Bill S-11 (Historical)

Safe Food for Canadians Act

An Act respecting food commodities, including their inspection, their safety, their labelling and advertising, their import, export and interprovincial trade, the establishment of standards for them, the registration or licensing of persons who perform certain activities related to them, the establishment of standards governing establishments where those activities are performed and the registration of establishments where those activities are performed

This enactment modernizes the regulatory system for food commodities.

Food Safety

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Canadian confidence in our food safety system was shaken this year as 18 Canadians were made ill by E. coli contaminated beef and we watched the largest beef recall in our history.

When I stood to ask this question of the minister at the end of September, XL Foods' establishment 38 in Brooks, Alberta had still not been shut down though the recall, which had been in place for 11 days, was still rapidly expanding. In the following days, the plant was shut down and remained closed for weeks, bringing our food safety system into disrepute, wreaking havoc on cattle ranchers, XL employees thrown out of work and the entire community of Brooks.

It was clear then and I still maintain that this was thoroughly avoidable if only the Conservative government would have implemented all of the recommendations of the Weatherill report, especially where she asks for a comprehensive third party resource audit of all CFIA resources, since it was never clear from different reports to her investigation which resources were available and where.

We had such an opportunity when considering Bill S-11, an act modernizing food safety in Canada. There was agreement on all sides of the House that the legislation was necessary but, sadly, the Conservatives refused to agree to a comprehensive independent CFIA resource audit.

It is very well and good to build a shiny new and modern food safety system but, just like a car, it cannot go far without trained drivers. We learned that the XL facility had 46 full-time CFIA staff, 40 inspectors and 6 veterinarians. However, we also learned that not all of them were trained on the compliance verification system, a task based inspection tool that is based on the CFIA's regulatory requirements that provides clear and consistent direction to CFIA inspectors, is capable of adapting to rapidly changing program requirements and can be applied to any inspection activity in any commodities inspection program.

Moreover, the plant processes 4,400 head of cattle a day and, despite repeated claims that there has been a gross increase in inspectors, nothing shows an increase at XL Foods as the volume of heads of cattle processed increased.

Canadians have expressed to me concern that the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food seems so singularly concentrated on trade that food safety, also his mandate, has become more of an encumbrance than a necessary backstop to our food processing industry. The minister's duties are in conflict with one another.

There has been some question as to whether it was the American food safety inspection service that caught the contamination first, or if regular and coincidental testing by the CFIA caught it simultaneously, but the tainted meat made it to the border before being stopped. Accordingly, the Americans, after testing subsequent shipments and finding further contamination, shut down the border to the plant and delisted it.

It took two weeks from initial discovery to initiate a recall. Not only that, but bracketing failed, contaminated meat hit store shelves, 18 Canadians got sick and the largest recall of beef in our history was forced. Those are facts. They are indisputable and, while members opposite may be quick to trivialize and dismiss them, they are indicative of a larger problem.

We learned only a week ago that the Canadian Food Inspection Agency issued instructions every year from 2008 instructing inspectors on a particular station at the very same facility to ignore visible ingesta, feces on carcasses, not destined for Japan. Only after it was brought to the attention of managers at the facility was this policy changed, just weeks ago.

Fecal matter on a carcass is a leading cause of E. coli contamination. It is a zero tolerance defect, which is to say that as soon as it is seen the line must be stopped and the contaminated section cut off, not just washed later down the line, which will only spread the contamination. Inspectors must remove the carcass from the line and yet, until weeks ago, they were deliberately instructed not to.

My question on food safety has evolved, along with the information we received over the past month, but is no less pertinent now than then. Does the government not agree that, while Bill S-11 was a good start, we need to take steps now to approve the administration of food safety in Canada, starting with a comprehensive, independent resource audit of the CFIA and then again every five years thereafter?

Strengthening Military Justice in the Defence of Canada Act

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we voted for Bill S-11, the food safety bill. My recommendation to my caucus was to vote for second reading and send it to committee to amend it because the government's sense was for us to bring it our ideas. That is exactly what I did. We voted to send it to committee.

It is not so much the process. It is about looking at individual legislation on the merits of the legislation. We do not vote because of a process; we vote on what the legislation is about. If the legislation in our view deserves to go to committee, then we will vote to do that. Bill S-11 is a prime example of that. That is exactly what we did, but then we found out what the process was, and it was “no”.

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to Bill C-15 in spite of my colleagues across the way, who think we should just shuffle it off and not hear from people and not get suggestions, but just send it to committee and somehow, magically, that committee would work differently than all the other ones we sit on.

I have had the pleasure of sitting on a couple of committees, and I will tell the following story, because it was not in camera. I will not tell the other stories, because they were in camera and we are not allowed to talk about what should and could have happened but did not happen in those cases.

I can tell the House about Bill S-11 at the agriculture committee, where the government said, “Here is an important bill on food safety”. The official opposition said the government was absolutely right, that in principle it was a good bill, a good foundation that we could build upon and make it better. My colleagues across the way, who I have heard all day, said that we should the current bill go committee and it will be fixed there.

I can say that my colleague, the member for Guelph, and I offered about 16 amendments in total to Bill S-11 to enhance that food safety bill. They would have strengthened it, by talking about an audit and whistle-blower protection and about when the clock would start to tick on a five-year review. My colleague and friend from Guelph said that we should start the clock when we enacted the bill, and not wait six months. It was a great suggestion.

The government, in its wisdom, debated the first four amendments, argued against them, but realized that its arguments were so full of holes that it stopped. Accordingly, on amendments 5 to 16, the government members listened to us and then said, “No, no”, and on and on it went until they were all done.

Now, what should we do with that? Should we trust them and suggest that we go to committee with our amendments, where somehow a “no” will become “We are thinking about it, maybe it looks like a good idea”? Of course, the end result will be “no”.

That is why we are debating the bill here in the House, because we want folks out there to know that there are good ideas, that there are things that need to be in this bill, because they were in it before. This is not new. This legislation did not just get dropped off the shelf a few months back.

Speaking of dropping off the shelf, I hear my colleagues across the way in the government saying how they need to get these things through. This bill was introduced by them last year. If it is so urgent, why was it not equally urgent last year when the government introduced it? The government waited a year to bring it forward and now complains that we want to debate it. I thought that folks elected us and sent us here to debate legislation. Call me naive if that is not what I was supposed to do when I got here.

Clearly, if I do not sit on that committee, my only opportunity to offer input on this bill is here in the House. That is the only opportunity to say, “Listen, we have some suggestions”.

What I find really ironic about this particular bill is that it is not its first incarnation. It was here before and amended. The other side actually accepted the amendments. Then magically, after an election, the government lost those amendments and forgot about them. Something happened on the way back to Ottawa after the election. All those good amendments fell off the bus somewhere. They are out there somewhere, never to be found.

That is really disappointing, because if they were good amendments then, they are good amendments now. Why not incorporate them? Why go through this charade of, “Come on, you approve it in principle, you want to do this, so let us get it off to committee”, only then not to make any changes, but bring it back and enact the legislation because you have the majority. We accept that fact. That is the will of democracy: You won the last election, you got a majority. That is fair.

Ultimately, do not expect the committee to accept amendments when the proof so far to date has been that you do not.

[Alex Atamanenko, NDP, British Columbia Southern Interior, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for his service in the armed forces, which was certainly much longer than mine.

In preparation for second reading of the bill, a lot of thought has gone into it by those people, our critic and others, who have followed it very closely. In my opinion, we do not take lightly opposing a bill when we think something should happen to better it.

I will speak from my personal experience. On Bill S-11, we said to the government that we would support the bill. We said that we thought it was a good way of strengthening the Food Safety Act and that we would do what we could to make it better. At committee, we had 11 amendments, the Liberals had 4 and lo and behold all of these well-thought-out amendments were rejected, one after another.

That kind of precedence does not leave positive feelings in those of us on this side to bring a bill such as this to committee—

[Gordon Harrison, President, Canadian National Millers Association]

Good morning. Thank you very much for this invitation to appear and discuss aspects of the supply chain.

The Canadian National Millers Association is a national industry association representing millers of wheat, rye, and oats, principally, with small quantities of other cereal grains processed and handled by our members.

You have one page, I believe, that was distributed. It is a schematic of the supply chain as we have portrayed it. Our perspective of the supply chain is what you have there, and I'll speak to it in a minute.

I think our key theme today is the importance of the evolving regulatory framework and how it affects the entire supply chain. Our domestic regulatory framework is what I'm speaking about principally, and much as Philip has talked about the influence of trade agreements and international trade factors, our members and the customer industries of our members—the further processing sectors—are being heavily influenced by regulatory influence outside of the country, in particular the European Commission regulations and those adopted by EU member states. I'm going to speak about that.

I would like to say at the outset that I think this committee would benefit from spending additional time talking about and studying the influence of regulation on the whole supply chain, because what we're experiencing in our community, which is captured by the membership of the Canada Grains Council and also by the Grains Innovation Roundtable , is that things that are happening right at retail level are trickling all the way back down the supply chain. That is the key theme and invitation that I would like to leave with the committee.

We see the supply chain as you see it on that schematic. We and our little logo, the Canadian National Millers Association, are right in the middle. We have inputs. We have producers, marketers, handlers, and transportation services. We consider and describe ourselves in our charter as being primary processors of cereal grains. We sell to further processors and food service organizations, and of course to retailers through various channels. That's the entire supply chain, which ends, of course, with the consumer.

In the case of the cereal grains supply chain, it's characterized by many grain producers. There are 325,000 farms in Canada producing field crops; 82,000 farms have their primary source of income in grain production, as opposed to other commodities. The total number of farms contributing to our supply chain is over 100,000.

In terms of grain production in Canada, we have 75 million tonnes of all crops combined. Our industry is national in scope, and cereal grains account for, historically, something close to 70% of all commodity production. Wheat and oats would together contribute more than 30 million tonnes of production.

Why do I touch on that? Well, cereal grain production is still a major contributor to farm income and a major export activity for producers in the whole supply chain.

When we think of the grain supply chain as we manage regulatory issues, we also think in terms of the infrastructure and what its implications are for meeting regulatory requirements as well as market requirements.

We have 600,000-plus storage bins on farms, and other storage structures as well. We actually have 300-plus country elevators in western Canada. In Ontario there are 264 licensed grain dealers, 337 elevators, seven terminal elevators, and five transfer elevators. As grain finds its way to us, we have 20,000 hopper cars in the fleet, and 150,000 trucks and bulk trailers. We have cereal grain deliveries to about 40 Canadian mills that exceed 90,000 in number annually.

Those are some numbers to indicate to you the complexity of the supply chain, particularly as that complexity is altered and affected by regulatory change and things we're trying to do differently at the far end of the supply chain, at retail level.

We have, therefore, a shared storage, handling, and transportation system, all the way up to the receiving pit of mills.

What I'd like to speak to briefly is the following. In the context of Canada and the United States being the principal markets, the North American market for the products produced by our member companies and to a great extent by the further processors--bakers, biscuit manufacturers, cereal, confectionery--we have what would amount to a regulatory disconnect between the Canada Grain Act and regulations and the Food and Drugs Act.

There has been a great deal of attention paid to Bill S-11—appropriately, as it is a very important piece of legislation, which we advocated and supported—but I think what is lost on most people is that in the case of our grain milling industry, the products produced from our industry and sold into other industries are being sold to industries that are in fact subject principally to the Food and Drugs Act and regulations. Therefore, while Bill S-11 is going along swimmingly and we're going to have a great deal of progress under the bill, we're going to be continually challenged by the provisions of the Food and Drugs Act.

I prepared a submission to this committee, as well as to the Senate committee on Bill S-11, highlighting the importance of a certain amendment to the Food and Drugs Act. I won't go there, but it is very important to note that we're subject to the Food and Drug Regulations. Those regulations are being driven by international regulations, including the European Union's. What we're proposing to do in Canada, which affects us and the whole grain supply chain, is out of step with what's going on in the United States.

That's very important. Phil talked about the importance of trade alignment and market access. We are increasingly moving out of step with the U.S. regulatory environment with the path that we are on with substances in grains.

I must emphasize that we really have to get regulation right. This has been our key message to Health Canada and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. These changes that are upon us have nothing to do with marketing regulations. These changes that are upon us and in process are profound, and they affect the whole supply chain. We have to get them right the first time, because we can't do them twice.

I think this committee would benefit from further study of some of those regulatory issues and their importance.

Thank you.

Food Safety

[Gerry Ritz, Conservative, Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and Minister for the Canadian Wheat Board]

Mr. Speaker, there are no cuts in our food safety system. If the NDP had its way, the hundreds of millions of dollars and hundreds of inspectors that we put in place since we formed government would never have happened. That is unfortunate.

We have a food safety system that is rated superior by international adjudicators, by audits from other countries around the world. We continue to build a robust food safety system. We just passed Bill S-11, which will give the CFIA more regulatory powers in a recall situation. We look forward to that.

[Gerry Ritz, Conservative, Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and Minister for the Canadian Wheat Board]

Mr. Speaker, those allegations are absolutely unfounded and untrue. My role as minister is to ensure that CFIA has the capacity from a regulatory standpoint. We just voted through Bill S-11, the safe food for Canadians act, adding to its regulatory powers and ensuring that it has the budgetary capacity and manpower to enforce those regulations.

[Paul Mayers]

Thank you very much.

Should we do better? Absolutely, and I think Bill S-11, the Safe Food for Canadians Act, represents an opportunity for continuous improvement in the system.

Does that mean that the system failed? No, I don't believe the system failed. With respect to XL Foods, the fact that this contaminated product was identified prior to any report of an illness is a demonstration of what we want in the system. We want to be able to move proactively in situations where Canadians may be exposed to contaminated food.

We recognize that as a raw product, meat will occasionally have bacteria. What we want is to minimize illness. In this situation, we recognize that the system was not perfect, because, as you note, some illnesses did occur. The fact that the system recognized there was contaminated product before any illness was identified and acted on it with a preventative, proactive recall before the illnesses emerged minimized the potential for broad expansion of harmful effects.

I am not going to ever suggest that we will achieve absolute perfection in preventing contaminated product from occurring. That is impossible for us to provide as an assurance. In fact, it is impossible for any regulatory institution in the world. None of my regulatory colleagues in any country would say that their system can provide that absolute assurance for raw product.

What we strive to do is minimize those occurrences. When they do occur, we take rapid action to minimize the exposure of consumers. We also make adjustments with regulated parties. We also administer consequences. The consequence for XL was significant: we suspended all of their operations because we couldn't get the proper assurances at the time. We then worked with them to build our assurance that they were indeed operating effectively and safely. We have since allowed them to return to the marketplace. That's the hallmark of an effective system, in my mind: it recognizes problems, it acts on them, and then it seeks a return to compliance as quickly as possible.

[Gerry Ritz, Conservative, Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and Minister for the Canadian Wheat Board]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have with me here today my deputy minister, Suzanne Vinet; George Da Pont, president of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency; Paul Mayers, associate vice-president of programs with the CFIA; and Greg Meredith, assistant deputy minister of strategic policy with the Department of Agriculture.

It's always good to be back at this table. I'd like to thank you for your continued hard work for the agricultural sector and the processing sector, and in particular for your thorough and timely deliberation on Bill S-11, the Safe Food for Canadians Act, which received royal assent last Thursday, and of course your recent comprehensive reports on the modernization of the Canada Grain Act on Growing Forward 2.

As you know, we continue to keep a busy agenda heading into the new year as we work to grow this core economic sector that drives jobs and growth in Canada.

Agriculture always has its challenges, but looking towards 2013 we are seeing some very positive indicators across the sectors.

While pork producers are coming off a difficult period, commodity prices overall are strong and are expected to remain well above historic levels for the next decade.

Exports are over 6% ahead of the pace from last year alone. That includes wheat exports, which are also up, as western grain farmers enjoy the freedom to market their wheat and barley in the best way that will drive their businesses forward. This also still includes the option of pooling their crop with the CWB, which is moving through the first year of its transition into the open market.

It's great to see that without the regulatory burden of the old single desk system, overall acreage in traditional wheat board grains is up, producer car usage remains strong, and farmers are moving their product in an efficient manner, as they are no longer held hostage by high demurrage and storage costs.

The Port of Thunder Bay has seen a 15% increase in wheat shipments compared to last year. The Port of Churchill has greatly diversified, attracting the business of more prairie grain companies. That is good news. Even grain elevators in Halifax say they are seeing an increase in tonnage, thanks to marketing freedom .

Suffice it to say, Mr. Chairman, that the doom and gloom scenario painted by those who opposed marketing freedom has not materialized. In fact, as I have just explained, we are seeing quite the opposite.

Another positive indicator in the farm economy is the farm balance sheet, with net worth up 5% this year over last, and a 30% increase over the past five years. Just this week we've learned that the realized net income for Canadian farmers in 2011 amounted to $5.7 billion. That's an increase of more than 50% over the year before, 2010, Mr. Chair.

Our shared challenge is to help keep this positive momentum going and to work with industry to stay ahead of emerging competition and take full advantage of growing opportunities at home and abroad.

Our government is helping to do this by continuing to drive market development with a strong trade agenda, by modernizing the legislative tools the sector needs to remain competitive, by reforming the regulatory framework to strengthen the sector's capacity to take advantage of market-based opportunities, and by shifting our focus to more transformative, proactive investments under Growing Forward 2.

Farmers continue to ask us to move beyond the status quo, and ministers certainly took that to heart with the new Growing Forward 2 agreement reached in Whitehorse early in September of this year.

By shifting the focus from reactive to more proactive investments in innovation, competitiveness, and market development, the new Growing Forward 2 agreement will give producers the tools they need to compete at home and abroad. It will also give them the tools they need to feed a growing global population that is demanding traditional and new food products as well as sustainable agricultural production practices.

Starting this coming April, Growing Forward 2 will invest more than $3 billion over the next five years, which represents an increase of 50% in cost-shared investments for strategic initiatives including innovation, competitiveness, and market development.

Governments will continue to offer generous ongoing support for a complete and effective suite of business risk management programs to ensure that farmers across Canada are protected against severe market volatility and unforeseen disasters.

Innovation continues to be a critical driver of market competitiveness, with payback of up to $46 for every dollar invested. That's why agricultural ministers from across Canada agreed to focus on industry-led research, building on our successful science clusters that are delivering collaborative solutions across a wide range of sectors. We want to ensure that we're investing in pertinent science, not just focusing on volume of research.

Our government was also pleased to announce the creation of the first of its kind Agri-Innovators' Committee. This dynamic committee is composed of successful innovators with a broad range of expertise and skills, representing most of the agricultural sectors from across Canada. I'm pleased to say it's holding its first meeting later today in Toronto. It will be an additional forum to help advise governments on what investments will generate the results and those needed and required by Canadian producers and processors to succeed in a global economy.

By focusing on research and innovation, we're making sure that taxpayers' dollars are producing real results that are most relevant to producers. A renewed focus on innovation will set us apart from the competition in world markets as well. Last year, Canada's agriculture, agrifood, and seafood exports reached a new record of more than $44 billion. Our farmers earn a major portion of their income from exports—up to 85% for some commodities, such as canola.

Of course, more exports mean more jobs for Canadians, more money for farmers, and stable, long-term growth for the Canadian economy. As a government we continue to open up new avenues for income across the entire sector by advancing free trade and investment agreements and working to overcome trade-restrictive measures and obstacles while promoting science-based approaches to trade.

Leading trade missions with industry to our key and emerging agrifood markets around the world is key. Our government has embarked on the most ambitious trade expansion plan in Canadian history. Some of the wins over the past year include restoring beef access to South Korea, for a potential market of $30 million by 2015; maintaining access for Canadian canola to China, a market worth on average $1.6 billion; and a successful WTO ruling against country-of-origin labelling in the United States that unfairly discriminated against our livestock producers.

If members would like more examples, I urge them to read the recently released annual market access report, which is up on the department's website. This government will continue to work closely with provinces, territories, and industry to open new export markets while continuing to strengthen and expand existing trade corridors.

Under Growing Forward 2, we're strengthening the Market Access Secretariat so that it can step up its efforts to increase industry engagement and advocacy for science-based international standards. Of course, we're continuing to advance free trade agreements as well. We've completed FTAs with nine countries over the past six years and we have a number of other FTAs in the hopper.

Key among these, of course, are the Canadian-European free trade agreement and the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which would open up a market to us of more than half a billion consumers and a GDP of nearly $18 trillion. A number of our key exporting sectors stand to benefit, including but not limited to the pork industry, which exports two-thirds of its production.

All the while, we continue to have a balanced trade position, which benefits all sectors, including supply management. This approach has served the overall Canadian economy well and will continue to do so into the future.

If our farmers and processors are to capture these new markets, they need a legislative framework that fosters innovation and growth in the agricultural sector while ensuring consumers' food safety is not compromised.

Our government is delivering this framework through a number of key pieces of legislation, including the Safe Food for Canadians Act, which, as I said at our last meeting, strengthens and modernizes our food safety system to make sure that it continues to provide safe food for Canadians, and amendments to the Canada Grain Act that will modernize and streamline our grain system while safeguarding quality and safety and removing excess costs to producers. There's no question that our government continues to ensure that Canada's farmers and food processors have the tools they need to drive new economic growth and compete in a growing global economy.

Of course, the new Growing Forward 2 envelope will include proactive investments in food safety. In fact, the estimates you have before you include more than $26 million for food safety under the current Growing Forward and the initiative for the control of diseases in the hog sector.

The CFIA has an approved budget of $315 million for food safety programs, and we will see additional investments from these supplementary estimates.

As you well know, Mr. Chair, through economic action plan 2012 our government is investing $51.2 million for the CFIA, the Public Health Agency of Canada, and Health Canada to strengthen Canada's food safety system overall. That's on top of $100 million over five years in Budget 2011 to modernize our food safety inspection.

Our record on food safety investment speaks for itself. Since we formed government, the overall budget of the CFIA has gone up by some 20%. We continue to make sure the CFIA has the ability, through our regulatory system, and the capacity, in terms of both budget and staffing, to protect the food of Canadian families.

In conclusion, Mr. Chair, our government will continue to build a strong agricultural industry in Canada by opening and expanding agricultural markets around the world, by giving industry the legislative tools it needs to compete in the 21st century, and by delivering proactive investments to help farmers and food processors meet consumers' demands for safe, innovative, high-quality foods.

Agriculture plays an important role in driving jobs and economic growth in Canada. With the ongoing support of our government, we remain confident that it will continue to do so.

Thank you. I look forward to your questions.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Order, please. I have the honour to inform the House that a communication has been received as follows:

Rideau Hall

Ottawa

November 22, 2012

Mr. Speaker,

I have the honour to inform you that the Right Honourable David Johnston, Governor General of Canada, signified royal assent by written declaration to the bills listed in the Schedule to this letter on the 22nd day of November, 2012, at 11:01 a.m.

Yours sincerely,

Stephen Wallace

Secretary to the Governor General and Herald Chancellor

The schedule indicates that the bills assented to were Bill S-201, An Act respecting a National Philanthropy Day, Chapter 23; and Bill S-11, An Act respecting food commodities, including their inspection, their safety, their labelling and advertising, their import, export and interprovincial trade, the establishment of standards for them, the registration or licensing of persons who perform certain activities related to them, the establishment of standards governing establishments where those activities are performed and the registration of establishments where those activities are performed, Chapter 24.

Safe Drinking Water for First Nations Act

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the members should calm down. They are cutting into my time. I know all the members, especially those on the other side, and especially the Minister of Foreign Affairs, are waiting with bated breath for my comments.

I thank my colleague from Timmins—James Bay for his heartfelt grounded intervention on behalf of his first nations constituents.

There are a number of members in the House who have first nations communities in their ridings. I know they stand with me, no matter what party they are in, in that it is time for us as a nation to stand up and look after their interests so they can be treated equably as all other Canadians. The member for Timmins—James Bay has been an incredible advocate for those constituents.

Bill S-8, the safe drinking water for first nations act, has been a long time in coming. Regrettably, it continues to be the policy of the government not to bring important legislation, in a timely manner, before the elected House. Instead, for the second time in a row, it tabled the bill first in the Senate.

Now the Conservatives are trying to object to the fact that we might actually want to propose changes to the bill, changes that have come to our attention by the first nations themselves. It is absolutely reprehensible. It shows a great disdain for Canadians who have chosen to elect us and send us to this place.

First, it is important to consider that the provision of safe drinking water for first nations is a federal responsibility. This is not a responsibility that the federal government can slough off to the provincial and territorial governments.

Second, no federal laws exist to regulate safe drinking water or waste water in first nations communities, so we have a complete vacuum. This is unlike the provinces and territories, where they have seen cause to step up to the plate and put in place regimes to protect those for whom they are responsible so they can live in the modern world.

Another appropriate starting point is to clarify the state of drinking water in first nations communities. The current update posted on the Health Canada website reports that as of October 31, 122 first nations communities across the country remain under a drinking water advisory. That means 122 first nations communities cannot go to the tap for a glass of water. It is absolutely reprehensible in the 21st century. That is 122 communities and countless numbers of aboriginal children, elders, people who risk illness from contaminated drinking water in 2012. It is simply unforgiveable.

It is not just me or my colleagues on this side of the House who say it is unforgiveable. In her final audit report in 2011, former Auditor General Sheila Fraser called for even deeper reforms to ensure that first nations on reserve were accorded the services comparable to other Canadians, including access to safe drinking water.

Mrs. Fraser identified that structural impediments to improve access to these basic services, which most other Canadians take for granted, must be resolved if we were to see real results. These include not only a legislative base or program, which is what the government has presumably put forward, but also clarified service levels, commensurate statutory funding, an end to the reliance on policy or contribution agreements and support to organizations that support service delivery to first nations.

For example, the Alberta Technical Services Advisory Group has for many years supported the first nations in addressing problems with their drinking water systems. I might point out that those are the very kinds of organizations the government has chosen to cut back in the budget.

It is very important what Sheila Fraser had pointed out. To this point in time, in this day and age in the 21st century, first nations communities have to wait, with open hand, for the government to decide from year to year whether they will have sufficient funds to provide a glass of safe drinking water for their children. She said that it was beyond high time that this obligation to transfer the necessary money be imposed by statute and be obligatory. We do not find that in Bill S-8.

The government made a previous half-hearted effort at proposing legislation and then let it die on the order paper.

Bill S-11, also tabled in the Senate in 2010, was roundly criticized by first nations and legal experts. Bill S-8 was also first tabled in the Senate and now finally brought before the House.

Regrettably, there has been little parallel action on the other measures needed to address the critical need for safe drinking water supply in first nation communities.

It should be pointed out that the government is well aware of the core barriers experienced by the majority of first nations in providing safe drinking water supplies to their communities, including: the equipment, construction and maintenance facilities, especially in remote areas, is costly; much of the necessary infrastructure is either lacking, obsolete or of poor quality; there is a limited local capacity or limited ability to retain qualified operators and even when they are trained, they then move on to other communities where they can be paid better; and, limited resources to properly fund water system operation and maintenance.

The current federal budgeted amount of $330 million over two years offers only a small percentage of the $4.7 billion capital costs and estimated $419 million per year to upgrade and run drinking water systems in compliance with the intended law.

If this intended law is passed, there will almost immediately be an obligation by all the first nations to deliver safe drinking water. I say almost because the government fails to mention that the law absolutely has no substance, so it will take five to ten years to actually develop these regulations. Once that is in place, then we will have close to a $5 billion deficit, with no undertaking that it will provide that.

No new moneys have been committed for the promised direct negotiations with the first nations on the strategy to implement the proposed law or for the promised negotiation process on the myriad of complex and technical regulations necessary to give any real substance to Bill S-8. There is no indication that the government has begun to move away from the one-off contribution agreements to long-term financial commitments to finance drinking water systems, as recommended by the former auditor general.

Far from delivering the support for organizations that can support first nations in developing and managing effective drinking water, in this budget the government has cut back support to these entities, including treaty organizations that provide support on technical and policy matters to first nations, which brings us to the matter of consultation on the bill.

The duty to directly consult first nations on legislative or policy matters that affect them is not a mere nicety. Aboriginal Canadians are not mere stakeholders in this legislative process. The duty to consult and accommodate is a constitutional duty established in legal precedent echoed in the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which Canada finally endorsed.

At the January Crown-First Nations Gathering, the government publicly committed to support first nations self-government to strengthen and reset the government-to-government relationship and to move away from the unilateral imposition of laws and policies.

Self-government was endorsed under the UNDRIP. However, at the last minute, we saw some move, despite calls by first nations over decades, of the minister to met with at least one treaty group in Alberta.

I will quote a comment made at the Crown-First Nations Gathering on the consultation process, which states:

At the recent Crown–First Nations Gathering, First Nations and our Government committed to working together to support strong, healthy First Nation communities...[The bill] is a key milestone in making this a reality...

That statement was made by the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, who said that the process for the consultation on Bill S-8 was a milestone in making the government-to-government relationship a reality. Yet we have a statement from the Assembly of First Nations stating that the government has continued a pattern of unilaterally imposing legislation that does not meet the standards of joint development and a clear recognition of first nations jurisdiction.

This so-called exceptional process of sitting down and reviewing proposed legislation was in fact the common practice of most past governments. In many instances, white papers or even draft formats of bills were circulated and consulted to ensure that the interests of all 600 first nations, not just one first nation, were considered and accommodated. This made for sound, supported, workable legislation. Again, in the case of the first nations, this consultation is an obligation, not just an option.

Even when late in the day some discussions did occur with first nations, they expressed concerns that their issues had not been fully addressed. They were also clear that the process did not constitute “consultation”. This is made evident in testimony before the Senate on the bill.

By way of example, Treaty 6, 7 and 8 testified that while a limited number of their representatives had a chance to review the bill, incidentally, less than a week before it was tabled in the Senate, a number of significant outstanding concerns were yet to be addressed. I reference these three groups as they were among the few that the minister finally relented to discuss in more detail their concerns with the proposed law before it was tabled.

In his testimony, Charles Weaselhead, Grand Chief of the Treaty 8 First Nations Chiefs Association, echoed the views of many when he said that “support of the Alberta Chiefs is not unconditional” and that first an agreement must be reached “on an adequately funded joint process for the development of the regulations”.

We have members of the one group, which the minister actually took the time to hear what their issues, saying that it is not enough. What they need at the same time is the commitment of the money.

Further, Grand Chief Weaselhead said:

Second, the national engineering assessment identified that only three First Nation systems in Alberta are operating safely with certainty....About a dozen systems in Alberta pose significant risks to human health.

He advised that about $160 million was needed to update facilities just for Alberta.

He testified that while they were willing to be patient, their patience was not limitless. He said, “the Government of Canada must also make a firm commitment toward infrastructure, monitoring and capacity”.

They have yet to obtain any binding commitment to a regulatory development process that is well-funded and approved by the chiefs and no commitment of the $140 million funding gap identified by the National Engineering Assessment for just Alberta.

I now wish to share a number of the serious deficiencies identified in the bill itself as a safe drinking water regulatory framework.

Frankly, I am stunned that the government has stated at this stage that it will not allow amendments. This kind of questions the value of even having a committee and bringing in these first nation and legal experts again.

However, these are some of the issues that were raised before the non-elected house. Many of the issues were raised by expert panels and legal experts testifying in the Senate and in previous government reviews, treaty organizations and individual first nations.

The main purpose the bill appears to have is transferring liability from the federal government to first nations for delivery of the drinking water regime. Of equal concern is the fact that the full long-term costs and liability have yet to be calculated. The transfer of liability would be made with no binding commitment that the federal government would provide the necessary funds for technical training or equipment. However, Bill S-8 carefully imposes limits on the liability of federal ministers and officials.

Bill S-8 is essentially lacking in substance. It would merely be an enabling law. It would allow for, but does not require, any federal action to promulgate the myriad regulations necessary to establish drinking water standards, public hearings, appeal procedures, standards for training and certification of water systems and operators, waste water disposal, emergency response and so forth.

The law would impose no obligation on the federal government to deliver these rules in a timely manner. It would impose no obligation on the federal government to finance development or implementation of the first nations drinking water regime. Despite the non-derogation clause, Bill S-8 may have as its key purpose to transfer away treaty and constitutional obligations in this regard.

Incredibly, the law would impose no requirement for consultation with the first nations in the promulgation of these rules, regardless of the overriding constitutional duty to consult and despite the fact that most laws enacted these days, especially for environmental matters, specify that the government must in advance consult.

Finally, the bill ignores the advice of the very expert panel appointed by the federal government, which recommended the establishment of two independent entities to provide direction and oversight on the water regime.

A first nation water commission was recommended. It was to be mandated to oversee the licensing and operation of water facilities and to advise the ministers and first nations. The second entity recommended was a first nation water tribunal mandated to hear appeals on water approvals and investigate complaints. It was suggested that entity could provide one of the bridges to self-governance over water, which has been promised.

As pointed out by the Assembly of First Nations in their brief to the Senate, despite appreciation expressed that the government provided a slightly stronger non-derogation clause it appears to include a broad loophole in the words “except to the extent necessary to ensure the safety of drinking water on first nation lands”.

The obvious question arising is: Who decides that? Consistent with the remainder of the bill, it appears it would be the minister.

Another issue is that, astoundingly, the bill imposes no obligations on the federal government to consult first nations in the promulgation of any of the implementing regulations. This not only runs contrary to most environmental laws, as I said, but to their constitutional obligation.

Concerns have been raised with the option of incorporation by reference of provincial regulations. This has not been a common practice and serious concerns have been raised by a number of legal experts.

It is incumbent on the government today to admit that the law is not enough. It must, today, commit that it will not enact this law until it has provided the resources necessary to genuinely implement the long overdue protections for first nation water.

Safe Food for Canadians Act

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at the third reading stage of Bill S-11.

The hon. Chief Government Whip is rising on a point of order.

The House resumed from November 19 consideration of the motion that Bill S-11, An Act respecting food commodities, including their inspection, their safety, their labelling and advertising, their import, export and interprovincial trade, the establishment of standards for them, the registration or licensing of persons who perform certain activities related to them, the establishment of standards governing establishments where those activities are performed and the registration of establishments where those activities are performed, be read the third time and passed.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I have read the bill that the government has named the safe food for Canadians act. I also took the time to read the Library of Parliament briefing notes that were made available in association with the bill for the assistance and guidance of the committee. I read the explanation of the bill through clause-by-clause analysis and also the House notes prepared by my colleague, the member of Parliament for Welland, who I should stop and recognize and pay tribute to for the work he has done in representing the interests of Canadians in the pursuit of true safe food for Canadians legislation. It might give them some comfort to know that there are committed advocates on the opposition benches who are seeking to address the lamentable situation of the food inspection regime in this country.

Having gone through those various stages of familiarizing myself with the bill, the first and most striking thing is something that has not come up at all in any of the speeches. I even listened to the rather vapid platitudes of the parliamentary secretary in the speech that he made regarding the bill, but no one has pointed out the elephant in the room and that is the front page, the cover of Bill S-11. Any member of Parliament in this place who considers himself or herself a true democrat, surely should be offended by the fact that we are standing here today at this late hour on Monday afternoon in Ottawa in the House of Commons, in the elected chamber, dealing with a piece of legislation that comes from the unelected, undemocratic, unaccountable chamber, the Senate of Canada.

No one elected senators to make legislation for Canadians. I argue they have no right to generate legislation from the other chamber. I argue that as members of Parliament if we had any dignity or self-respect, we would bar the legislation at the gates of the door here. We would ask the Sergeant-at-Arms to block them, to tie the doors and stop the introduction of pieces of legislation such as this into the chamber because it has no business being here. Senators have no right.

If there ever were any semblance of utility to that place, if we could even believe at any given time that there was some value to the Senate of Canada, they forfeited that in the last Parliament when they unilaterally and arbitrarily, I would argue, jettisoned two of the most worthy pieces of legislation I have ever had the honour to work on in this chamber. One of them was the only piece of climate change legislation in the Parliament of Canada, a western, developed nation with no position on climate change. Through five years of laborious negotiation and give-and-take, we passed a piece of climate legislation through the House—

[Ruth Ellen Brosseau, NDP, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, of course, I am going to support this bill, but once again, it does not go far enough.

This is a very important bill. It affects Canadians across the country because we eat every day. In Canada, one in eight jobs is related to agriculture. With regard to the markets, it is a multi-million dollar industry. We must therefore protect Canada's food safety system. Yes, this debate is important and the amendments that we proposed in committee were really good, but I was disappointed in the way that this took place. Yet, here we are today.

Bill S-11 is a first step in the right direction to improve and modernize the food safety system, and the NDP has been calling for the modernization of this legislation since Sheila Weatherill's report was published in 2009. However, Canadians need the government to invest more resources in the food safety system, rather than just streamlining the regulations. Although we support the content of this bill, we do not think that it goes far enough.

The witnesses who appeared before the Senate committee that conducted a more in-depth examination of this bill said that the bill would not have prevented the E. coli outbreak at the XL Foods plant in Brooks, Alberta. Although the NDP believes that this bill is essential to improving Canada's food safety, we also believe that passing this bill without taking into account the amendments proposed by the opposition once again demonstrates the government's ill will. This is nothing new. We see it here almost everyday.

Every day, we represent our constituents here in Ottawa, and we are proud to do so. They are the ones who voted for us. We are here because of them. So, each day, I try to do my best to stand up for their interests. This seems only natural. However, I get the distinct impression that the members opposite often forget this basic principle. I will explain why.

Let me begin with a brief review of the facts. On October 17, the safe food for Canadians act, Bill S-11, was passed by the Senate. The purpose of this bill is to increase the Canadian Food Inspection Agency's resources and tools. At the beginning of the month, the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food did a clause-by-clause review of the bill. As a member of that committee, I am very disappointed with this government's attitude toward this bill.

Today, the parliamentary secretary talked about this bill and all the good things that will come out of it, but it is the opposition MPs who keep talking. The parliamentary secretary was the only government representative to speak in favour of this bill. We have done our homework. All the witnesses who came to committee worked hard and shared their time and expertise with us. We worked very hard to propose constructive amendments, but, unfortunately, none of them were adopted. That is very disappointing, because the primary purpose of this bill is to ensure optimal food safety for all Canadians.

I would like to talk about some of the suggestions we made in committee. We thought it was important to add whistleblower protection measures that take into account the fact that the Criminal Code authorizes these types of measures. Allow me to begin by saying that other acts of Parliament explicitly present protection measures for whistleblowers that go beyond those in the Criminal Code, which is a good thing.

The purpose of this protection is to allow employees to come forward and feel secure—I repeat, feel secure—with this idea that they can tell inspectors things that they may not be able to see. In the case of XL Foods, we heard that this could have helped them.

During the latest tainted beef crisis, the largest beef recall in Canadian history, the workers said that they were aware of what was happening and knew that things were happening in a way that they did not believe was right, but because they felt vulnerable, they did not dare blow the whistle.

That is why we want whistleblower protection. I think we need to have a closer look at that. It is a standard model that can apply to many statutes that are enacted.

Accordingly, people can feel comfortable coming forward with a reasonable complaint, a complaint that has merit and that can be addressed in a way so that they do not feel their employment or their advancement is jeopardized, or any of the other things that people might feel vulnerable about.

We believe that in the case of XL Foods, such a measure would have limited the damage or perhaps even prevented the situation altogether.

That is the rationale for whistleblower protection.

I think this proposal made a lot of sense. It did not take anything away from the bill. On the contrary, it contributed something and enhanced the bill's effectiveness.

I really would have liked to see some openness on the part of the government, my Conservative colleagues. I like when we work together. I think it is important to do so here in the House. I would have liked us to work toward the same end: to improve a bill that is so important to food safety and consumer protection.

Year after year, on the Conservatives' watch, the number of food inspectors has decreased. Meanwhile, the food industry is more and more at risk.

At the committee stage, we proposed an amendment that called for an immediate audit as soon as the bill came into force. Clearly, food safety systems need to be reviewed regularly. We simply cannot allow another E. coli outbreak in the next five years. Unfortunately, the Conservative members of the committee voted against that amendment. It is really too bad, because in five years, we will have no basis for comparison. I think this is a waste of time.

If we do so now, if we create a basis and carry on, I think this will help us. This will be an improvement, not something that will harm the bill. The amendments we proposed made positive changes to the bill.

I would like to draw your attention to an excerpt from the testimony that Bob Kingston, national president of the Agriculture Union, gave before the Senate committee on October 2. I would like to point out that Mr. Kingston has 25 years of experience as an inspector and 15 years of experience as a supervisor, so he is someone who knows his stuff. He said:

I urge the committee to amend this bill to make such a review mandatory. I do note that an amendment has been put forward by the government, but it does not require a resource audit of the CFIA until five years after the bill becomes law. It is sort of like crossing your fingers and hoping nothing bad happens for five years. We already know that the CFIA has a problem; do not wait for another outbreak before addressing it.

We thus proposed several amendments to strengthen the bill. We never opposed this bill. Our sole objective was to strengthen and improve Bill S-11 by making clarifications and giving it more teeth.

We also asked for a mechanism related to stakeholders who represent the public interest on the arbitration board. We want to strike a balance between the interests of companies and the defence of public health.

It is a way for all voices to be represented and defended when it comes to food safety. Our amendment was rejected without any discussion, questions or explanation.

Another important amendment that we proposed asked that, on the coming into force of this section, the minister undertake an audit that includes an assessment of the resources allocated to the administration and enforcement of this act in order to get baseline information to be applied to reviews undertaken every five years. We need a basis for comparison right away, otherwise we will have to wait 10 years, which is a long time, before we can see the effects of these changes.

Bob Kingston also said:

If we are not careful, the successful enactment of Bill S-11, as well as the CFIA's new inspection modernization initiative, could fall victim to these pressures, as did the compliance verification system, or CVS, before them.

If you cast your memories back to the summer of 2008, just months before the Maple Leaf Foods outbreak, you will remember that the CFIA had just launched CVS. Without a serious pilot phase and before any lessons learned in development could be implemented, the agency had no idea how many inspectors were needed to do the job under CVS or what skills and training they might require.

That is what Sheila Weatherill recommended in her report on the 2008 listeriosis crisis, and that is what we asked for following the E. coli crisis. Unfortunately, we will have to continue asking because the Conservatives rejected that amendment.

Following the E. coli crisis this fall, members on both sides of the House knew that we would have to take action to ensure that this does not happen again. The Conservatives tried to make us believe that Bill S-11 was a solution. I have already said that I completely disagree. This bill does not go far enough and does not address a major problem at CFIA: the budget cuts that are forcing food inspectors to do their job with fewer resources.

When we discussed Bill S-11 at second reading stage, I informed my Conservative colleagues that we would move amendments in the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-food. I had hoped that, in committee, with the evidence of expert witnesses and the time to concentrate on each clause, we could have a constructive, positive and honest discussion that would improve the bill. When I arrived here 18 months ago—time passes so quickly—I was somewhat naive. I believed that we would work together to improve things for Canadians. We were elected to protect the interests of Canadians, and I honestly believed that we would work together. That is not at all the case. It happens once in a while, but it all depends. On this file, it is not at all the case.

We moved a number of reasonable amendments that would have improved food safety in Canada, mainly by providing more clarity, preventing conflicts of interest, deterring companies' risky behaviour and providing more protection for CFIA workers and inspectors.

Since I have five minutes remaining, I will talk about the people who support our position, since there are many. The Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-food dedicated three meetings to examining Bill S-11, and since we did not have enough time to bring in witnesses, I often had to refer to what happened in the Senate.

If Bill S-11 had first gone to the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-food, it would have been our pleasure to study it.

I will briefly explain what we want. But before I do that, I would like to say something about the crisis at XL Foods. We are not the ones who discovered the E. coli bacteria; it was the United States. It has mandatory testing that can detect the bacteria, which is not the case here in Canada.

Why does Canada not have that mandatory testing? I do not know, but that is something we are looking at.

I will now briefly explain what we want.

We want a comprehensive audit of the compliance verification system, as recommended by Sheila Weatherill.

We also want measures to adequately protect workers at meat processing plants who sound the alarm. We want to ensure that whistleblowers are protected.

We want to ensure that the CFIA has adequate resources and that it has the authority and independence it needs to do its job.

We want to strengthen the traceability requirements for meat, fish, fruit, vegetables—for all fresh foods.

We also want better and more transparent monitoring. During the E. coli crisis, there was a huge lack of transparency with respect to XL Foods, which was disappointing. We noted a lot of problems. In the House, we asked questions about XL Foods in order to understand what had happened, what would be done and what would be the future of the CFIA, but it was very hard to get answers. I think that transparency is very important, especially when it comes to food safety in Canada.

Although I did not talk about it, the question of labelling is also important. More and more, people want to know where their food comes from. They are increasingly curious about and interested in their food. Better oversight of labelling is therefore very important.

Those were our concerns.

Another person who agreed with our amendments was Neil Peacock, a member of the National Farmers Union board and a cattle producer from Sexsmith, Alberta. He remembers the 22 people who died and the 57 people who got sick during the listeriosis crisis in 2008 at Maple Leaf Foods. He wonders if the situation at XL Foods is not further proof that food safety and sovereignty in Canada are in danger.

I think there are lessons to be learned from all this. Yes, there were problems. Yes, perhaps some mistakes were made. However, I am thinking about the future, and Bill S-11, which I have right here, is a good bill if we bring in the amendments. We proposed 11 amendments, which I think are all good.

I am a little disappointed, but we will continue to think about the future.