Manitoba Beef Producers Statement on CFIA Traceability Regulations Proposal
Manitoba Beef Producers (MBP) does not support the Canadian Food Inspection Agency’s (CFIA) proposed changes to traceability regulations.
MBP supports the use of a livestock traceability system that strengthens animal health, protects market access, and reinforces confidence in Canadian beef. However, MBP’s board and membership have concerns with the proposed changes. MBP welcomes the opportunity for meaningful beef industry consultation with various levels of government related to our current traceability system and areas where adjustments may need to be considered.
MBP is calling for an industry-led, risk-based approach that builds on existing industry systems, reduces duplication, and keeps reporting requirements as streamlined and passive as possible.
“Any traceability system must improve disease response capacity while remaining practical and cost-conscious,” said Arvid Nottveit, President of MBP. “We’re committed to work collaboratively to design a framework that strengthens traceability without compounding red tape for the beef industry. It is also essential there is sectoral trust and confidence in the system.”
Enhanced traceability must improve outcomes without imposing unnecessary regulatory burden. MBP is not approaching this from a position of automatic opposition or automatic endorsement. We are approaching it from a position of practicality, recognizing the many variables involved in traceability across the beef value chain. MBP will continue to advocate for a balanced approach that reflects producer perspectives while achieving national animal health objectives.
MBP’s position is informed by:
- Risk-Based and Outcome-Focused
Enhancements to traceability must address the areas of greatest disease and biosecurity risk. Regulatory measures should be proportionate to risk and be shown to improve Canada’s emergency response capacity. If the traceability system is to be enhanced, it should target the highest disease and biosecurity risks.
The system should focus on improving response to major disease threats — not add reporting for low-risk activities that provide minimal benefit. MBP does not support adding reporting requirements that don’t clearly improve disease response or address the greatest risk.
- Integration and/or complementarity with existing systems
Canada’s cattle sector has established infrastructure that contributes significantly to traceability and animal movement reporting (e.g. livestock inspection, transport manifests, use of herd management software, premises identification, etc.).
Regulators should work collaboratively with industry to:
- Identify existing systems/mechanisms that contribute to traceability objectives
- Promote integration and compatibility of existing systems/tools
- Avoid duplication in reporting requirements and not add undue costs
- Improve efficiency, simplicity, and data quality
- Engage in meaningful two-way dialogue with value chain members throughout all stages of any proposed regulatory changes to help ensure beef industry insights and concerns are heard and taken into account, helping to address concerns around trust.
- Protection of competitiveness and commerce
Any traceability framework must not impede the efficient movement of cattle within and between provinces and international trading partners. Maintaining the speed of commerce is essential to industry competitiveness and animal welfare. - Practical Implementation
Any requirements must reflect the operational realities of primary producers, including rural connectivity limitations, infrastructure variability, and cost considerations. Administrative burden should be minimized, and reporting mechanisms should be streamlined respecting producer time.
The best traceability system is one that addresses the greatest risk while capturing information automatically/passively where possible and minimizing or eliminating active reporting requirements at the farm level.
- Cost considerations
Enhanced traceability must be economically realistic. Producers cannot absorb open-ended compliance costs. Implementation must be practical and economically realistic.
Our commitment to our membership
MBP will:
- Advocate for a risk-based, evidence-driven approach
- Push back against unnecessary duplication
- Defend the speed of commerce
- Ensure producer voices are reflected in discussions
We will not support a framework that adds burden without measurable benefit.
Producer input is essential as this process continues. We encourage members to share specific concerns, operational realities, and practical suggestions so we can bring concrete examples to the table.
Any traceability must work on paper — and in real life.
MBP remains committed to ensuring it does both.
What we’re hearing from our members
We hear and understand concerns about:
- More paperwork and reporting
- Slower cattle movement through auction marts and direct sales
- Technology requirements that don’t work in rural Manitoba
- Increased costs
- Government duplicating information already captured elsewhere
- How data is collected and managed, including privacy considerations
- The prospect of steep fines or other penalties for not meeting reporting deadlines
- The lack of trust in government processes and the need to rebuild confidence in this area.
Those concerns are legitimate — and they are guiding our advocacy.
– March 3, 2026