ARCHIVED — Vol. 146, No. 14 — April 7, 2012

Regulations Amending the Meat Inspection Regulations, 1990

Statutory authority

Meat Inspection Act

Sponsoring agency

Canadian Food Inspection Agency

REGULATORY IMPACT ANALYSIS STATEMENT

(This statement is not part of the Regulations.)

Executive summary

Issue: Most of the non-federally registered establishments involved in the slaughter of food animals and in the processing, packaging, labelling, refrigeration, freezing and storage of meat products in Canada are small- or medium-sized businesses that operate locally and have limited production capacity and/or limited financial means to pursue federal registration, which is required to trade meat and/or meat products interprovincially or internationally, and, correspondingly, fulfill the requirements of the Meat Inspection Regulations, 1990 (MIR). For these establishments, becoming federally registered is expensive, with costs varying greatly from establishment to establishment in relation to the volume and nature of product.

In July 2011, federal, provincial and territorial Ministers (FPT Ministers) of agriculture committed to streamlining and simplifying requirements (e.g. replacing prescriptive requirements and/or criteria with more outcome-based requirements) for all existing federally registered establishments as well as future applicants for federal registration while maintaining Canada’s high federal food safety standards. In conjunction with the Regulations Amending the Meat Inspection Regulations, 1990 published on November 9, 2011, in the Canada Gazette, Part Ⅱ, these proposed amendments will assist in honouring this commitment.

Description: These proposed amendments would repeal certain redundant requirements (e.g. the requirement concerning the registration of materials used in packaging or labelling of meat products), convert prescriptive requirements, where possible, to outcome-based requirements (e.g. for the separation of incompatible activities, such as the handling of edible and inedible products), increase alignment of regulations and policies with Canada’s major trading partners, and allow greater flexibility in the types of activities that can be carried out within a federally registered establishment (e.g. dressing game carcasses).

Cost-benefit statement: It is anticipated that these amendments would have a low economic impact and that only a small number of establishments would seek to apply for federal registration following implementation of the proposed amendments. More detailed information can be found in the section titled “Benefits and costs.”

Business and consumer impacts: In general, the proposed amendments would provide greater flexibility to federally registered establishments in how they may meet regulatory requirements while removing some redundant requirements, and would allow industry stakeholders to focus more of their attention on critically important food safety requirements. The proposed amendments will not modify food safety standards.

Domestic and international coordination and cooperation: The proposed amendment to paragraph 3(5)(b) of the Regulations would increase alignment with the regulations and policies of the United States.

Issue

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

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

For several years, federal, provincial and territorial Ministers (FPT Ministers) of agriculture have been seeking ways to eliminate potential barriers to interprovincial trade. In July 2011, the FPT Ministers of agriculture made a commitment to advance efforts to simplify requirements for establishments involved in the slaughter and the processing or packaging of meat products traded interprovincially, while maintaining food safety standards. Additional information regarding this commitment can be viewed at the following Web site: www4.agr.gc.ca/AAFC-AAC/display-afficher.do?id=1309901575227&lang=eng.

Objectives

The objective of this regulatory action is to

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

Description

The majority of the regulatory amendments proposed herein are substantive in nature and constitute modifications to the existing Meat Inspection Regulations, 1990.

Specifically, the amendments contained in this regulatory proposal would implement the following measures.

(1) Repeal of certain redundant requirements

Currently, establishments that are federally registered under the Meat Inspection Act (federally registered) face two sets of regulatory requirements for the materials used in packaging or labelling a meat product. One set of requirements is set out in the Meat Inspection Regulations, 1990 (MIR), administered by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA), and the other set of requirements is set out in the Food and Drug Regulations (FDR), in Division 23, as administered by Health Canada (HC) and enforced by the CFIA. The first requirement of subsection 92(2) of the MIR is that the packaging materials must meet the requirements of the FDR. Paragraph 92(2)(b) imposes two additional requirements: that the materials must be suitable for the purpose for which they are to be used and be registered by the Director in a register kept for that purpose. This regulatory proposal would remove the requirement that the material be registered. It is important to note that for food safety and health reasons, the key requirements related to safe packaging and labelling would remain, and all materials used in packaging or labelling meat products in a registered establishment would continue to be required to be durable, effective and suitable for their intended purpose.

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

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

The meat industry would still be able to verify the acceptability, if necessary, of construction materials and non-food chemicals used by utilizing the service Health Canada currently provides, without the CFIA acting as intermediary. The repeal of this section would be tied to the repeal of the registration provision for packaging materials outlined in paragraph 92(2)(b) of the MIR in that the administrative steps taken by the CFIA and the subsequent in-depth evaluation process by Health Canada are part of the same overall process.

Registration of packaging and labelling materials based on paragraph 92(2)(b) of the MIR has been identified as an irritant under the Red Tape Reduction initiative. As a result, the Government of Canada’s Recommendations Report — Cutting Red Tape… Freeing Business to Grow (see footnote 1) recommends that the CFIA undertake system improvements through streamlining approvals in certain areas, including meat packaging (www.reduceredtape.gc.ca/heard-entendu/rr/rr10-eng.asp). The proposed amendment to paragraph 92(2)(b) and the repeal of section 35 would, therefore, assist the CFIA in responding to this recommendation.

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

Currently, paragraph 28(1)(i) of the Regulations requires that incompatible activities, such as the handling of edible and inedible products, be separated within a registered establishment in separate rooms. The proposed amendment would move to a less prescriptive solution by simply requiring that the construction of the establishment allow enough space to have incompatible activities sufficiently separated to allow for food safety and the hygienic performance of all activities. The current requirement does not represent currently accepted best practices and trends used in controlling risks associated with different activities taking place in an establishment. The proposed amendment would also more fully align Canada’s requirements with Codex Alimentarius (international guidelines for all, including Canada’s major trading partners).

This proposed amendment would assist the CFIA in responding to a Red Tape Reduction irritant outlined by stakeholders, notably that federal regulations and programs are not evolving at the same pace as industry needs and practices, thus impacting the ability to compete in both domestic and international markets. As a result, the Government of Canada’s Recommendations Report on Cutting Red Tape recommends that the CFIA improve transparency and predictability, and adjust to changing industry practices, by pursuing regulatory improvements in several areas, including meat hygiene (www.reduceredtape.gc.ca/heard-entendu/rr/rr10-eng.asp).

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

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

Currently, the MIR do not allow the slaughter of animals other than in a registered establishment except in the case of muskox, caribou and reindeer, which are covered by a game animal inspection system. It is proposed to amend the MIR to allow into registered establishments carcasses from food animals slaughtered elsewhere than in a registered establishment following a detailed ante-mortem examination performed by a private veterinary practitioner (wherein the animal is deemed fit to be slaughtered for food). This would be allowed in cases where the animal could not be transported without endangering its safety or the safety of any people or where the animal was injured and could not be transported without contravening the transport-related provisions of the Health of Animal Regulations. Such an amendment would be extremely useful for industry in a number of situations, such as when injured animals cannot be transported alive for welfare reasons; or when animals are dangerous, aggressive or difficult to handle and cannot be transported.

The proposed amendments would also clarify existing provisions that allow carcasses of muskox, caribou and reindeer, covered by a game animal inspection system, entry into federally registered establishments.

As well, the proposed amendments would allow carcasses of game animals, currently not covered by an inspection system established for the purposes of the MIR, to be cut and boned inside a federally registered establishment only for private use by the owner of the carcass (the hunter). It would be necessary to ensure that these activities are separate from usual activities occurring in federally registered establishments.

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

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

Regulatory and non-regulatory options considered

Option one — No change, maintain status quo

The current MIR registration requirement is considered redundant for materials used in packaging or labelling of meat products. This constitutes an ongoing irritant to the sector.

The prescriptive MIR provision pertaining to the permanent physical separation of incompatible activities no longer reflects accepted best practices and trends used in the control of risks associated with different activities taking place in an establishment. It also does not appropriately align with international guidelines (Codex Alimentarius).

The current MIR do not allow the processing of animals slaughtered elsewhere than in a registered establishment; therefore, they do not respond to current sector needs in a number of situations such as when an animal cannot be transported without endangering its safety or the safety of any people or when the animal is injured and cannot be transported without contravening the transport-related provisions of the Health of Animal Regulations. The MIR also do not currently allow the carcasses of some game animals to be cut and boned inside a federally registered establishment, thereby presenting a challenge to hunters wishing to have their game carcasses dressed in a federally registered establishment.

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

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

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

Benefits and costs

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

There are currently approximately 4 000 facilities manufacturing meat that are not federally registered. However, only about 15–20 plants seek to become federally registered per year. While it is hoped that this number would increase as a result of the proposed modifications to the MIR, costs associated with access to federal registration, even under the more flexible rules, remain high. It is estimated that the specific changes relating to incompatibility of operations will help businesses seeking to retrofit/upgrade their existing facility to federal requirements save approximately $50,000 per facility. However, other costs required for upgrades seem to be in the neighbourhood of approximately $500,000–$1 million per plant (even with the added flexibility). Additionally, federally registered plants would have to carry operating costs to maintain hazard analysis and critical control points (HACCP) systems and pay inspection fees. Given the small volumes these plants produce, estimates suggest that only a small number of facilities would seek to take advantage of the more flexible regime, such that the additional number of annual applicants to the federal system would be no more than 5–10 per year (in addition to the baseline group of 15–20).

From a small business perspective, it is anticipated that the proposed amendments, in particular paragraph 28(1)(i) that deals with separation of incompatible activities, could result in a small reduction of burden related to the costs of new construction for plants with smaller production volumes, in certain cases by as much as $20,000.

In regards to the proposed repeal of MIR section 35 for the evaluation of chemicals and materials, the reduced administrative burden (filling out paperwork and providing information) would apply to all federally registered establishments. However, smaller operators should have a comparatively greater benefit based on their higher administrative costs. In addition, moving from a mandatory to a voluntary approach, as is used with other commodities besides meat, may save thousands of dollars from not having to fill out as much as 20 data fields on the form currently used to evaluate construction materials and non-food chemicals.

The amendment to paragraph 3(5)(b) [Inspector certifies U.S. exports in lieu of veterinarian], would only impact operations in the United States. Small business in Canada would, therefore, not be impacted by this change.

Finally, in regards to the proposed repeal of paragraph 92(2)(b) [Registration of Packaging or Labelling Materials], industry may experience some savings due to no longer having to apply for the registration of materials.

A more thorough analysis concerning the reduction of the administrative burden on small businesses will be undertaken prior to publication of the final Regulations in the Canada Gazette, Part Ⅱ.

Rationale

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

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

It is anticipated that these amendments would have a low economic impact. This is, therefore, the chosen approach.

Consultation

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

In addition, the CFIA consulted with Health Canada on the proposed amendments related to the repeal of section 35 and paragraph 92(2)(b). Health Canada supports the proposed amendments.

Implementation, enforcement and service standards

Other than some supportive policy work and training, there will be no substantive change to current compliance and enforcement strategies as a result of these amendments.

Contacts

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

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

PROPOSED REGULATORY TEXT

Notice is hereby given that the Governor in Council, pursuant to section 20 (see footnote a) of the Meat Inspection Act (see footnote b), proposes to make the annexed Regulations Amending the Meat Inspection Regulations, 1990.

Interested persons may make representations concerning the proposed Regulations within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. All such representations must cite the Canada Gazette, Part Ⅰ, and the date of publication of this notice, and be addressed to Dr. Richard K. Arsenault, Director, Meat Programs Division, Canadian Food Inspection Agency, (tel.: 613-773-6156; fax: 613-773-6281; email: FPTPilotProjectInquiries-QuestionsProjetPiloteFPT@inspection.gc.ca).

Ottawa, March 29, 2012

JURICA ČAPKUN
Assistant Clerk of the Privy Council

REGULATIONS AMENDING THE MEAT INSPECTION REGULATIONS, 1990

AMENDMENTS

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

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

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

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

“inspection” includes

  1. (a) in respect of an animal, product or other thing, the examination of a sample from a shipment or other collection of animals, products or other things,

  2. (b) in respect of a process, the verification or monitoring of the process, and

  3. (c) in respect of an animal, the examination of the animal information document in respect of the animal or the shipment of animals that includes the animal; (inspection)

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

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

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

“animal information document” means a document referred to in subsection 66(1); (document d’information sur l’animal)

“examination by a veterinary practitioner” means, in respect of a food animal that is slaughtered elsewhere than in a registered establishment, the examination of the animal by a veterinary practitioner before it is slaughtered; (examen par un médecin vétérinaire praticien)

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

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

“veterinary practitioner” means a veterinarian who is licensed to practice veterinary medicine in the province in which a food animal that is to be slaughtered is located and whose practice includes animals of that species; (médecin vétérinaire praticien)

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

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

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

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

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

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

  1. (a) the food animal from which the meat product is derived was subjected to an ante-mortem examination, an examination by a veterinary practitioner or an ante-mortem inspection, as the case may be, and slaughtered in accordance with these Regulations; and

(2) Paragraph 9(2)(a) of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

  1. (a) the food animal from which the carcass is derived was subjected to an ante-mortem examination, an examination by a veterinary practitioner or an ante-mortem inspection, as the case may be, and slaughtered in accordance with these Regulations;

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

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

  1. (a) the meat product was produced under an inspection system established for the purposes of these Regulations;

  2. (b) the carcass from which the meat product is derived is dressed and subjected to a post-mortem inspection, in accordance with these Regulations; and

  3. (c) the meat product conforms to the applicable standards prescribed by these Regulations and the Food and Drug Regulations.

4. Subparagraph 28(1)(i) of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

  1. (i) be designed and constructed to provide adequate working space to accommodate the separation of activities that are incompatible for food safety and hygiene reasons;

5. Section 35 of the Regulations is repealed.

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

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

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

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

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

  1. (iv) is the carcass of a food animal that was subjected to an examination by a veterinary practitioner, that was slaughtered in accordance with Part III, and, that

    1. (A) could not be transported to a registered establishment without endangering the safety of the animal or any person, or

    2. (B) was injured and because of its injuries it would be in contravention of the provisions of the Health of Animals Regulations relating to the transportation of animals to transport it to a registered establishment; or

  2. (v) is derived from a game animal referred to in subsection 44.1(1); or

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  1. (a) the species of game animal from which the meat product is derived; and

  2. (b) the name of the person from whom the meat product was received.

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

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

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

66. (1) Subject to subsection (4), an equine animal and a bird, other than an ostrich, rhea and emu, may be presented for slaughter in a registered establishment or the carcass of a food animal that is a meat product referred to in subparagraph 44(1)(a)(iv) may be admitted to a registered establishment only if the operator has been provided with a completed animal information document in respect of the animal or carcass by the owner or producer of the animal, or their authorized representative.

(2) The animal information document must include

  1. (a) the name and contact information of the owner or producer of the animal;

  2. (b) the identification of the last location at which the animal was raised or kept before being sent to slaughter or, in the case of the carcass of an animal, before the animal was slaughtered, by specifying the address of the location or a code or number that identifies the location;

  3. (c) the identification number of each animal or carcass, or other information that identifies it;

  4. (d) in the case of an equine animal or the carcass of an equine animal, the name of any on-farm food safety program in which the owner or producer participates;

  5. (e) a description of any physical or chemical hazard with respect to the animal or carcass of which the owner or producer is aware;

  6. (f) in the case of birds, other than ostriches, rheas and emus, the time at which the catching of the birds to be loaded started, the last time that the birds had access to water before loading and the last time at which the birds were fed before loading the birds in the transport containers;

  7. (g) in the case of an equine animal or the carcass of an equine animal, for the last 180 days of the life of the animal,

    1. (i) the name of any disease or syndrome that was diagnosed or a description of the clinical signs of any illness or deviation from normal behaviour or appearance,

    2. (ii) the names of the drugs and vaccines administered, as well as their Drug Identification Numbers, if any, their route of administration, the last date of their administration and the dosage administered and either the withdrawal period or, in the case of extra label drug use, a copy of the prescription issued by a veterinarian together with a document attesting to the withdrawal period determined by a competent person or body respecting this use, and

    3. (iii) any use of the animal;

  8. (h) in the case of birds, other than ostriches, rheas and emus, for the last 120 days of the life of a bird that has been used for breeding or for the life of any other bird,

    1. (i) the mortality rate for the flock, the name of any disease or syndrome that was diagnosed in the flock and the date on which the flock recovered from the disease or syndrome, and

    2. (ii) the names of the drugs used to treat a disease or syndrome and vaccines administered and the name of any drug used extra label for a purpose other than to treat a disease or syndrome, their route of administration, the first and last date of their administration and the dosage administered and either the withdrawal period or, in the case of extra label drug use, a copy of the prescription issued by a veterinarian together with a document attesting to the withdrawal period determined by a competent person or body respecting this use,
  9. (i) in the case of birds, other than ostriches, rheas and emus, in addition to the information referred to in paragraph (h), the name of any drug requiring a withdrawal period that has been used in the last 14 days;

  10. (j) in the case of a food animal, other than an equine animal, whose carcass is a meat product referred to in subparagraph 44(1)(a)(iv), for the last 60 days of life of the animal,

    1. (i) the name of any disease or syndrome that was diagnosed or a description of the clinical signs of any illness or deviation from normal behaviour or appearance,

    2. (ii) the names of the drugs and vaccines administered, as well as their Drug Identification Numbers, if any, their route of administration, the last date of their administration and the dosage administered and either the withdrawal period or, in the case of extra label drug use, a copy of the prescription issued by a veterinarian together with a document attesting to the withdrawal period determined by a competent person or body respecting this use, and

    3. (iii) a declaration from the owner or producer as to whether or not they participate in an on-farm food safety program and the name of that program;
  11. (k) in the case of the carcass of a food animal that is a meat product referred to in subparagraph 44(1)(a)(iv), the following information, certified by a veterinary practitioner:

    1. (i) any deviation from the normal behaviour, condition or appearance of the animal,

    2. (ii) confirmation that the withdrawal period for any drug or vaccine administered to the animal has been respected,

    3. (iii) confirmation that the animal could not be transported to a registered establishment without endangering the safety of the animal or any person or that it was injured and because of its injuries it would be in contravention of the provisions of the Health of Animals Regulations relating to the transportation of animals to transport it to a registered establishment;

    4. (iv) the date and time of slaughter of the animal,

    5. (v) the method used to slaughter the animal,

    6. (vi) the identity of the carcass and the means by which the operator may verify the identity, and

    7. (vii) the name, contact information and licence number of the veterinary practitioner performing the examination.

(3) For every equine animal and every shipment of birds, other than ostriches, rheas and emus, that is slaughtered in a registered establishment, and for every carcass of a food animal that is a meat product referred to in subparagraph 44(1)(a)(iv) that is admitted to a registered establishment, the operator shall keep and retain, for a period of not less than one year beginning on the day on which the food animal is slaughtered or the carcass is admitted to the registered establishment, records that contain

  1. (a) the information required by subsection (2);

  2. (b) the date and time that the slaughter process began, if any;

  3. (c) the condition of the food animal or the carcass on their arrival, and in the case of a shipment of birds,

    1. (i) their average weight, and

    2. (ii) the number of birds found dead at the time the shipment was presented for slaughter; and

  4. (d) if the carcass or the food animal or its carcass was condemned, the reasons for condemnation.

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

  1. (a) holding the edible meat products derived from the food animal pending the reception of a completed animal information document; or

  2. (b) preparing animal food or other inedible meat products.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

12. The Regulations are amended by adding the following after section 67:

67.1 A carcass that is a meat product referred to in subparagraph 44(1)(a)(iv) shall not be admitted into an area of a registered establishment in which food animals are dressed unless

  1. (a) the carcass is the one identified in an animal identification document relating to it;

  2. (b) an inspector has been made aware of the arrival of the carcass at the registered establishment; and

  3. (c) the operator identifies the carcass as being held until the completion of a post-mortem examination or post-mortem inspection of the carcass.

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

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

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

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

COMING INTO FORCE

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

[14-1-o]

Footnote 1
Recommendations Report — Cutting Red Tape… Freeing Business to Grow, Red Tape Reduction Commission, Government of Canada, January 2012.

Footnote 2
SOR/90-288

Footnote a
S.C. 1993, c. 44, s. 184

Footnote b
R.S., c. 25 (1st Supp.)