The expanded traceability regulations recently proposed by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency is something that Jeff Yorga (President of the Saskatchewan Stock Growers Association) says that the agency has been trying to herd livestock producers towards for years.
“Twenty years ago, the CFIA told us what they were going to do,” says Yorga. “They said that they wanted Electronic Identification tags in all cattle so that they could track every step that each animal takes. At the time, producers said that this was ridiculous. We couldn’t do it, because we didn’t have the infrastructure to process that kind of paperwork and it was completely unnecessary. But the response we got was ‘you have to put the tags in, and we’ll work on setting up the reporting part of it’.
“Well, the bureaucracy that was in place 20 years ago is still there,” Yorga adds, “and they still want to do exactly the same thing.”
Yorga explains that traceability rests on EID tags that producers are already using.
“Producers are expected to put EID tags into all their animals and tag every calf soon after it is born, so it’s expected that every animal will carry that EID tag throughout its lifetime.”
Under the expanded traceability regulations, producers (no matter whether they own five, 50 or 500 head of cattle) would now be responsible for reporting the movement of every animal on or off their farm, within seven days of that movement taking place.
The type of data that producers would be required to report includes the Property Identification number assigned to their farm, the PID number assigned to the location that the animal(s) arrive from or depart to, the date which the movement took place, the EID tag number of each animal moved and the license plate number of the vehicle that transported the animals. And the cost for the technology and time needed to collect and report this data rests with the producer.
This reporting would be required every time animals are moved to other locations including, whenever animals are sold, arrive on the farm after being purchased, taken to (and return from) various locations such as a veterinarian, community pasture or an agricultural show, or are sent to an abattoir.
These expanded traceability regulations were scheduled to be published in early 2026 and implemented gradually, with the goal of having them in place by 2027.
However, in a recent statement, the CFIA says that because of “public discussion” about these regulations, the agency will “pause any publication of the regulations until the proposed changes are more widely understood and concerns are heard and taken into consideration”.
Yorga is not optimistic that this is anything more than a temporary reprieve.
“The CFIA says in their statement that they’re going to pause it. They aren’t scraping it and they’re not revamping it,” he observes. “This will slow the timeline down, but it won’t change the result. The last paragraph in their statement starts with the words ‘when the amendments are published’ not ‘if’ they are published. The CFIA is still marching forward with what they want, they’re just pausing it for now.”
Nor is he convinced that producers’ concerns will be taken seriously.
“If you tell me what you want to do – and I give you reasons why you shouldn’t do it – but you go ahead and do it anyway – is that a meaningful consultation? The CFIA can listen to producers explain their concerns, hour after hour. But if the intention is to continue what they want to do anyway, no matter what they hear, then they are just ticking a box”.
According to the CFIA, these expanded regulations are necessary to “strengthen Canada’s livestock traceability system” and the agency maintains that this “supports effective response to disease events, minimizes economic disruption and helps Canadian producers and processors remain competitive at home and abroad, while supporting long-term economic stability for businesses.”
Yorga says that this is something producers have heard before.
“This is sold to producers as a way to improve trade deals. Yet I’ve never heard of a trade deal that hinged on our ability to increase traceability. At the same time, this is sold as a way to prevent disease outbreaks. But a tag isn’t going to do anything to change our trade status if there is a disease outbreak, the border will be closed and beef will not move. Producers were sold the benefits of traceability years ago. It hasn’t come to fruition. Increasing the level of traceability isn’t going to add any value to what we’re doing now.”
Yet he points out that producers are being burdened with the responsibility and expense of expanded regulations that they see no benefit from.
“All they’ve done is shift the burden and cost for this onto the producers, who don’t have the time, money or ability to track EID tags and report the information to the CFIA by the deadline. Producers who spend days moving their cattle to get them to the right place will now have to spend hours on a computer telling the government that they did it. We’re also paying all the cost to do this and seeing none of the ‘up’ side to doing it. This doesn’t change anything about what the CFIA or the government does in their day-to-day work. It just adds another layer of bureaucracy to our business.”
Moreover, Yorga points out that the consequences of not complying with these regulations are not known.
“If somebody sitting in an office somewhere is able to pull my record at any time and ask me where all my cattle are – and for whatever reason I can’t produce the result they want – what happens then? Enforcement is a huge grey area, and that leaves producers in a very vulnerable situation.”
Ultimately, Yorga says that pushing ahead with these expanded traceability regulations could significantly impact the future of the livestock industry.
“I foresee this causing further consolation and exiting from the industry. Producers aren’t going to stick around for this, especially older ones. As soon as there is a fine or some other enforcement action taken, people are just going to exit. And a young person who might have wanted to get into the industry won’t do it, because they can’t afford to take that risk.
“The big picture is that this is unnecessary regulatory red tape. and we have to ask, why are we doing this? Because the promised benefit from where we stand, is far less than the cost, the burden, and the potential risk.”
For more stories like this, subscribe to a Grasslands News publication in your area by clicking here.
