Vol. 148, No. 5 — February 26, 2014

Registration

SOR/2014-23 February 7, 2014

HEALTH OF ANIMALS ACT

Regulations Amending the Health of Animals Regulations

P.C. 2014-105 February 6, 2014

His Excellency the Governor General in Council, on the recommendation of the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, pursuant to subsection 64(1) (see footnote a) of the Health of Animals Act (see footnote b), makes the annexed Regulations Amending the Health of Animals Regulations.

REGULATIONS AMENDING THE HEALTH OF ANIMALS REGULATIONS

AMENDMENTS

1. Section 2 of the Health of Animals Regulations (see footnote 1) is amended by adding the following in alphabetical order:

“abattoir” includes a mobile abattoir; (abattoir)

2. Paragraph 6.21(2)(a) of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

3. (1) The definitions “administrator” and “farm or ranch” in section 172 of the Regulations are repealed.

(2) The definitions “animal”, “approved tag” and “farm of origin” in section 172 of the Regulations are replaced by the following:

“animal” means a bison, bovine, ovine or pig. (animal)

“approved tag” means a tag, chip or other indicator approved by the Minister under subsection 173(1) and listed on the Agency’s web site as an approved tag. (étiquette approuvée)

“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)

(3) Section 172 of the Regulations is amended by adding the following in alphabetical order:

“approved slap tattoo” means a slap tattoo bearing an identification number issued by the responsible administrator in respect of a site under paragraph 174(2)(a). (tatouage au marteau approuvé)

“bred” means an animal that is mated either naturally or artificially or that has provided semen, ova or embryos for reproduction. (sailli)

“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)

“pig” means an animal, other than an embryo or a fertilized egg, of the species domestica or scrofa domestica of the genus Sus. (porc)

“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, is listed on the Agency’s web site as an administrator and administers a national 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)

“site” means a place where animals or carcasses of animals are kept or collected but does not include a conveyance. (installation)

(4) The definition “pig” in subsection 172(1) of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

“pig” means an animal, other than an embryo or a fertilized egg, of the genus Sus. (porc)

(5) Section 172 of the Regulations is renumbered as subsection 172(1) and is amended by adding the following:

(2) In this Part, other than in subsection 175.1(2), paragraph 186(1)(a) and subsection 186(2), any reference to the carcass of an animal or to a part of the carcass of an animal does not include any part of the carcass that is intended for human consumption.

4. The Regulations are amended by adding the following after section 172:

REGISTRATION OF LINKED SITES

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

(2) If by the end of the 10th day of any month in the six-month period for which two sites are registered as being linked the operators of the two sites have not reported to the responsible administrator the total number of pigs that were transported between the sites and the number of pig movements between the sites during the preceding month, the registration in respect of the two sites being linked shall be cancelled at the end of that day for the remainder of the six-month period.

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

5. Section 174 of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

174. (1) At the request of the operator of a site, the responsible administrator may issue approved tags or cause them to be issued for the purpose of identifying animals on that site.

(2) At the request of the operator of a site where pigs are kept, the responsible administrator may issue an identification number in respect of that site or cause one to be issued for the purpose of being applied by

(3) At the request of an importer of animals, the administrator may issue approved tags or cause them to be issued for the purpose of identifying the animals to be imported.

(4) When requesting an identification number in respect of a site under subsection (2), the operator of the site shall report to the responsible administrator their name, address and telephone number.

6. The portion of section 174.1 of the Regulations before paragraph (a) is replaced by the following:

174.1 A distributor, or an organization that manages an animal identification system, that sells or distributes approved tags shall, within 24 hours after selling or distributing them, report the following information in respect of those approved tags to the responsible administrator:

7. The heading before section 175 of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

IDENTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS

8. (1) Subsection 175(1) of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

175. (1) Except as otherwise provided in this Part, every person who owns or has the possession, care or control of a bison, bovine or ovine or of the carcass of a bison, bovine or ovine shall ensure that it is identified by an approved tag that is applied to it before it is removed from a site.

(2) Subsection 175(2) of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

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

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

9. The Regulations are amended by adding the following after section 175:

175.01 (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 tag that is applied to it before it is removed from a site.

(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to the transportation of pigs, other than bred pigs, between parts of a farm that are not contiguous or between farms if

(3) The reporting requirements set out in paragraphs (2)(b) and (c) do not apply if at the time of the transportation the departure site and the destination site are registered as being linked with each other under section 172.1.

(4) There is no requirement to identify pigs if they are transported from one part of a farm to another contiguous part of that farm.

(5) If a pig is transported directly from any site to any other site that is an abattoir or that is used exclusively for the purpose of collecting animals before they are transported to an abattoir, every person who owns or has the possession, care or control of the pig at the departure site shall ensure that it is identified by an approved tag or an approved slap tattoo before it is moved from that site.

(6) The operator of a site that is used for the purpose of collecting pigs before transport shall apply an approved tag to any pig that remains at the collection site for longer than 96 hours or that is sent anywhere other than to an abattoir.

(7) Every person who exports a pig shall ensure that, before its export, it has applied to it an indicator approved by the importing country and bearing or corresponding to an identification number issued by the responsible administrator under paragraph 174(2)(b).

(8) Every person who owns or has the possession, care or control of a pig carcass or part of a pig carcass that is transported from any site to any other site shall ensure that the carcass or the part is accompanied with the following information in a form that can be immediately read by an inspector:

10. The heading before section 175.1 of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

RECORD-KEEPING AND INFORMATION REPORTING REQUIREMENTS

11. (1) The portion of subsection 175.1(1) of the Regulations before paragraph (a) is replaced by the following:

175.1 (1) Subject to subsection (2), the operator of a site who removes or causes the removal of an ovine 18 months of age or older from the site shall keep a record of

(2) The portion of subsection 175.1(3) of the Regulations before paragraph (a) is replaced by the following:

(3) The operator of a site who receives or causes the reception of a bred ovine shall keep a record of

(3) Paragraph 175.1(3)(c) of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

12. The Regulations are amended by adding the following after section 175.1:

175.2 (1) Except as otherwise provided in this Part, if a pig is transported from one site to another, the operator of the departure site, within seven days after the pig’s departure, and the operator of the destination site, within seven days after the pig’s reception, shall report the following information to the responsible administrator:

(2) There is no requirement to report to the responsible administrator or keep records on the movement of pigs transported from one part of a farm to another contiguous part of that farm.

(3) Every person who operates a site where an approved tag or approved slap tattoo is applied to a pig shall report the following information to the responsible administrator within seven days after the pig’s departure:

(4) If pigs are transported from a site to an abattoir, the operator of the departure site, within seven days after the departure of the pigs, and the operator of the abattoir, within seven days after the reception of the pigs, shall report the following information to the responsible administrator:

(5) If a pig carcass or part of a pig carcass is transported from one site to another, the operator of the departure site, within seven days after the departure of the carcass or the part, and the operator of the destination site, within seven days after the reception of the carcass or the part, shall report the following information to the responsible administrator:

175.3 Every person who is required under this Part to report information in respect of a pig, pig carcass or part of a pig carcass shall keep a record of that information for five years.

175.4 If pigs are transported as described in subsection 175.01(2) between two sites that are registered as being linked with each other, the operator of the departure site and the operator of the destination site shall keep a record of the following information for five years after the departure of the pigs:

13. Sections 176 and 177 of the Regulations are replaced by the following:

176. Subject to section 183, no person shall remove or cause the removal of a bison, bovine or ovine or the carcass of a bison, bovine or ovine from a site unless it bears an approved tag that has been applied to it under section 175.

176.1 No person shall remove or cause the removal of a pig from a site unless the pig bears an approved tag or an approved slap tattoo that has been applied to it under section 175.01 or the pig is otherwise dealt with in accordance with that section.

177. (1) Subject to section 183 and subsection 184(2), no person shall transport or cause the transportation of a bison, bovine or ovine or the carcass of a bison, bovine or ovine that does not bear an approved tag.

(2) Subject to section 183 and subsection 184(2), no person shall receive or cause the reception of a bison, bovine or ovine or the carcass of a bison, bovine or ovine that does not bear an approved tag.

177.1 (1) Subject to subsection 184(2), no person shall transport, cause the transportation of, receive or cause the reception of a pig unless the pig bears an approved tag or an approved slap tattoo that has been applied to it under section 175.01 or the pig is otherwise dealt with in accordance with that section.

(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to the reception of pigs that are transported as described in subsection 175.01(2) if

14. Subsection 178(1) of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

178. (1) Subject to section 183, no person shall apply or cause the application of an approved tag issued under subsection 174(1) to an animal or the carcass of an animal that is not on the site in respect of which the approved tag was issued.

(1.1) No person shall apply or cause the application of, to a pig, an approved slap tattoo or, in the case of pigs that are destined for export, an indicator that bears an identification number issued by a responsible administrator in respect of a site unless the pig is at that site.

15. The Regulations are amended by adding the following after section 180:

180.1 No person shall apply or cause the application of an approved tag to an animal or the carcass of an animal that is not listed in the definition “animal” in section 172.

16. Section 183 of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

183. (1) A bison or a bovine may be transported from its farm of origin without having an approved tag applied to it to a site for the purpose of having an approved tag applied to it at that site if

(2) The manager of a tagging site shall

(3) The responsible administrator shall approve a site for inclusion on the list of approved tagging sites, on application from the manager of the site, if the manager has stated in writing that

(4) If the manager of a tagging site does not comply with subsection (2) or (3), the responsible administrator shall remove the name and address of the tagging site from the list of approved tagging sites if

(5) If the responsible administrator removes the name and address of the tagging site from the list, that administrator shall, without delay,

(6) If the name and address of a tagging site have been removed from the list, the manager of the site may reapply under subsection (3) to have the site approved as a tagging site.

17. (1) Subsections 184(1) and (2) of the Regulations are replaced by the following:

184. (1) Subject to subsections (2) and (3), if an animal that is required to bear an approved tag does not bear an approved tag, bears an approved tag that has been revoked or loses its approved tag, the person who owns or has the possession, care or control of the animal shall immediately apply a new approved tag to it.

(2) Subject to subsection (3), an animal that loses its approved tag while being transported may continue to be transported until it reaches the next site where it is to be unloaded, and it may be received at that site only if a new approved tag is applied to the animal immediately after it is received there.

(2) Subparagraph 184(3)(b)(iii) of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

(3) Paragraph 184(3)(c) of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

(4) Subsection 184(4) of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

(4) An organization that manages an animal identification system shall, if it receives the information referred to in paragraph (3)(b), report the information to the responsible administrator within 30 days after receiving it.

18. (1) Subparagraphs 185(1)(b)(ii) and (iii) of the Regulations are replaced by the following:

(2) Subsections 185(3) and (4) of the Regulations are replaced by the following:

(3) Every person who applies, or causes the application of, a new approved tag to an animal, or the carcass of an animal, that already bears an approved tag or an approved tag that has been revoked shall, within 30 days after the new approved tag is applied, report to the responsible administrator the number of the new approved tag as well as the number of the previously applied tag.

(4) An organization that manages an animal identification system shall, if it receives the information referred to in subsection (3), report the information to the responsible administrator within 30 days after receiving it.

19. (1) Paragraph 186(1)(b) of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

(2) Subsections 186(3) to (5) of the Regulations are replaced by the following:

(3) If an animal bearing an approved tag or an approved tag that has been revoked is slaughtered or otherwise dies at a site, the operator of the site shall keep a record of the slaughter or death of the animal and the identification number on its tag.

(4) An organization that manages an animal identification system shall, if it receives the information referred to in paragraph (1)(b), report the information to the responsible administrator within 30 days after receiving it.

20. Section 187 of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

187. (1) Every person, including a renderer, dead stock operator, post-mortem laboratory official and veterinarian, who disposes of the carcass of a bison, bovine or ovine bearing an approved tag or an approved tag that has been revoked

(2) Every person, including a renderer, dead stock operator, post-mortem laboratory official and veterinarian, who disposes of the carcass of a bison, bovine or ovine not bearing an approved tag anywhere but on the farm of origin where the animal died shall

(3) An organization that manages an animal identification system shall, if it receives the information referred to in paragraph (1)(b) or (2)(a), report that information to the responsible administrator within 30 days after receiving it.

21. Section 188 of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

188. (1) Every person who exports a bison or bovine shall report the identification number on the animal’s approved tag to the responsible administrator within 30 days after the exportation.

(2) Every person who exports pigs shall report the following information to the responsible administrator within seven days after the exportation:

22. (1) Subsection 189(1) of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

189. (1) Every person who imports an animal shall

(2) The portion of subsection 189(2) of the Regulations before paragraph (a) is replaced by the following:

(2) The reports referred to in paragraphs (1)(b) and (c) shall be made

(3) Subsection 189(2) of the Regulations is amended by striking out “or” at the end of paragraph (b), by adding “or” at the end of paragraph (c) and by adding the following after paragraph (c):

(4) Subsections 189(3) and (4) of the Regulations are replaced by the following:

(3) Paragraphs (1)(a) and (b) do not apply to a bison, bovine or ovine that is imported for immediate slaughter.

(4) Paragraph (1)(a) does not apply to an animal bearing an indicator of a foreign country if the Minister determines that the indicator meets the criteria set out in subsection 173(2) and that the identification number on the indicator can be entered and tracked in the responsible administrator’s database.

(5) For the purposes of subsection 175(3) and sections 175.01, 175.1, 176 to 177.1, 179 to 181 and 186 to 188, if an imported animal bears an indicator of a foreign country and the Minister determines that the indicator meets the criteria set out in subsection 173(2) and that the identification number on the indicator can be entered and tracked in the responsible administrator’s database, the indicator is deemed to be an approved tag that was issued and applied to the animal in accordance with this Part.

23. The Regulations are amended by adding the following after section 189:

INFORMATION OBTAINED BY A RESPONSIBLE ADMINISTRATOR

189.1 A responsible administrator shall maintain a database and other records obtained under this Part.

189.2 (1) If a person who is a responsible administrator obtains information under this Part in relation to an animal or the carcass of an animal and that animal or carcass was previously located in a province in respect of which the person is not the responsible administrator, the person shall provide that information without delay to the responsible administrator in respect of the province in which that animal or carcass was located.

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

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

(4) A responsible administrator shall allow any person to have access to the information that that administrator obtains under this Part if the Agency advises that 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.

(5) If a person (in this subsection referred to as the “former administrator”) ceases to be the responsible administrator for animals 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 of that part that are located in that province, the former administrator shall

COMING INTO FORCE

24. (1) These Regulations, except subsection 3(4), come into force on July 1, 2014.

(2) Subsection 3(4) comes into force on July 1, 2015.

REGULATORY IMPACT ANALYSIS STATEMENT

(This statement is not part of the Regulations.)

Executive summary

Issues: A disease outbreak among pigs could negatively affect public health, economically important livestock sectors and tourism. In the event of a disease outbreak, or food safety issue in Canada affecting swine, the lucrative export market for pork products could close. If such an outbreak were to occur, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency’s (CFIA) work to reopen markets would be aided by more immediate access to complete and up-to-date information regarding pig identification, movement and location.

Description: The amendments to the Health of Animals Regulations will allow for a formal agreement with a third-party Administrator to establish and maintain a comprehensive database containing up-to-date information as to the identification, movement and location of all pigs in Canada. The custodians of pigs will provide information directly to the Administrator. The pig traceability data will facilitate more rapid and efficient control of disease outbreak among pigs. Pig carcasses and pigs which have not been bred and which are moved within a farm or to another farm will not need to be identified if both sender and receiver report the movement of these pigs.

Cost-benefit statement: The costs to industry include identifying and reporting the movement of pigs. The compliance costs to the industry were estimated at a present value of $17.58 million and $1.27 million annualized. The total administrative costs were estimated at a present value of $3.78 million and $270,000 annualized. These costs include the maintenance of a call centre and communication activities, and some of these costs are already incurred by producers (e.g. tags used on a voluntary basis for herd management).

The potential quantifiable benefits attributable to these amendments can be observed through the cost minimization of the economic consequences of an outbreak of animal diseases in Canada if the traceability system is in place when the outbreak occurs. In addition to these monetized benefits, the unquantifiable benefits of the amendments include improvements in consumer confidence in domestic meat products, enhanced human health and food safety. The net present value (NPV) generated from preferred regulatory option in case of medium-scale classical swine fever outbreak was calculated at $1.22 billion over a 50-year period, which translates to an annualized NPV of $88.52 million.

“One-for-One” Rule and small business lens: The “One-for-One” Rule applies because these Regulations will impose new administrative costs on the industry and are considered an “IN” under the rule. A total of 5 390 businesses (all sizes) will be affected by the Regulations. The additional administrative costs capture the labour costs for the time to learn the new regulatory requirements, the time to file an application for sites being registered as linked, and the data recording and transfer costs for market hogs whose movement is reported by group. Any costs that are currently incurred by the industry and that would continue to be incurred in the absence of the amendments were excluded from the calculation (i.e. data reporting cost in Alberta where movement reporting requirements are already in place).

The estimated costs of the administrative burden were based on information provided by the industry. A forecasted impact time period of 10 years beginning in the year the amendments come into force is considered. The annualized average of incremental administrative costs potentially imposed on all size businesses will be $280,000 (in 2012 dollars) and the annualized average administrative cost per business is $53 (in 2012 dollars).

The small business lens applies to these amendments because it will impose additional costs to small business in the industry (abattoir operators and pig producers) and have nationwide cost impacts of over $1 million annually. The amendments are anticipated to impact 5 334 small enterprises. The estimated annualized increase in total industry costs (compliance and administrative) will be $1.57 million (in 2012 dollars) for all affected small businesses and the average cost per small business is $295 (in 2012 dollars). The estimated present value of total industry costs over the 10-year period is valued at $11.04 million (in 2012 dollars) for the 5 334 affected small businesses.

Background

In July 2009, federal/provincial/territorial (F/P/T) ministers of Agriculture announced that livestock traceability systems, including one for pigs, should become mandatory by 2011. Under the purview of regulations, national traceability systems for bovine, ovine, and bison are currently in operation.

Based on the experience of producers and governments from the classical swine fever outbreak in the Netherlands (1997–98) and the foot-and-mouth disease outbreak in the United Kingdom, the Netherlands and France (2001), it is believed that the voluntary pig traceability and record keeping system currently in operation in Canada is insufficient to manage a major disease outbreak.

European pig producers have since developed efficient traceability systems similar to this one by Canadian pork producers. The Canadian Pork Council (CPC) requested such regulatory amendments in 2006. Consultations held in 2005 and 2010 and ongoing discussions indicate support by stakeholders, including pork producers, farmed wild boar producers and operators of abattoirs and auctions, for the changes. In the fall of 2009, the CPC initiated a voluntary, phased-in implementation of a national pig traceability system based on these amendments, with funding under Growing Forward provided by Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada and provinces.

The amendments will establish a national pig identification and traceability program with a third-party administrator, by specifying how pigs will be identified and how pig locations and movements will be reported. The administrator will be responsible for issuing the identification numbers for pigs and managing an information database.

Currently, under the Health of Animals Act, animal identification systems are in place for cattle, bison and sheep. Those systems are based on individual identification (by approved tag) of each animal. These amendments will allow, under certain circumstances, pigs to be moved without being identified. This approach will impose less of a burden on producers.

The amendments will be made under revised regulatory-making authorities of the Health of Animals Act which came into force in 2012.

Issues

A disease outbreak among pigs in Canada could negatively affect public health and the economy if that disease were transmitted from pigs to other livestock sectors and humans. For example, foot-and-mouth disease could be passed from pigs to cattle and sheep. A disease outbreak could also lower tourism revenues in Ontario, Quebec and Manitoba, where most of the hogs are raised, as a result of movement restrictions required to reduce the risk of spreading disease. Canada is one of the largest pork exporters in the world. In 2011, there were 22.2 million hogs marketed in Canada and 5.8 million live animals exported. The value of Canadian pork exports was $3.07 billion in 2011 with $961 million exported to the United States of America. In the event of a disease outbreak or food safety issue in Canada affecting swine, the lucrative export market for pork products might close.

If such an outbreak were to occur, the CFIA would work to minimize the impact, but such a response would be aided by more immediate access to complete and up-to-date information regarding pig identification, movement and location.

Objectives

The main objectives of these amendments are (a) to reduce the impacts of a disease outbreak or food safety issue resulting from or affecting the pig sector; (b) to better protect public health and animal health; and (c) to support the Canadian pork industry in order to meet international standards to export.

These objectives support CFIA’s strategic outcomes, including “a safe and accessible food supply and plant and animal resource base”; the Government of Canada’s strategic outcomes, such as “a prosperous Canada through global commerce”; and the Canadian Pork Council’s (CPC) traceability goals “to identify pathways where infected animals have moved, potentially infecting other farms and swine.  Animal movement information is used to contain and reduce the spread of highly contagious swine diseases so they can be eliminated” (CPC Web site — media release).

Description

Summary

These amendments will introduce a national traceability system for pigs in Canada.

The traceability system will require reporting on the movement of the pigs between sites. This extra information will allow the CFIA to react much more quickly in the case of an animal disease outbreak.

Animal identification is a component of the traceability system for pigs. However, pigs, with the exception of bred pigs, will not generally need to be identified by an approved tag when they are moved. When pigs are transported from one site to another for purposes such as sale, breeding, exhibiting or slaughter, it will be required that both the sender and the recipient of the pigs report the movement of the pigs, within seven days, to the administrator of a central national database.

Pigs being transported directly for slaughter will need to be identified with an approved tag or a slap tattoo indicating a site number instead of a number unique to the pig.

Roles and responsibilities

The Administrator is the third party whose main responsibility is the management of livestock identification, movement and location information, by those who own or have care and control of the pigs. The Administrator will also be responsible for issuing identification numbers for approved tags (unique to a pig), for approved slap tattoos, and for other indicators used for export purposes (unique to a pig operation).

Some provinces and territories have allocated unique identification numbers to premises (land parcels and buildings) where animals are kept, assembled, or disposed. In the event a location does not have a premises identification number, location identifiers could be allocated by the Administrator. The Administrator will also register sites as linked according to certain criteria, and maintain the database of information regarding the pigs’ identification numbers, movements and locations among these sites.

The Administrator will sign an agreement with the CFIA to administer a national traceability program for pigs. Through this agreement, authorized CFIA veterinarians and inspectors will have immediate, online access to the database information, which will include reports on all pigs’ identification, location and movements. The CFIA will use that information to verify compliance against the regulatory requirements, to support emergency preparedness and to limit the impact of a sanitary or disease issue by rapidly isolating infected and potentially infected pigs and taking other measures as appropriate. The pig traceability information will also be made available to veterinarians of provincial and territorial governments who signed a traceability data sharing agreement with the CFIA. The management of safety issues is a shared responsibility between the CFIA and the provinces and territories.

The CPC will become the Administrator and is currently managing a voluntary pig traceability program based on the same elements as the amendments. If the CPC does not become the Administrator under the amendments, the Canadian Cattle Identification Agency (CCIA), which is the national Administrator for cattle, sheep and bison, could also act as Administrator of the pig traceability information database.

Using the database, the CFIA will have the ability to enable a more efficient response to, and control of a disease outbreak or food safety issue by rapidly determining which pigs or other livestock have been in contact with diseased animals or with contaminated feed.

Voluntary traceability programs do not have full participation. A mandatory national program will require information from all regulated parties, which will lead to a more complete and accurate database.

For this particular initiative, traceability may be defined as the ability to track the movement of pigs from their farm of origin or import, to their slaughter or export. These amendments will initially apply to all Canadians who have care or control of domesticated pigs and, one year after the amendments come into force, to all Canadians who have care and control of animals of the genus Sus, including farmed wild boars.

Traceability of live cattle, bison and sheep is already mandatory under Part XV of the Health of Animals Regulations and focuses on animal identification. In order to be more cost-effective, the traceability system for pigs focuses more on the ability to follow animal movement than on individual pig identification.

Pig identification methods

Four methods of identifying and tracing pigs are prescribed by these Regulations:

Pigs moved within Canada

Bred pigs and all pigs moved between sites for which there is not an exception must be identified with an approved tag before leaving the site. Within seven days of departure and within seven days of reception of a shipment of pigs, the operators of the departure site and the destination site will be required to report

Every person who operates a site where an approved tag or approved slap tattoo is applied to a pig shall also report the identification numbers on the approved tags and approved slap tattoos applied to the pigs. Operators of abattoirs will report the identification number of approved tags or approved slap tattoos borne by pigs received at the abattoir as well.

All pigs sent to an assembly yard (a site used exclusively for the purpose of collecting animals before they are transported to an abattoir) or directly to an abattoir will be required to be identified with an approved tag or an approved slap tattoo. The operator of the assembly yard will apply an approved tag to any pig identified only with a slap tattoo that remains at the collection site longer than 96 hours or is sent anywhere other than to an abattoir, because slap tattoos are difficult to read on live animals.

Import of pigs

These amendments prescribe that all imported pigs must bear an approved tag applied either before importation or as soon as the animal reaches its initial destination. Within seven days of import, the importer will be required to report the location of the last site where the pig was kept before it was imported, the location to which the pig was imported, the date on which the pig was received, the identification number of the pig’s approved tag and the licence plate number or other identification of the conveyance by which the pig was imported.

Under the amendments, an indicator of a foreign country could be recognized as equivalent to an approved tag by the Minister and will not need to be replaced with a Canadian tag if the information related to the tag meets the requirements of the amendments and can be entered into and tracked in the Administrator’s database.

Export of pigs

Within seven days of export, the exporter will be required to report to the Administrator the dates that pigs were loaded and the licence plate number or other identification of the conveyance. The exporter will also be required to report the number of pigs loaded on each date, the location of the last sites before export, the number of pigs from each of the departure sites, the number of pigs going to each destination site and the identification numbers of the indicators. Exported pigs will be identified in a manner recognized by the importing country.

Pig carcasses moved within Canada

Under these amendments, the term “carcass” refers to dead stock that is not intended for human consumption. There will be no requirement to identify a pig carcass (or parts thereof). However, the movement of all pig carcasses, even if not identified, will require reporting. There will be separate, less stringent information reporting requirements for movement of pig carcasses under the amendments.

Regulatory and non-regulatory options considered

1. Status quo (a voluntary, phased-in implementation of a national pig traceability system)

Since 2007, a voluntary national pig traceability system, similar to the system described in these amendments, has been phased in by the CPC. Through this initiative, a nationally unique shoulder slap tattoo number has been allocated to each pig operation (pork producer or pig barn), national tags have been made available to producers and technology to facilitate pig movement reporting has been developed. However, a voluntary system does not guarantee participation by all pork producers. With potentially incomplete pig identification and movement information being reported, the effectiveness of the traceability system would not be optimized.

2. Amendment of the Health of Animals Regulations to include the introduction of a pig traceability system based on the individual and unique identification of each pig

The cattle, bison and sheep identification programs are based on the principle that an approved tag bearing a unique identification number must be applied to each animal before it leaves its farm of origin. This model was used for cattle, bison and sheep to collect individual health and production information. These factors are also true for individual pigs that have been bred (and is reflected in the amendments), but this model is not used for market pigs as it would be cost-prohibitive.

3. Amend the Health of Animals Regulations to include the introduction of a pig traceability system based on the principle of movement reporting — Preferred option

A traceability system based on the principle of movement reporting is the preferred option as the unique identification of each pig would be cost-prohibitive and pigs tend to be transported in groups. Under the amendments, the quality of the movement information being reported will be verified by asking both the sender and receiver to report the same movement. If information from the sender and receiver does not match, the Administrator will verify the information. In the case of non-compliance, the Administrator will advise the CFIA and enforcement action might be taken. This is the preferred option: (1) it will optimize the efficiency and effectiveness of the traceability system; (2) it will better protect the livelihood of the pork sector, the overall Canadian economy, and the health of Canadians; and (3) this option would also limit the environmental impacts of an animal health issue. This option also reflects the position of the Canadian pork sector. The efficiency of a traceability system is highly dependent on the quality, timeliness, completeness and availability of the information being reported by the different parties. Such a goal would not be met under a voluntary system with the information held at each site.

Benefits and costs

Benefits

Some of the benefits of the amendments are unquantifiable because the annual revenue of the pork industry is impossible to predict accurately. Production yields continue to increase, inventory costs are decreasing, and producers are establishing other supply chain efficiencies. Also, the international market is expanding for exports and consumer confidence in domestic products is rising.

Potential quantifiable benefits from these amendments occur where animal disease outbreak costs can be reduced by a traceability system. Estimates from two independent outbreak simulations indicate that the net economic impact of a major animal disease outbreak, such as foot-and-mouth disease, in Canada would be at least $15.7 billion. If a traceability system were in place at the time of the outbreak, as proposed in the regulatory amendment, these costs will be reduced by $6.1 billion or more. This represents a conservative estimate, using data from multiple outbreak simulations in Canada and key variable assumptions consistent with academic and industry research. If an outbreak of either classical swine fever or foot-and-mouth disease at a medium scale occurred some time during the next 50 years, the net present value of the amendments would be a minimum of $1.25 billion ($90.6 million annualized). One of the most valuable aspects of these amendments is that it would likely help maintain access to international markets for Canadian livestock and meat products. Any international market closures would likely be shortened because the disease spread and the disease itself within Canada could likely be more quickly controlled and it would be clearer which animals had been or may have been exposed to the disease.

In addition to these monetized benefits, the unquantifiable benefits of the amendments include improvements to consumer confidence in domestic meat products, enhanced human health and food safety, domestic supply chain efficiencies, added protection from bio-security threats, and a verifiable means of confirming animal and product authenticity, origin, compliance with international traceability guidelines and standards, and other credence attributes throughout the supply chain.

Costs

The costs associated with the implementation of a national pig traceability system are based on industry and government estimates. Government cost estimates are limited to the development of an information database and related training and communication. The database will receive the pig traceability information reported by the regulated parties. The cost of investment in the database was considered as the upfront cost incurred one year before the implementation of these amendments and estimated at $1.17 million (2012 dollar value). The total incremental costs imposed on government in terms of one-time investment costs and ongoing maintenance costs would be $7 million in present value over the 50 years and $0.51 million annualized average (all in 2012 dollar value).

The costs to the industry include animal identification tags (for bred pigs and for pigs sent to auctions, fairs and test stations), materials and related expenses. Using a 50-year analytical horizon and a 7% discount rate, the total present value of the incremental industry costs as a result of the amendments was estimated at $21.35 million or $1.55 million annualized (in 2012 dollar value). In detail, the total compliance costs were estimated at present value of $17.58 million and $1.27 million annualized. The total administrative costs were estimated at present value of $3.78 million and $270,000 annualized. Some producers already incur costs on a voluntary basis (e.g. purchase of tags, application of slap tattoos) and from pig traceability regulatory requirements in effect in Alberta (e.g. movement reporting, record keeping). The latter costs were not included in our estimates as they are already incurred, and therefore would not result from the current amendments.

In total, the potential cost increases to the government and stakeholders were estimated at $28.35 million as the total present value over 50 years or $2.05 million as average annualized.

The accounting statement that follows is the estimated costs for a potential major outbreak of classical swine fever and the associated trade embargo that would result (estimated to be one year in duration). The benefit values represent the difference in the economic impact of an outbreak controlled quickly with traceability in place compared to an outbreak occurring without traceability in place. The benefits resulting from a traceability system are estimated on an annual gross basis, using a discount of 7% and assuming a 2% annual probability of outbreak over a 50-year period (based on Canadian animal disease outbreak history).

Exhibit 1: Cost-benefit statement (see reference 1)

Costs, benefits and distribution Base Year t0 (2011) t1 First Year (see reference 2) (2012) t50 Final Year (see reference 2) (2061) Total Present Value Annualized Present Value

A. Quantified impacts by stakeholder (in millions of dollars)

Benefits

Stakeholder

          

Farm expenditures

Producers

  

4.65

0.17

68.65

4.97

Net farm income

Producers

  

6.61

0.24

97.57

7.07

Processing sector

Operators

  

20.64

0.75

304.74

22.08

Food retailing (see reference 3)

Operators

  

-0.09

0.00

-1.37

-0.10

Indirect/spillover

Economy-wide

  

52.85

1.92

780.40

56.55

Total benefits

    

84.65

3.07

1,249.99

90.57

Costs

Stakeholder

  

Database development and maintenance

Government

1.17

0.27

0.01

5.22

0.38

Compliance verification

Government

  

0.12

0.00

1.78

0.13

Animal identification and movement

Producers/operators

0.46

1.16

0.04

17.58

1.27

Administrative

Producers/operators

0.13

0.25

0.01

3.78

0.27

Total costs

1.76

1.80

0.07

28.35

2.05

Net benefits

1,221.63

88.52

B. Quantified impacts in non-dollars (not applicable to this analysis)

C. Qualitative impacts

Positive impacts

Stakeholders impacted

International market share expansion

Exporters primarily

Consumer confidence in domestic products

Retailers, but benefits may spread throughout the supply chain

Price premiums for traceable products

Retailers, but benefits may spread throughout the supply chain

Inventory cost minimization

All supply chain stages

Production yield increases

Production and processing stages

Supply chain efficiencies

All supply chain stages

Improved control of product-related diseases

Government cost reductions; public health

Lower costs for compensation/recovery

Government

Sustainability of a greater number of farms/operations

All supply chain stages and residents/citizens (cultural identity)

(Reference 1)
Quantified annual benefits by stakeholder are cost savings in the event of a medium-scale classical swine fever outbreak; converted to an expected annual value by multiplying the benefit with the outbreak probability of 2% (in millions of dollars).

(Reference 2)
Values discounted to t0 at discount rate of 7%; the time period is 50 years.

(Reference 3)
Negative values indicate that a sector gains from an outbreak, e.g. by selling more of a product, due to lower prices, while maintaining margins.

Source: Benefit estimates based on P. Charlebois and P. Pérusse, 2004 (19).

“One-for-One” Rule

The “One-for-One” Rule applies because the regulatory proposal will impose new administrative costs on the industry and is considered an “IN” under the rule. A total of 5 390 businesses (all sizes) are expected to be affected by the amendments. When these amendments come into force, businesses will incur additional administrative costs associated with the labour costs to learn the new regulatory requirements, file an application for sites being registered as linked (optional) and record the data for the market hogs moved whose movement is reported by group in order to comply with these amendments.

Additional information gathered during prepublication in the Canada Gazette has resulted in a reassessment of the “One-for-One” Rule impact. Any costs that are currently incurred by the industry and that would continue to be incurred in the absence of the amendments were excluded from the calculation. For example, the total number of pigs marketed in Canada per year is 28.8 million, of which Alberta accounts for 11% (or 3.2 million pigs). Because movement reporting requirements are already in place in Alberta, any costs associated with data reporting corresponding to the 3.2 million pigs were not considered as an incremental cost. Moreover, only the labour cost component of the movement data reporting was treated as additional administrative costs. All other capital (computer hardware and software) and connection requirements to be able to comply with the movement data reporting were estimated as incremental compliance costs.

The estimated costs of the administrative burden were based on information provided by the industry. Based on the results of the regulatory cost calculator, the annualized average incremental administrative costs potentially imposed on all sizes of businesses would be $280,000 (in 2012 dollars) and the annualized average administrative cost per business is $53 (in 2012 dollars).

The CFIA consulted the Canadian Pork Council (CPC) during the prepublication period in order to further validate the assumptions used in the “One-for-One” Rule calculation. There was mutual agreement with the assumptions and calculations made in both the cost-benefit analysis and the calculations of the administrative and compliance costs.

Small business lens

The small business lens applies to these amendments because it will impose additional costs to small business in the industry (abattoir operators and pig producers) and have nationwide cost impacts of over $1 million annually. The amendments are anticipated to impact 5 334 small enterprises. The additional costs to small businesses are due largely to the direct compliance costs, including the costs of animal identification tags, materials and related expenses, as well as the movement data reporting costs, and, in part, to the administrative costs meeting the requirements under these amendments.

The cost estimates were based on the industry estimation and the following adopted assumptions.

Assumptions for incremental compliance cost estimation: (see footnote 2)

Assumption for incremental administrative cost estimation:

For small-sized abattoir operators and pig producers, the incremental direct costs of complying with these Regulations will be (1) one-time compliance costs incurred in the first year when the Regulations come into force for first-time identification of all bred animals and animals sent to auctions, fairs and test stations; and (2) the ongoing costs required annually in subsequent years to identify replacement animals. Movement data reporting, capital and connection costs were identified as other ongoing compliance cost items that would be incurred by the industry. Based on the regulatory cost calculator results, the total estimated annualized increase in compliance costs is $1.29 million (in 2012 dollars) for all affected small businesses and the average cost per small business is $242 (in 2012 dollars). The total present value over the impact time period of 10 years is estimated at $9.07 million (in 2012 dollars).

There will also be an increase in administrative costs to small businesses in order to comply with the Regulations. The administrative costs capture the labour costs for the time to learn the new regulatory requirements and the time to file an application for sites being registered, and the data recording and transfer costs for the market hogs whose movement is reported by group or lot identification. Based on the regulatory calculator results, the estimated total annualized increase in administrative costs is $280,000 (in 2012 dollars) for all 5 334 small businesses and the average cost per small business is $52 (in 2012 dollars). The total present value of incremental administrative costs over the impact time period of 10 years beginning in 2012 is estimated at $1.97 million (in 2012 dollars).

The estimated annualized increase in total industry costs (compliance and administrative) are $1.57 million (in 2012 dollars) for all affected small businesses and the average cost per small business is $295 (in 2012 dollars). The estimated present value of total industry costs over the 10 years period is valued at $11.04 million (in 2012 dollars) for the 5 334 affected small businesses.

Regulatory flexibility analysis statement
Initial option: Amendment of the Health of Animals Regulations to include the introduction of a pig traceability system based on the individual and unique identification of each pig

The cattle, bison and sheep identification components of the national livestock traceability program are based on the principle that an approved tag bearing a unique identification number must be applied to each animal before it leaves its farm of origin. This model was used for cattle, bison and sheep to collect individual health and production information. These factors also apply to individual pigs that have been bred (and is reflected in the amendments) but this model is not used for market pigs as it would be cost-prohibitive.

Flexible option: Amend the Health of Animals Regulations to include the introduction of a pig traceability system based on the principle of movement reporting — Preferred option

A traceability system based on the principle of movement reporting — is the preferred option as the unique identification of each pig would be cost-prohibitive and pigs tend to be transported in groups. Under these amendments, the quality of the movement information being reported will be verified by asking both the sender and receiver to report the same movement. If information from the sender and receiver does not match, the Administrator will verify the information. In the case of non-compliance, the Administrator will advise the CFIA and enforcement action might be taken. This is the preferred option as it will optimize the efficiency and effectiveness of the traceability system, better protect the livelihood of the pork sector, the overall Canadian economy, and the health of Canadians, and limit the environmental impacts of an animal health issue. This option also reflects the position of the Canadian pork sector. The efficiency of a traceability system is highly dependent on the quality, timeliness, completeness and availability of the information being reported by the different parties. Such a goal would not be met under a voluntary system with the information held at each site.

Initial Option

Flexible Option

Short description

A pig traceability system based on the individual and unique identification of each pig

A pig traceability system based on the principle of movement reporting and group identification

Number of small businesses impacted

5 334

5 334
 

Annualized Average ($)

Present Value ($)

Annualized Average ($)

Present Value ($)

Compliance costs (itemize if appropriate)

76,317,653

536,023,257

1,291,914

9,073,863

Administrative costs (itemize if appropriate)

653,962

4,593,158

280,416

1,969,524

Total costs (all small businesses)

76,971,615

540,616,416

1,572,330

11,043,387

Total cost per small business

13,079

92,826

295

2,070

Risk considerations

    

Note:

1. Costs have been estimated using the Standard Cost Model. Detailed calculations are available upon request.

2. The present value is discounted using 7% discount rate.

3. The time period used is 10 years beginning in the year of implementation of the proposed Regulations.

4. All the results are in 2012 dollar value.

Consultation

CFIA has engaged the CPC and smaller industry associations in regular communications and meetings concerning a proposed traceability system since 2005. The engagement has focused on the requirements generally described under these amendments and practical considerations related to the operation and enforcement of the system.

The CPC undertook the development of a national pig traceability strategy in 2004 following the foot-and-mouth disease outbreak in the United Kingdom. A CPC Traceability Committee, comprised of representatives from the provincial CPC members, swine breeders, abattoirs, farmed wild boar organizations, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC) and the CFIA, supported the development of a traceability program and policies. Guidelines for the pig traceability system were drafted based on the results of a national pilot study conducted in 2005.

Two national consultations were held on the pig traceability system in 2005: one with the provincial pork producer associations, the other with producers, abattoirs and auction marts. The CPC engaged in discussions with the CFIA from 2005 to 2007 and on a weekly basis throughout the fall of 2009. The CPC Traceability Committee carefully considered the practicality of the requirements, and the ability of industry to comply with the Regulations. Starting in 2007, the CPC and its provincial members phased in a voluntary implementation of components of the traceability system described in the amendments. These activities have been supported with communications intended to raise producer awareness and gain support. The components phased in so far (i.e. national tags being made available, premises identification, movement reporting) have been non-controversial and have not required any significant changes on the part of producers. There was general support for the pig traceability system during the consultations.

The costs to producers for tags along with the requirement for stakeholders to report information may have weakened the support for the proposal from some producers. However, support from industry leaders remains high and there are a growing number of pig producers voluntarily participating in the initiative.

The CFIA held bilateral consultations with the Government of Alberta to ensure consistency between the provincial requirements and the federal pig traceability amendments. All provinces and organizations consulted are supportive of the federal amendments.

Prepublication results

Prepublication of the proposed amendments in the Canada Gazette, Part I, on July 14, 2012, was followed by a 30-day comment period which ended August 13, 2012. During this period, the CFIA held three webinar sessions to explain the proposed Regulations and allow for questions and comments. Approximately 100 people attended these sessions. In total, the CFIA received 28 written comments from private citizens, pig producers and pig producer organizations, other livestock producers and livestock producer organizations, transport businesses, foreign governments and restaurant organizations.

Each submission was analyzed, and proposed amendments to the Regulations were considered. Stakeholders overwhelmingly approve of the implementation of these Regulations. However, some concerns were expressed. The principal issues identified by stakeholders in the broad range of comments received related to

Comments resulted in the following changes being made to the prepublished version of the Regulations. The CPC and CPC provincial members have been informed of these modifications and are in agreement with them.

How and when reporting to the database is done

A number of different producer organizations expressed concern regarding the proposed reporting time standard, indicating that industry needs time to develop proper reporting tools to support such a requirement. Operators felt that requiring reporting within 48 hours was too stringent, especially after what has been a totally voluntary reporting situation, and given the timeframe to report movement for cattle, bison and sheep is currently 30 days. The CFIA agrees with the comment and consequently the timeframe to report the movement of pigs will be less than seven days instead of 48 hours. Reducing the timeframe to less than 48 hours in order to meet the national performance standard could be explored for the future regulatory initiative.

Operators indicated that the requirement to report both at departure and the arrival/destination sites (dual reporting) is onerous. The dual reporting requirement will be retained, however, as it supports compliance verification activities and data integrity. Further, this element was developed by the CPC Traceability Committee and is largely accepted by industry representatives as necessary. To facilitate ease of reporting, the CFIA will permit an agent to report on behalf of an operator. However, if the reporting is not done or is done incorrectly by the agent, the operator remains responsible, not the agent.

Requirements of identification of premises

Stakeholder organizations and provincial government officials indicated concern with the lack of a defined, consistent requirement to require premises identification across Canada. Currently, under the cattle, bison and sheep identification systems, the departure and destination/arrival points of livestock being reported correspond to the regulated party’s identification number in the administrator’s database to which mailing address, type of operation and contact information is cross-referenced.

Some provinces and territories have allocated unique identification numbers to premises (land parcels and buildings) where animals are kept, assembled, or disposed. CFIA proposes that as an alternative to reporting the premises identification number, the regulated parties could report the regulated party’s account number in the administrator’s database as the identifier of the departure and/or destination/arrival point. Both of those options would make location and contact information available to authorized users of the administrator’s database.

Criteria for registered linked sites

Pork producers and pork producer organizations indicated that, in their opinion, monthly reporting of movement between sites registered as linked was too onerous. The CFIA will not change the monthly reporting criteria for registered linked sites as it was agreed to by veterinarians and epidemiologists from the private and public sectors. As a supplement to the proposed requirements published in Part I of the Canada Gazette, the CFIA will require that the number of pig movements between sites be reported on a monthly basis. Clarification will be added to these amendments that only farms where pigs are kept may be registered as linked.

Means of identification for export

Acceptable means of identification for pigs being exported were specified under the draft Regulations. These means were based on current requirements by some states of the United States of America. As these acceptable practices may differ from time to time and from other importing countries, the Regulations will now state that pigs will be identified in a manner accepted by the importing country.

Subsections under 175.2 — Movement to intermediate sites

The operators of intermediate sites (sites where animals may transit between farms and terminal sites, such as abattoirs or rendering plants, e.g. auctions, fairs, test stations, and assembly yards) recommended that the identification number on indicators borne by pigs transiting through their sites not be read and reported. Such a request has also been made for a subsequent proposed regulatory amendment related to livestock traceability. Based on those comments, the requirement for operators of intermediate sites to report the movement (departure, destination and number of pigs) will remain; however, they would no longer be required to report the identity of the pigs as suggested under the proposed Regulations published in Part I. These requirements will apply to all intermediate sites, which may collect species other than pigs. Pigs sent to auctions, fairs, and test stations will still need to be identified with an approved tag; pigs sent to assembly yards could also be identified with an approved slap tattoo.

Record-keeping requirements

An operator and two stakeholder organizations commented that the requirement to keep records for five years was excessive, and recommended one to three years. Under other animal health programs, records are required to be kept for 10 years. The five-year record-keeping requirement was agreed to by the industry through the CPC Traceability Committee and will be retained. As is the case today, records of information shall be kept by the regulated parties to confirm the information reported to the administrator. This requirement supports compliance verification and the program’s outcome “traceability data is complete, accurate and up to date.”

Security and administration of information in the database

There were concerns expressed by stakeholder organizations as to what would happen if the Canadian Pork Council (CPC) does not become the Administrator. The CFIA addresses these questions by indicating that the Administrator role may be held by any organization which can meet the criteria of the Administrator role provided in the amended Regulations. The CFIA assures stakeholders it will evaluate objectively to ensure that the CPC meets the Administrator criteria.

Concerns were also expressed regarding the security of the database. The CFIA already ensures that there are appropriate safeguards to limit access to and use of the information in the Canadian Livestock Traceability System, to protect privacy concerns. A Privacy Impact Assessment (PIA) was done to evaluate compliance with the requirements of the Treasury Board Secretariat and the Privacy Act of Canada. As a result of the PIA, measures were taken to mitigate risks associated with the collection of personal information. Access to the database is provided only to individuals who hold the appropriate security clearance and job description. Data is accessed by these authorized users only for compliance verification, enforcement of traceability requirements and management of sanitary issues. The purposes for which the PigTrace database is accessed will be monitored through user log-in. Inspectors who have access to traceability databases will be trained to follow set data management procedures. Lastly, the PigTrace system will be the subject of a threat risk assessment.

Cost-sharing

Pork producers argued that the industry should not bear the costs of managing the database (PigTrace), recommending that the federal government allocates funds not only to the set up of the database, but to its ongoing management. The CFIA response to this is that cost-sharing discussions are being held under Canada’s traceability Industry-Government Advisory Committee and as a result, funds have been provided by the federal government for the development of PigTrace. However, the CPC will need to find user fee funds from their members to maintain the system.

Clarifications

Various definitions were discussed during the consultation period after publication in the Canada Gazette, Part I. Some of the definitions or terms have been clarified:

The Regulations were revised based on these new definitions. However, the following requests for addition of definitions will not be granted:

Coming-into-force date

Industry has concerns that the Regulations could come into force before an administrative agreement has been signed, proper training has been conducted, communications products have been circulated, and the database is functional. The CFIA agrees that the coming into force date should be delayed until July 1, 2014, for domesticated pigs and July 1, 2015, for all animals of the genus Sus, to allow regulatees as well as CFIA Operations staff to better prepare for implementation.

Regulatory cooperation

Canada’s Traceability Industry-Government Advisory Committee (IGAC) was established in September 2006 to guide the development of a national livestock traceability system. The Committee consists of official representatives from each of the national industry associations, traceability service providers, provincial and territorial departments of Agriculture, the CFIA and AAFC. Under the aegis of IGAC, performance targets for traceability systems have been agreed to in principle.

The targets consist of the following: within 48 hours of the relevant chief veterinary officer or competent authority being notified of an actual safety issue or natural disaster or in the prevention or preparedness of such issue, it must be possible to

These performance targets are in line with standards and guidelines developed by the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) and the World Organization for Animal Health (OIE). These amendments will put the CFIA in a better position to be able to meet these targets. These amendments are also compatible with the pig traceability regulations adopted by the Alberta government in 2011.

Implementation, enforcement and service standards

These Regulations will come into force on July 1, 2014, with the exception of subsection 3(4), the definition of which will come into force on July 1, 2015, thereby including wild boars as pigs and also regulating them under these amendments.

A central database which will receive the pig traceability information has been developed. An administrator will be appointed subject to the amendments and will be required to collect, manage and protect the information to be reported, in compliance with the Privacy Act. In order to facilitate implementation of the data collection process for this program, it is anticipated that software already used by pork producers will be modified to support the new regulatory requirements and, in addition, new data reporting tools will be developed and made available. A communications campaign and support will be provided to move the regulated parties from voluntary to mandatory compliance.

Implementation of these activities to meet the requirements of these amendments will be financially supported through the FPT policy frameworks, such as Growing Forward II (funding was provided under Growing Forward), and contributions from the pork sector.

In order to monitor compliance with these amendments, CFIA inspectors will expand their current activities by conducting on-site inspections and review of on-site records and the information recorded in the traceability database. Automated data quality controls will also be built into the database to support inspection activities.

CFIA resources already dedicated to compliance verification for cattle, sheep and bison traceability requirements will be used to verify compliance for the pig traceability program. Training on the new regulatory requirements for pig traceability will be provided to inspectors.

After these Regulations come into force, producer education will be the key objective for a period of time.

Performance measurement and evaluation

Measuring the performance of regulatory activities to ensure they continually meet their initial objectives is an important responsibility for the CFIA. With respect to these Regulations, the evaluation and reporting of performance will take place via assessment activities performed for the Livestock Identification and Traceability Program developed under Part XV of the Health of Animals Regulations. This section outlines the summary of the PMEP and assessments required to track performance of these Regulations.

A detailed PMEP has been developed for the amendments and is available from the CFIA (trace@inspection.gc.ca). The PMEP conforms to Treasury Board directives and includes a comprehensive logic model and key performance indicators (KPIs) for the amendments.

Performance of these Regulations will be measured through these KPIs that reflect the activities to be conducted and outcomes anticipated to be achieved by the government and regulated parties. These indicators will be evaluated on a scheduled basis to assess whether the anticipated outcomes have been achieved.

A full logic model for this regulatory package will serve to track the implementation performance of the amendments. The following four key activities will result in the successful implementation of the pig identification system:

The PMEP intermediate outcomes for the amendments include

In consultation with the CFIA’s Corporate Management Branch, the PMEP outcomes link to the CFIA performance activity architecture in the following expected results:

The amendments contribute to the strategic outcome of the Agency: “a safe and accessible food supply and plant and animal resource base.” The amendments also contribute to the Government of Canada’s strategic objectives:

The CFIA’s Livestock Identification and Traceability Program will be considered for evaluation as part of the CFIA’s risk-based evaluation planning. The national cattle, bison and sheep (currently in place under Part XV of the Health of Animals Regulations) and pig components of the Livestock Identification and Traceability Program will be the subject of the evaluation scheduled in 2015. The evaluation framework will be developed by the CFIA’s Audit and Evaluation Directorate. In accordance with the Treasury Board Policy on Evaluation, the following five key issues will be addressed:

Relevance
Performance

Contact

Eric Aubin, MSc
National Manager of Animal Identification Programs
Traceability Group
Program Policy Integration Division
Canadian Food Inspection Agency
1400 Merivale Road
Ottawa, Ontario
K1A 0Y9
Telephone: 613-773-6173
Fax: 613-773-5959
Email: trace@inspection.gc.ca

Small Business Lens Checklist

1. Name of the sponsoring regulatory organization:

Canadian Food Inspection Agency

2. Title of the regulatory proposal:

Regulations Amending the Health of Animals Regulations

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

Checkbox Canada Gazette, Part I   Checked checkbox Canada Gazette, Part II

A. Small business regulatory design

I

Communication and transparency

Yes

No

N/A

1.

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

 Checked checkbox Checkbox Checkbox

2.

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

 Checked checkbox Checkbox Checkbox

3.

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

 Checked checkbox Checkbox Checkbox

4.

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

 Checked checkbox Checkbox Checkbox

II

Simplification and streamlining

Yes

No

N/A

1.

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

 Checked checkbox Checkbox Checkbox

The small business lens does not apply because costs to small business are insignificant.

2.

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

 Checked checkbox Checkbox Checkbox

3.

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

 Checked checkbox Checkbox Checkbox

4.

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

 Checkbox Checkbox Checked checkbox

No data or information will be required.

5.

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

 Checked checkbox Checkbox Checkbox

No data or information will be required.

6.

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

 Checked checkbox Checkbox Checkbox

No data or information will be collected.

7.

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

 Checked checkbox Checkbox Checkbox

No reporting will be required by these Regulations.

8.

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

 Checked checkbox Checkbox Checkbox

No additional forms will be required.

III

Implementation, compliance and service standards

Yes

No

N/A

1.

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

 Checked checkbox Checkbox Checkbox

2.

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

 Checkbox Checkbox Checked checkbox

Does not require issuance of authorizations.

3.

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

 Checked checkbox Checkbox Checkbox

B. Regulatory flexibility analysis and reverse onus

IV

Regulatory flexibility analysis

Yes

No

N/A

1.

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

Examples of flexible options to minimize costs are as follows:

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

The small business lens does not apply because costs to small business are insignificant.

2.

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

  • Use the Regulatory Cost Calculator to quantify and monetize administrative and compliance costs and include the completed calculator in your submission to TBS-RAS.
 Checked checkbox Checkbox Checkbox

The small business lens does not apply because costs to small business are insignificant.

3.

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

 Checked checkbox Checkbox Checkbox

The small business lens does not apply because costs to small business are insignificant.

4.

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

 Checked checkbox Checkbox Checkbox

The small business lens does not apply because costs to small business are insignificant.

V

Reverse onus

Yes

No

N/A

1.

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

 Checkbox Checkbox Checked checkbox

The small business lens does not apply because costs to small business are insignificant.