved between the sites and the number of times that pigs were transported by means of a conveyance or otherwise moved between the sites during the last three months of that period, for the next year the two sites shall not be registered as linked.

(4) For the purpose of this section, two sites have linked health status with each other if

• (a) the sites are registered under subsection (1) as linked with each other or have been registered as linked with each other in the preceding six months; or
• (b) one of the two sites is considered to have had linked health status under this section with a third site in the preceding six months and the second of the two sites is also considered to have had linked health status under this section with the third site in those six months.

Approved Identification Site

175 (1) If the operator of an assembly point has declared in a written application that the equipment and facilities at the site are adequate to enable the application of an approved indicator to a bison or bovine without endangering its safety or the safety of the personnel at the site, the responsible administrator shall approve the assembly point as an approved identification site by including the name and address of the assembly point on the list of approved identification sites published on their website.

(2) If the operator of an approved identification site does not comply with the requirements set out in subsection 180(2), the responsible administrator shall remove that site from the list of approved identification sites if

• (a) the responsible administrator has caused to be delivered to the operator a notice of the removal that describes the non-compliance and specifies the period within which the operator may rectify the non-compliance;
• (b) the operator has not rectified the non-compliance within the specified period; and
• (c) the operator has been given an opportunity to be heard in respect of the proposed removal.

(3) If the responsible administrator removes the site from the list of approved identification sites, that administrator shall, without delay,

• (a) notify the operator of the removal; and
• (b) publish a notice of the removal on their website.

(4) If a site has been removed from the list of approved identification sites, the operator of the site may, after at least one year following the day on which the site was removed from the list, reapply under subsection (1) to have the site approved as an approved identification site.

Division 2
Identification

Issuance of Approved Indicators and Approved Secondary Indicators

176 (1) At the request of the operator of a site, the responsible administrator shall issue or cause to be issued approved indicators and approved secondary indicators for the purpose of identifying ruminants or pigs or the carcasses of ruminants or pigs located at that site.

(2) An operator who requests approved indicators or approved secondary indicators shall report to the responsible administrator, directly or through a distributor, the premises identification number of the site where the approved indicators or approved secondary indicators will be applied or the information referred to in paragraphs 173(1)(a) to (d) for that site.

(3) At the request of the operator of a site where pigs, caprines or ovines are kept, the responsible administrator shall issue a herd mark in respect of that site or cause one to be issued.

(4) An operator who requests a herd mark shall report to the responsible administrator their name, address and telephone number and the premises identification number of the site where the pigs, caprines or ovines are kept.

Reporting After Sale or Distribution of Approved Indicators or Approved Secondary Indicators

177 A distributor that sells or distributes approved indicators or approved secondary indicators shall report the following information to the responsible administrator within 24 hours after the sale or distribution :

• (a) the name, address and telephone number of the person to whom the indicators were sold or distributed;
• (b) the premises identification number of the site where the indicators will be applied;
• (c) the date on which they were sold or distributed;
• (d) their unique identification numbers; and
• (e) the number of indicators that were sold or distributed.

Identification Requirements — Approved Indicator

178 (1) Except as otherwise provided in this Part, every person who owns or has the possession, care or control of a ruminant or the carcass of a ruminant shall ensure that it is identified by an approved indicator that is applied to it before it is removed from its farm of origin.

(2) Every person who applies or causes the application of an approved indicator to a ruminant or pig or to the carcass of a ruminant or pig shall ensure that the approved indicator is for the species of that animal and is applied to the animal or carcass for which it was issued under subsection 176(1).

(3) Every person who applies or causes the application of an approved indicator to a ruminant or pig or the carcass of a ruminant or pig shall ensure that the approved indicator is applied to it in the manner that is specified in the document entitled Approved Animal Indicators, published on the Agency’s website, as amended from time to time.

(4) Except as otherwise provided in this Part, every person who owns or has the possession, care or control of a ruminant or of the carcass of a ruminant shall ensure that it bears the approved indicator referred to in subsection (1) at all times after it is removed from its farm of origin.

178.1 (1) Except as otherwise provided in this section, every person who owns or has the possession, care or control of a pig shall ensure that it is identified by an approved indicator that is applied to it before it is removed from a site.

(2) Subsection (1) does not apply in respect of pigs that are transported by means of a conveyance or otherwise moved between parts of a farm that are contiguous.

(3) Subsection (1) does not apply in respect of pigs, except for pigs that have been mated either naturally or artificially or that have provided semen, ova or embryos for reproduction, that are transported by means of a conveyance or otherwise moved between parts of a farm that are not contiguous or between two farms.

(4) Every person who owns or has the possession, care or control of a pig to which an approved indicator has been applied shall ensure that it bears the approved indicator until it is identified in some other manner provided for under these Regulations.

(5) Every person who exports a pig shall ensure that, before its export, an approved indicator issued by the responsible administrator under subsection 176(1) has been applied to it.

178.2 Any person who owns or has the possession, care or control of a ruminant or pig or the carcass of a ruminant and who is required under this Part to apply an approved indicator or approved secondary indicator to it may remove the animal or carcass from a site without having an approved indicator or approved secondary indicator applied to it if an inspector determines, based on information that is provided by that person, that

• (a) the animal or carcass has been seized by an authority for the purpose of enforcing an animal welfare law;
• (b) the animal or carcass has been abandoned or the carcass has been deposited in a place without the permission of the person responsible for that place;
• (c) the morphology of the animal or of the carcass does not allow for the application of any of the indicators approved for its species; or
• (d) the animal must be urgently evacuated from the site.

Identification Requirements — Approved Secondary Indicator

179 (1) Every person who is required under this Part, to apply an approved indicator to a cervid or the carcass of a cervid shall ensure that an approved secondary indicator is also applied to that cervid or carcass in the same manner and under the same circumstances as those set out in section 178 that apply to the application of an approved indicator to a cervid or the carcass of a cervid.

(2) Every person who is required under this Part to apply an approved secondary indicator to a cervid or the carcass of a cervid shall ensure that the identification number on the approved secondary indicator is the same as that on the approved indicator.

Movement of Bison and Bovine to Approved Identification Site

180 (1) A bison or bovine that may cause serious injury or death to any person who attempts to identify it or that would be seriously injured during an attempt to identify it may be transported by means of a conveyance or otherwise moved from its farm of origin to an approved identification site without having an approved indicator applied to it, if

• (a) an approved indicator that is issued to the farm of origin by the responsible administrator under subsection 176(1) is supplied by the operator of the farm of origin to the operator of the approved identification site and will be applied to the bison or bovine at the approved identification site; or
• (b) an approved indicator that is issued to the farm of origin by a distributor that is the operator of the approved identification site will be applied to the bison or bovine at the approved identification site.

(2) The operator of the approved identification site shall

• (a) ensure that an approved indicator is applied to the bison or bovine without delay after it arrives at the site and before it is commingled with any other person’s animals;
• (b) ensure that equipment and facilities at the site are adequate to enable the application of an approved indicator to the bison or bovine without endangering its safety or the safety of any person who is involved in the application of the approved indicator; and
• (c) report the following information to the responsible administrator within seven days after the day on which an approved indicator was applied to the bison or bovine:
  • (i) the identification number of the approved indicator,
  • (ii) the premises identification number of the departure site and of the approved identification site where the approved indicator was applied, and
  • (iii) the date on which the approved indicator was applied.

Loss of an Approved Indicator or Application of a New Approved Indicator

181 (1) Subject to subsections (2) and (3), if a ruminant or pig that is required to bear an approved indicator does not do so, the person who owns or has the possession, care or control of the animal shall without delay apply a new approved indicator to it.

(2) Subject to subsection (3), a ruminant or pig that loses its approved indicator while being transported by means of a conveyance, or otherwise moved, may continue to be transported or moved without the indicator until it arrives at the next site.

(3) A ruminant or pig that does not bear an approved indicator when it arrives at an abattoir is not required to have a new approved indicator applied to it if it is slaughtered at the abattoir.

(4) The operator of an abattoir where a ruminant or pig not bearing an approved indicator is slaughtered shall report the following information to the responsible administrator within seven days after the day on which the animal is slaughtered:

• (a) the premises identification number of the departure site, if that number is provided by the operator of the conveyance;
• (b) the premises identification number of the abattoir;
• (c) the date and time of departure of the conveyance, if that information is provided by the operator of the conveyance;
• (d) the date of the animal’s death or slaughter;
• (e) if known by the operator, the identification number of the approved indicator that was lost and, in the case of an animal to which more than one approved indicator has been applied since the animal’s birth, the identification numbers of all of the approved indicators;
• (f) if applicable, the species of each animal and the number of each species that arrived at the abattoir; and
• (g) the licence plate number of the conveyance or, if there is no licence plate, other information identifying the conveyance.

(4.1) In the case of ruminants and ruminant carcasses, the operator of an abattoir shall

• (a) report the information required under paragraphs 4(c) and (g) to the responsible administrator; or
• (b) keep a record of the information referred to in paragraphs 4(c) and (g).

(5) The operator of an abattoir where a ruminant or pig not bearing an approved indicator is slaughtered shall maintain the ability to identify the carcass in the abattoir until any sampling of the carcass that is required under the Act has been completed and the carcass is either designated as approved for human consumption or condemned.

181.1 The requirements set out in subsections 181(1) and (2) with respect to an approved indicator apply in the same manner and under the same circumstances to an approved secondary indicator.

181.2 (1) Every person who applies or causes the application of a new approved indicator to a ruminant or pig or to the carcass of a ruminant shall, within seven days after the day on which the new approved indicator is applied, report to the responsible administrator the following information:

• (a) the identification number of the new approved indicator;
• (b) if known, the identification numbers of all of the approved or revoked indicators or secondary indicators that were previously applied to the animal or carcass, unless the unique number of the new approved indicator or the unique number of the former approved or revoked indicator is a herd mark;
• (c) if known, the premises identification number of the departure site;
• (d) if applicable, the licence plate number of the conveyance that brought the animal or carcass to the site where the new approved indicator was applied or, if that number is not available, other information identifying the conveyance; and
• (e) the premises identification number of the site where the new approved indicator was applied.

(2) A person referred to in subsection (1) is not required to report the information to the responsible administrator if the new approved indicator is applied to

• (a) a ruminant or pig before it leaves its farm of origin; or
• (b) the carcass of a ruminant before it is removed from the animal’s farm of origin.

181.3 (1) Any person who owns or has the possession, care or control of a ruminant or pig may remove an approved or revoked indicator or secondary indicator that is applied to the animal and replace it with a new approved indicator or approved secondary indicator in accordance with this Part if an inspector determines, based on information that is provided by that person — before the removal of the indicator — that the indicator is damaged, not functioning or is approved for a different species of animal.

(2) Any person who owns or has the possession, care or control of a ruminant or pig may remove an approved or revoked indicator or secondary indicator that is applied to the animal and replace it with a new approved indicator or approved secondary indicator in accordance with this Part if an inspector determines, based on information that is provided by that person — whether before, at the time of, or at the latest seven days after the removal of the indicator — that the indicator is causing the animal to suffer.

Maintaining Identification of Carcass

182 Every person who disposes of the carcass of a ruminant bearing an approved or revoked indicator or secondary indicator may remove the indicator from the carcass only after any sampling that is required under the Act has been completed.

182.1 The operator of an abattoir where a ruminant or pig bearing an approved indicator is slaughtered may remove the approved indicator but shall maintain the ability to identify the carcass in the abattoir until any sampling of the carcass that is required under the Act has been completed and the carcass is either designated as approved for human consumption or condemned.

182.2 If the carcass of a ruminant is removed from the site where the animal died, the person who owns or has the possession, care or control of the carcass shall maintain the ability to identify the carcass until it is disposed of in accordance with any applicable legislation.

Prohibitions

183 (1) Except in the case of a bison or bovine referred to in section 180 and subject to section 178.2, no person shall remove or cause the removal of a ruminant or the carcass of a ruminant from a site unless it bears an approved indicator that has been applied to it under section 178.

(2) Subject to section 178.2, no person shall remove or cause the removal of a cervid or the carcass of a cervid from a site unless it bears an approved secondary indicator that has been applied to it under section 179.

(3) Subject to section 178.2, no person shall remove or cause the removal of a pig from a site unless the pig bears an approved indicator or subsection 178.1(1) does not apply to the pig as a result of the application of subsection 178.1(2) or (3).

183.1 (1) Subject to section 178.2 and, in the case of a bison or bovine, subject to section 180, no person shall transport in a conveyance or otherwise move or cause the transportation or movement from one site to another of

• (a) a bison, bovine, caprine or ovine, or the carcass of a bison, bovine, caprine or ovine, that does not bear an approved indicator;
• (b) a cervid or the carcass of a cervid that does not bear an approved indicator and approved secondary indicator; or
• (c) a pig that does not bear an approved indicator if section 178.1 requires that the pig be identified by an approved indicator before being removed from the departure site.

(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to a ruminant or pig that loses its approved indicator or, in the case of a cervid, its approved secondary indicator, while being transported or otherwise moved.

183.2 (1) Except in the case of a bison or bovine referred to in section 180, no person shall apply or cause the application of an approved indicator or approved secondary indicator to a ruminant or pig or the carcass of a ruminant or pig that is not at the site in respect of which the indicator was issued.

(2) No person shall apply or cause the application of an approved indicator or approved secondary indicator to an animal or the carcass of an animal that is not a ruminant or pig.

(3) No person shall apply or cause the application of a means of identification to a ruminant or pig or the carcass of a ruminant or pig that is likely to be mistaken for an approved indicator or approved secondary indicator and that bears an identification number that follows the same format as, but differs from, the identification number on the approved indicator or approved secondary indicator applied to the animal or carcass.

183.3 Except as authorized under sections 181.3 to 182.2, no person shall remove or cause the removal from a ruminant or pig or the carcass of a ruminant or pig of an approved or revoked indicator or secondary indicator.

183.4 No person shall apply or cause the application of an approved indicator or approved secondary indicator of an animal or the carcass of an animal to another animal or carcass.

183.5 (1) No person shall alter an approved indicator or approved secondary indicator to change its tamper-proof nature.

(2) No person shall alter an approved indicator, approved secondary indicator or identification number in any manner that would render the identification number unreadable.

(3) No person shall alter an approved indicator or approved secondary indicator in any manner that would change its identification number.

183.6 No person shall make, sell or provide a means of identifying ruminants or pigs or the carcasses of ruminants that is likely to be mistaken for an approved indicator or approved secondary indicator.

183.7 No person shall provide an approved indicator or approved secondary indicator to another person for the purpose of identifying animals located outside Canada.

183.71 No person shall apply or cause the application of an approved indicator or approved secondary indicator on an animal located outside Canada.

183.8 Unless authorized in writing by a responsible administrator, no person shall sell or distribute an approved indicator or approved secondary indicator.

Division 3
Domestic Movement of Ruminants or Pigs and their Carcasses

Reporting Movement of Ruminants or Pigs

General Rules

184 (1) Unless otherwise provided in this Division, the operator of a destination site to which a ruminant or pig or the carcass of a ruminant or pig is transported by means of a conveyance from a departure site shall report the following information to the responsible administrator within seven days after the day on which the animal or carcass arrived at the destination site:

• (a) the premises identification number of the departure site, if that information is provided by the operator of the conveyance;
• (b) the premises identification number of the destination site;
• (c) the date and time of departure of the conveyance, if that information is provided by the operator of the conveyance;
• (d) the date and time of arrival of the conveyance;
• (e) the identification number on the approved indicator applied to the animal or carcass;
• (f) if applicable, the number of pigs and pig carcasses that arrived at the destination site; and
• (g) the licence plate number of the conveyance or, if there is no licence plate, other information identifying the conveyance.

(2) Unless otherwise provided in this Division, the operator of a destination site to which a ruminant or pig or the carcass of a ruminant or pig is moved from a departure site by means other than a conveyance shall report the following information to the responsible administrator within seven days after the day on which the animal or carcass arrived at the destination site:

• (a) the premises identification number of the departure site;
• (b) the premises identification number of the destination site;
• (c) the date and time of departure of the animal or carcass from the departure site;
• (d) the date and time of arrival of the animal or carcass at the destination site;
• (e) the identification number on the approved indicator applied to the animal or carcass; and
• (f) if applicable, the number of pigs and pig carcasses that arrived at the destination site.

184.01 (1) For the purposes of this Division, a person who is required to report to the responsible administrator an identification number on an approved indicator that is required to be applied to a cervid or the carcass of a cervid that bears an approved secondary indicator shall report the identification number on the approved secondary indicator if the animal or carcass does not bear an approved indicator.

(2) For the purposes of this Division, a person who is required to report to the responsible administrator an identification number on an approved indicator that is required to be applied to a ruminant or pig or the carcass of a ruminant that bears a revoked indicator shall report the identification number on the revoked indicator if the animal or carcass does not bear an approved indicator.

184.02 (1) Any operator who is required under this Part to report to the responsible administrator the identification number on an approved or revoked indicator or secondary indicator and that uses animal indicator reading equipment to read the identification number is not required to report to the responsible administrator any identification number that is not read by the equipment on first reading if

• (a) the equipment is listed on the website of a responsible administrator;
• (b) the operator has installed the equipment in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions; and
• (c) the operator maintains the equipment and performs tests to ensure that it functions as intended.

(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to

• (a) the operator of an abattoir with respect to a ruminant or pig that they receive for the purpose of slaughter or to the carcass of a ruminant or pig that is received at the abattoir;
• (b) the operator of any site with respect to the carcass of a ruminant that is received for the purpose of disposal; or
• (c) the operator of any site with respect to a ruminant or pig or the carcass of a ruminant or pig that they import or export.

(3) Subsection (1) applies only to indicators that are designed to be read with the use of animal indicator reading equipment and are applied to a ruminant or pig or the carcass of a ruminant.

Farm

184.1 (1) If a ruminant or the carcass of a ruminant is transported by means of a conveyance or otherwise moved from one site to another within a farm, the operator of the farm is not required to report the information to the responsible administrator under subsections 184(1) and (2) and 184.6(2).

(2) If a pig or the carcass of a pig is transported by means of a conveyance or otherwise moved between parts of a farm that are contiguous, the operator of the farm is not required to report the information to the responsible administrator under subsections 184(1) and (2).

Leased pasture

184.2 If a ruminant or pig is transported by means of a conveyance or otherwise moved from a farm to a pasture that is leased for grazing purposes and all animals assembled and commingled at that site are from that farm,

• (a) subsections 184(1) and (2) do not apply to the transportation or movement of the ruminant or pig to the leased pasture; and
• (b) subsections 184(1) and (2) and 184.6(2) and (3) do not apply to the transportation or movement of the ruminant or pig back to the farm.

Community Pasture

184.3 (1) If a ruminant or pig is transported by means of a conveyance or otherwise moved from a site to a community pasture, the operator of the community pasture is not required to report the information to the responsible administrator under subsections 184(1) and (2).

(2) If a ruminant or pig is transported by means of a conveyance or otherwise moved to a community pasture, the operator of the departure site shall report the following information to the responsible administrator within seven days after the day on which the animal departed from the site:

• (a) the premises identification numbers of the departure site and community pasture;
• (b) the date on which the animal departed from the departure site;
• (c) the species of each animal transported or moved and the number of animals of each species that were transported or moved; and
• (d) if applicable, the licence plate number of the conveyance by which the animal was transported or, if there is no licence plate, other information identifying the conveyance.

(3) If a ruminant or pig that was transported by means of a conveyance or otherwise moved from a farm to a community pasture is transported or moved back to its farm, the operator of that farm shall report the following information to the responsible administrator within seven days after the day on which the animal is received at the farm:

• (a) the premises identification number of the community pasture and the farm;
• (b) the date on which the animal departed from the community pasture;
• (c) the species of each animal transported or moved and the number of animals of each species that were transported or moved; and
• (d) if applicable, the licence plate number of the conveyance by which the animal was transported or, if there is no licence plate, other information identifying the conveyance.

Assembly Point

184.4 If a ruminant or pig or the carcass of a ruminant or pig is transported by means of a conveyance or otherwise moved to an assembly point, the operator of the assembly point is not required to report to the responsible administrator the identification number on the approved indicator applied to the animal or carcass but shall report the species of each animal or carcass received and the number of animals or carcasses of each species that were transported in the same conveyance or moved together to the assembly point.

Abattoir and Site of Disposal of a Carcass

184.5 (1) The operator of an abattoir to which a ruminant or pig or the carcass of a ruminant or pig is transported by means of a conveyance from a departure site shall report the following information to the responsible administrator within seven days after the day on which the animal dies or is slaughtered or within seven days of the arrival of the carcass at the abattoir:

• (a) the premises identification number of the departure site, if that number is provided by the operator of the conveyance;
• (b) the premises identification number of the abattoir;
• (c) the date and time of departure of the conveyance if that information is provided by the operator of the conveyance;
• (d) the date of the animal’s death or slaughter or the date on which the carcass arrived at the abattoir;
• (e) the identification number on the approved indicator applied to the animal or carcass;
• (f) in the case of animals or carcasses bearing herd marks, the species of each animal or carcass and the number of animals or carcasses of each species that arrived at the abattoir; and
• (g) the licence plate number of the conveyance or, if there is no licence plate, other information identifying the conveyance.

(1.1) With respect to ruminants and ruminant carcasses, the operator of an abattoir shall

• (a) report the information required under paragraphs (1)(c) and (g) to the responsible administrator; or
• (b) keep a record of the information required to be reported under paragraphs (1)(c) and g).

(2) The operator of an abattoir to which a ruminant or pig or the carcass of a ruminant or pig is moved by means other than a conveyance from a departure site shall report the following information to the responsible administrator within seven days after the day on which an animal dies or is slaughtered:

• (a) the premises identification number of the departure site;
• (b) the premises identification number of the abattoir;
• (c) the date and time of departure of the animal or carcass from the departure site;
• (d) the date of the animal’s death or slaughter or the date on which the carcass arrived at the abattoir;
• (e) the identification number on the approved indicator applied to the animal or carcass; and
• (f) in the case of animals or carcasses bearing herd marks, the species of each animal or carcass and the number of animals or carcasses of each species that arrived at the abattoir.

(3) The operator of an abattoir from which a ruminant or pig is transported by means of a conveyance to another site shall report the following information to the responsible administrator within seven days after the day on which the animal leaves the abattoir:

• (a) the premises identification number of the abattoir;
• (b) the premises identification number of the destination site;
• (c) the date and time of departure of the conveyance;
• (d) the identification number on the approved indicator applied to the animal; and
• (e) the licence plate number of the conveyance or, if there is no licence plate, other information identifying the conveyance.

(3.1) Despite paragraph (3)(d), if ruminants or pigs are transported by means of a conveyance from an abattoir to a temporary site and if those animals will be returning to the same abattoir and will not be commingled with other animals at the temporary site, the operator of the abattoir is not required to report to the responsible administrator the identification numbers on the approved indicators applied to the animals, but shall report, in addition to the information required under subsection (1), the species of each animal and the number of animals of each species that were transported from the abattoir and the species of each animal and number of the animals of each species returning to the abattoir from the temporary site.

(4) The operator of an abattoir from which a ruminant or pig is moved to another site by means other than a conveyance shall report the following information to the responsible administrator within seven days after the animal leaves the abattoir:

• (a) the premises identification number of the abattoir;
• (b) the premises identification number of the destination site;
• (c) the date and time of departure of the animal from the abattoir; and
• (d) the identification number on the approved indicator applied to the animal.

(4.1) Despite paragraph (4)(d), if ruminants or pigs are moved by means other than a conveyance from an abattoir to a temporary site and if those animals will be returning to the same abattoir site and will not be commingled with other animals at the temporary site, the operator of the abattoir is not required to report to the responsible administrator the identification numbers on the approved indicators applied to the animals but shall report, in addition to the information required under subsection (2), the species of each animal and the number of animals of each species that were transported from the abattoir and the species of each animal and number of the animals of each species returning to the abattoir from the temporary site.

(5) Every person who disposes of the carcass of a ruminant shall report the following information to the responsible administrator within seven days after the day on which the carcass was disposed of:

• (a) the premises identification number of the site where the carcass was disposed of;
• (b) the date on which the carcass was disposed of; and
• (c) the identification number on the approved indicator applied to the carcass or, if there is no approved indicator, the identification number on any approved secondary indicator, revoked indicator or revoked secondary indicator applied to the carcass.

(6) Subsection (5) does not apply to a person who disposes of the carcass of a ruminant that died on the farm of origin and whose carcass was disposed of on that farm if the carcass does not bear an approved indicator, approved secondary indicator, revoked indicator or revoked secondary indicator.

Cervid

184.6 (1) If a cervid or the carcass of a cervid is transported by means of a conveyance or otherwise moved from a site to a farm, the operator of that farm is not required to report the information to the responsible administrator under subsections 184(1) and (2) in respect of that cervid or carcass.

(2) The operator of a farm from which a cervid or the carcass of a cervid is transported by means of a conveyance to another site shall report the following information to the responsible administrator within seven days after the day on which the cervid or carcass leaves the farm:

• (a) the premises identification number of the farm;
• (b) the premises identification number of the destination site;
• (c) the date and time of departure of the conveyance ;
• (d) the identification number on the approved indicator applied to the cervid or carcass; and
• (e) the licence plate number of the conveyance or, if there is no licence plate, other information identifying the conveyance.

(3) The operator of a farm from which a cervid or the carcass of a cervid is moved by means other than a conveyance to another site shall report the following information to the responsible administrator within seven days after the day on which the cervid or carcass leaves the farm:

• (a) the premises identification number of the farm;
• (b) the premises identification number of the destination site;
• (c) the date and time of departure of the cervid or carcass from the farm; and
• (d) the identification number on the approved indicator applied to the cervid or carcass.

Pig

184.7 (1) The operator of a departure site from which a pig is transported by means of a conveyance or otherwise moved shall report the following information to the responsible administrator within seven days after the day on which the pig leaves the departure site:

• (a) the premises identification number of the departure site;
• (b) the premises identification number of the destination site;
• (c) the date and time of departure of the pig from the departure site;
• (d) the number of pigs that left the departure site;
• (e) the identification number on the approved indicator that was applied to the pig at the departure site; and
• (f) if applicable, the licence plate number of the conveyance or, if there is no licence plate, other information identifying the conveyance.

(1.1) The operator of a departure site from which a pig carcass is transported by means of a conveyance or otherwise moved shall report the following information to the responsible administrator within seven days after the day on which the carcass leaves the departure site:

• (a) the premises identification number of the departure site;
• (b) the premises identification number of the destination site;
• (c) the date of departure of the pig carcass from the departure site;
• (d) the number of pig carcasses that left the departure site, if available, or their weight; and
• (e) if applicable, the licence plate number of the conveyance or, if there is no licence plate, other information identifying the conveyance.

(2) The operator of a destination site to which the carcass of a pig is transported from another site by means of a conveyance or otherwise moved is not required to report the identification number on the approved indicator applied to the pig carcass.

(3) If a pig or the carcass of a pig is transported by means of a conveyance or otherwise moved between two sites registered as linked under section 174, the operator of the destination site is not required to report the information to the responsible administrator under subsections 184(1) and (2) and the operator of the departure site is not required to report the information to the responsible administrator under subsection 184.7(1), but both operators shall report to the responsible administrator

• (a) the total number of pigs or pig carcasses that were transported or moved between the sites; and
• (b) the number of times that pigs or pig carcasses were transported or moved between the sites during the preceding three months.

(4) Subsections (1) and (1.1) do not apply in respect of a pig or pig carcass that is transported by means of a conveyance or otherwise moved between parts of a farm that are contiguous.

Information to Accompany Transported Ruminants or Pigs or Carcasses of Ruminants or Pigs

185 (1) Every operator of a conveyance by which a ruminant or pig or the carcasses of a ruminant or pig is transported from a site to another site shall ensure that a document containing the following 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:

• (a) the premises identification number of the departure site;
• (b) the premises identification number of the destination site;
• (c) the number of ruminants or ruminant carcasses transported;
• (d) the number of pigs and, if available, the number of pig carcasses transported or the weight of the carcasses;
• (e) the date and time of departure of the animal or carcass from the departure site; and
• (f) the licence plate number of the conveyance or, if there is no licence plate, other information identifying the conveyance.

(2) The document referred to in subsection (1) must be in a form that can be read without delay by an inspector and the operator of the destination site.

(3) This section does not apply to

• (a) ruminants or pigs or the carcasses of ruminants or pigs that are transported for import or export;
• (b) ruminants or the carcasses of ruminants that are transported within a farm; or
• (c) pigs or pig carcasses that are transported between parts of a farm that are contiguous.

185.1 Every operator of a conveyance who is required under subsection 185(1) to ensure that information is provided to the operator of the destination site shall keep a record of that information for a period of at least two years after the day on which the information is provided.

Division 4
Export and Import of Ruminants and Pigs

Export

186 Every person who owns or has the possession, care or control of a ruminant or pig before its export shall report the following information to the responsible administrator within seven days after the export:

• (a) the premises identification number of each site where the animal was loaded on a conveyance before it was exported and the number of animals that were loaded on the conveyance from each of those sites;
• (b) the country to which the animal was exported, the political subdivisions in which the sites to which the animal was transported are located, the sites to which the animal was transported and, if known, the number of animals that were transported to each site;
• (c) the date on which the animal was loaded on the conveyance by which it was exported and the number of animals of each species that were loaded on that date;
• (d) the identification number on the approved indicator applied to the animal; and
• (e) the licence plate number of the conveyance or, if there is no licence plate, other information identifying the conveyance.

Import

187 (1) Every person who owns or has the possession, care or control of an imported ruminant or pig at the first site where it is unloaded from a conveyance after leaving the point of entry shall apply or cause the application of an approved indicator to the animal and, in the case of a cervid, an approved secondary indicator without delay after it arrives at the site.

(2) Subsection (1) does not apply in respect of a ruminant that is imported for immediate slaughter.

(3) A ruminant or pig that is exported and then imported does not need to be reidentified with an approved indicator or approved secondary indicator if it already bears one.

(4) For the purposes of this Part, if an imported ruminant or pig bears an indicator of a foreign country and the Minister determines that the indicator meets the following criteria, the indicator is deemed to be an approved indicator that was issued and applied to the animal in accordance with this Part:

• (a) the indicator bears an identification number that is unique to an animal, group of animals or site;
• (b) the indicator cannot easily be altered or otherwise tampered with;
• (c) the indicator is difficult to counterfeit;
• (d) the identification number on the indicator is easily and reliably readable using the same technology and method as are used to read the identification number on an approved indicator;
• (e) the indicator is designed to be retained by any animal to which it may be applied; and
• (f) the identification number on the indicator is one that can be entered and tracked in the responsible administrator’s database.

(5) For the purposes of this Part, if an imported ruminant is required to bear an approved secondary indicator under this Part and bears two indicators of a foreign country and the Minister determines that both indicators meet the following criteria, the first is deemed to be an approved indicator that was issued and applied to the animal in accordance with this Part and the second is deemed to be an approved secondary indicator that was issued and applied to the animal in accordance with this Part:

• (a) the indicators bear the same identification number that is unique to the animal;
• (b) the indicators may not be easily altered or otherwise tampered with;
• (c) the indicators are difficult to counterfeit;
• (d) the identification number on each of the indicators is easily and reliably readable using the same technology and method as are used to read the identification number on an approved indicator;
• (e) the indicators are designed to be retained by any animal to which they may be applied; and
• (f) the identification number on each of the indicators is one that can be entered and tracked in the responsible administrator’s database.

(6) The Agency shall publish on its website a list of indi-cators of a foreign country that have been determined by the Minister to meet the criteria set out in subsection (4) or (5).

187.1 Every person who, at the first site where an animal or carcass is unloaded from a conveyance after leaving the point of entry, owns or has the possession, care or control of an imported ruminant or pig, or the carcass of an imported ruminant or pig that has died during transport, shall report the following information to the responsible administrator within seven days after the day on which the animal or carcass is imported:

• (a) the country from which the animal or carcass was imported and, if known, the political subdivision of that country in which the animal was kept before it was imported;
• (b) the premises identification number of the first site where the animal or carcass was unloaded from the conveyance after leaving the point of entry;
• (c) the date on which the animal or carcass was received at that site;
• (d) if applicable, the identification number on the approved indicator applied to the animal or carcass; and
• (e) the licence plate number of the conveyance by which the animal or carcass was imported or, if there is no licence plate, other information identifying the conveyance.

Division 5
Responsible Administrators

Publication

188 The Agency shall publish on its website a list of responsible administrators.

Information Obtained by a Responsible Administrator

189 A responsible administrator shall maintain a database of the information and records that they obtain under this Part.

189.1 (1) If a responsible administrator obtains information under this Part in relation to a ruminant or pig or the carcass of a ruminant or pig that was previously located in a province forwhich they are not the responsible administrator, they shall provide that information without delay to the responsible administrator for that province.

(2) If a person (in this subsection referred to as the “former administrator”) ceases to be the responsible administrator for ruminants or pigs of all or part of a genus, species or subspecies that are located in a province and another person (in this subsection referred to as the “new administrator”) becomes the responsible administrator for animals of that genus, species or subspecies or that part that are located in that province, the former administrator shall

• (a) provide to the new administrator the information that the former administrator has obtained under this Part; and
• (b) after receiving from the new administrator an acknowledgement in writing that the transferred information has been entered into the database and other records maintained by the new administrator, permanently delete that information from the database and other records maintained by the former administrator unless the former administrator has the express, free and informed consent of any person to whom the information relates to retain that information.

(3) A responsible administrator may allow any person to have access to the information that the administrator obtains under this Part for the purpose of providing services in relation to the database if that person agrees in writing not to disclose the information to any other person.

(4) Every responsible administrator shall allow the Agency to have access to the information that the administrator obtains under this Part.

(5) A responsible administrator shall allow any person to have access to the information that the administrator obtains under this Part if the Agency advises the administrator that the access is provided for in an agreement or memorandum of understanding that the Agency has entered into under subsection 14(1) of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency Act.

12 Section 172.1 of the Regulations is repealed.

13 The French version of the Regulations is amended by replacing “test de dépistage” and “test” with “épreuve”, with any necessary modifications, in the following provisions:

• (a) section 62;
• (b) subparagraph 69(1)(a)(iii)
• (c) subparagraph 70(1)(a)(iii)
• (d) paragraph 91.4(2)(d); and
• (e) paragraph 119(1)(d).

Coming into Force

14 (1) Subject to subsection (2), these Regulations come into force on the first anniversary of the day on which they are registered.

(2) Section 12 comes into force on the second anniversary of the day on which these Regulations are registered.

Terms of use and Privacy notice

Terms of use

It is your responsibility to ensure that the comments you provide do not:

• contain personal information
• contain protected or classified information of the Government of Canada
• express or incite discrimination on the basis of race, sex, religion, sexual orientation or against any other group protected under the Canadian Human Rights Act or the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
• contain hateful, defamatory, or obscene language
• contain threatening, violent, intimidating or harassing language
• contain language contrary to any federal, provincial or territorial laws of Canada
• constitute impersonation, advertising or spam
• encourage or incite any criminal activity
• contain a language other than English or French
• otherwise violate this notice

The federal institution managing the proposed regulatory change retains the right to review and remove personal information, hate speech, or other information deemed inappropriate for public posting as listed above.

Confidential Business Information should only be posted in the specific Confidential Business Information text box. In general, Confidential Business Information includes information that (i) is not publicly available, (ii) is treated in a confidential manner by the person to whose business the information relates, and (iii) has actual or potential economic value to the person or their competitors because it is not publicly available and whose disclosure would result in financial loss to the person or a material gain to their competitors. Comments that you provide in the Confidential Business Information section that satisfy this description will not be made publicly available. The federal institution managing the proposed regulatory change retains the right to post the comment publicly if it is not deemed to be Confidential Business Information.

Your comments will be posted on the Canada Gazette website for public review. However, you have the right to submit your comments anonymously. If you choose to remain anonymous, your comments will be made public and attributed to an anonymous individual. No other information about you will be made publicly available.

Comments will remain posted on the Canada Gazette website for at least 10 years.

Please note that public email is not secure, if the attachment you wish to send contains sensitive information, please contact the departmental email to discuss ways in which you can transmit sensitive information.

Privacy notice

The information you provide is collected under the authority of the Financial Administration Act, the Department of Public Works and Government Services Act, the Canada–United States–Mexico Agreement Implementation Act,and applicable regulators’ enabling statutes for the purpose of collecting comments related to the proposed regulatory changes. Your comments and documents are collected for the purpose of increasing transparency in the regulatory process and making Government more accessible to Canadians.

Personal information submitted is collected, used, disclosed, retained, and protected from unauthorized persons and/or agencies pursuant to the provisions of the Privacy Act and the Privacy Regulations. Individual names that are submitted will not be posted online but will be kept for contact if needed. The names of organizations that submit comments will be posted online.

Submitted information, including personal information, will be accessible to Public Services and Procurement Canada, who is responsible for the Canada Gazette webpage, and the federal institution managing the proposed regulatory change.

You have the right of access to and correction of your personal information. To seek access or correction of your personal information, contact the Access to Information and Privacy (ATIP) Office of the federal institution managing the proposed regulatory change.

You have the right to file a complaint to the Privacy Commission of Canada regarding any federal institution’s handling of your personal information.

The personal information provided is included in Personal Information Bank PSU 938 Outreach Activities. Individuals requesting access to their personal information under the Privacy Act should submit their request to the appropriate regulator with sufficient information for that federal institution to retrieve their personal information. For individuals who choose to submit comments anonymously, requests for their information may not be reasonably retrievable by the government institution.