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.

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Okay.

I'd like to raise a point of order. I'd like to get a ruling from you, Chair, on whether this is admissible or not. I feel that this is outside the scope of Bill S-11. The House has passed Bill S-11 at second reading. It is stated that Bill S-11 consolidates four food-related statutes: the Canada Agricultural Products Act; the Fish Inspection Act; the Meat Inspection Act; and the food-related provisions in the Consumer Packaging and Labelling Act.

There's no mention of the Food and Drugs Act. That's why I feel that this particular amendment would fall outside of what we're accomplishing today.

[Neil Bouwer]

The Criminal Code was amended in 2004 with general protection for employees who bring information forward to enforcement officials. That section is section 425.1. I'll ask Ms. Adair to reference it in a moment.

I just would like to say that, in our view, the Criminal Code provisions do cover workplaces and employees in establishments governed by the Safe Food for Canadians Act. Therefore, there is that protection that currently exists.

Moreover, I would say that law enforcement agencies and the justice system are best placed to address the issue of whistle-blowing. They have the machinery to support employees who feel that they would like to take advantage of such protections. The CFIA does not look at this issue as one in which it is well equipped to support in the way that the justice system currently does.

If I may, I'll ask Ms. Adair to cite that part in the Criminal Code.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

I call the meeting to order.

Good morning, everyone. Welcome to the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-food.

This is meeting number 55. Pursuant to orders of the day, we are studying the order of reference of Tuesday, October 23, 2012, 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.

Joining us today to help us with clause-by-clause, from the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, are Mr. Neil Bouwer, vice-president, policy and programs, and Colleen Barnes, executive director; and from the Department of Justice, Julie Adair. Welcome.

We will start with the clause-by-clause, and if there is clarification or discussion needed, we'll go to our witness list and proceed from there.

I am going to postpone clause 1, the short title. It's always dealt with at the end of the bill, and we'll move into clause 2, where we have an amendment, NDP-1, in your booklet.

I will go to Mr. Allen.

(On clause 2—Definitions)

[Ben Lobb]

I can't speak for what's inside their heads, but I would suspect they're very focused on the number one priority, which is the safety of food and the safety of all Canadians.

In my mind, the focus and idea behind these enhancements in Bill S-11 is to provide the people who are on the front line a better way of being able to do their jobs. The fact is, this is what it does, and it allows them to be able to carry on.

I have one question that I want to ask Mr. Warriner.

I thought what you said in your comments was that they were maybe doing their job but really not looking at what else might be out there on the plant floor. Is that what you were insinuating in your comments?

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

Would Bill S-11 help in any way with salt intake? Would it help protect Canadians in that aspect?

[Dr. Keith Warriner, University of Guelph, As an Individual]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I wish to express my thanks to honourable members for the invitation to testify with respect to Bill S-11, the safe food for Canadians act

In the way of background, I'm a faculty member at the department of food science, University of Guelph. I also hold the position of program director for the food safety and quality assurance program offered through the department, which aims to train the next generation of managers, HACCP coordinators and inspectors, among others.

In general, I'm supportive of the bill as it makes a decisive decision to follow an outcome-based approach. That makes inspection much more efficient and increases the accountability of processes to produce safe food.

The underlying philosophy of the bill is that you cannot inspect your way to safety. This is underlined by the fact that Canada has a two-tier food safety system, one provincial and the other federal. If anything, history has told us that food safety incidents can occur from the smallest to the largest processor if procedures are not followed, irrespective of the level of inspection.

Bill S-11 will bring Canada in line with its trading partners and provide for a more efficient, dynamic inspection service.

The legislation on tampering, clauses 7 to 9, is timely, given the trend of deliberate adulteration of foods. The new legislation outlined in clauses 10 to 13 is an important part of the new act, given food safety issues linked to imports and the increased concern of counterfeiting foods.

There are, however, some concerns that I would consider when implementing the new act.

Clause 73 represents the main thrust of the bill by combining the commodity-based acts into one. At the same time, clauses 39 to 45 increase the authority of inspectors to work with greater independence.

With power comes responsibility, obviously, and there is concern that inspectors will have insufficient knowledge and/or experience to undertake this task. One has to question if inspectors could inspect muffins one day and fish the next. They are very different products with very different hazards associated with them. Can we expect inspectors to be jacks of all trades?

If we now overlay the increased authority of inspectors, then the chances of incorrect calls being made are highly likely. In one scenario, the inspector could always follow the side of caution and overreact, resulting in disruption to the company that could very well send ripples throughout the sector. Yet, this has to be balanced with consumer safety.

It's interesting to note in subclause 32(1) that the inspectors need reasonable doubt for assessing the safety of imported goods, but this does not extend to domestically produced products.

The freedom to disseminate producer information under clauses 46 and 47 is also potentially damaging beyond the processor under scrutiny. Therefore, it's paramount that the next generation of inspectors will require a broad background and strong decision-making skills. In the meantime, it would be prudent to include in the bill a sort of consultation among inspectors before exercising their power.

I now turn to accountability. Clause 59 provides protection of liability of inspectors and government. Subclause 39(5) provides protection from prosecution of whistleblowers, who could potentially be the very ones causing non-compliance.

In a bid to increase the food safety culture, it is important that everyone is accountable and there are consequences for knowingly causing non-compliance. If this means placing fines on workers, then this should be considered. I doubt a $5-million fine to companies will play on the minds of these workers, the very people who perform a task.

In terms of liability, I would also like to clarify under subclause 105(4), if the implementation of a HACCP plan can be used as a due diligence defence. As we heard earlier, this could counter any sort of prosecution.

My final point relates to the effectiveness of HACCP to control hazards. It would be prudent to include the term “validated and verified HACCP plan” under clause 51. It's not only a case of applying HACCP, but it needs to be sure that it's effective.

In summary, the bill is indeed a major change in the philosophy of how food is inspected, with an increase in self-regulation by the industry. It is my opinion that this is the only effective way to ensure food safety. However, the success of the act will depend on both the industry and the inspection service fostering a food safety culture. This, in turn, will depend on having a carrot to go along with the stick that the bill offers.

Thank you for listening, and I will be very happy to invite questions.

[Mel Fruitman, Vice-President, Consumers' Association of Canada]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Consumers' Association of Canada, CAC, is pleased to appear before you today.

For 65 years, the CAC has represented the interests of ordinary Canadians in their role as consumers of goods and services as provided by both the public and private sectors. Our mandate is to inform and educate consumers on marketplace issues, advocate for consumers with government and industry, and work to solve marketplace problems in beneficial ways.

Bill S-11 has the potential to provide significant improvements in the matter of food safety, paralleling the mechanisms introduced last year in the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act covering non-food items.

We are pleased to note the intent to make efforts to ensure the safety of all food products sold in Canada no matter what the source and that the bill will strengthen enforcement powers on imports and deliver stiff fines to anyone who purposely endangers the safety of our food. We have always been puzzled and concerned that there was a possibility imported foodstuffs would not necessarily receive the same scrutiny as domestic products. Even though deliberate food tampering is rare, the new prohibitions and strong penalties should dissuade most mischief-makers and make it easier to prosecute miscreants. Hopefully, it might even deter those sick individuals who do things such as putting razor blades in apples that they were handing out last night on Halloween.

The increased traceability requirements should make it easier to determine where foodstuffs came from and where they are at any time in the distribution system. This will enhance the capability to enforce the provisions prohibiting the sale of food that is the subject of a recall order under subsection 19(1) of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency Act. Unfortunately there does not appear to be clarification of what is meant by a recall order, beyond the fact that the product may be recalled or sent to a place designated by the minister. Consumers interpret the term “recall” to mean if they have in their possession the offending product, they are supposed to return it, presumably to where it was purchased. Consumers also expect that they should not have to suffer financially as a result of having purchased a food commodity that is subsequently recalled. It is unacceptable that consumers should be expected to throw it out, as has been suggested by a CFIA official.

Even though we support this bill, we hope that you are not lulled into believing that it will alleviate the deficiencies in our food health protection system. Note that our supportive comments use the conditional tense. There is much more that could or should be done, both preventively and operationally.

There are now available several vaccines designed to reduce E. coli in cattle. A recent study by Kansas State University concluded that they can reduce E. coli levels by 50%. At least one of these vaccines has been approved for use in Canada, the United States, and the U.K. While it is still unclear what the actual cost would be, there have been estimates that it would cost $50 million to inoculate all Canadian cattle.

An additional harm-reducing procedure is irradiation, which was recommended by Health Canada 10 years ago for use on ground beef along with other items. Health Canada concluded that food irradiation could improve food safety and quality by reducing levels of pathogens such as E. coli and salmonella, extending shelf life and reducing insect infestation. A survey conducted for our association earlier this year, before the XL Foods problems, revealed that 70% of Canadians are concerned with potential bacteria in meat products and that three in five unfortunately had not heard of food irradiation. However, when told about its current uses, two-thirds would support its use as a choice for consumers when purchasing these items.

We recommend that vaccination and irradiation be given serious consideration as part of a package designed to deliver to Canadians the safest possible meat products. Bill S-11 will provide new tools. However, tools are only effective if they are used and if they are used properly. The CFIA has adopted a risk-based approach to achieving consumer safety. This can be an efficacious and cost-effective approach. In a risk-based system, procedures are developed to give the desired result. In the early stages of development, each of the steps has to be closely monitored to ensure that it is having the desired result. If it is not appropriate, changes are made. As the process matures, constant monitoring is not required and the emphasis shifts to maintaining documents showing adherence to procedures, spot testing, and auditing for verification. In addition, statistically valid sampling at the end of the process is essential as an overall check that the desired results are being consistently attained. Theoretically, if the testing and auditing procedures are followed, there should not be any problems.

However, if the statistical sampling reveals that contaminated products are coming off the end of the line, there should be no hesitancy in stopping shipment to consumers. Then, as quickly as possible, it should be determined what potentially contaminated products have already been shipped and should be subject to a mandatory recall. Finally, it has to be determined what failed and how to correct it.

Unfortunately this is not what happened with the XL Foods fiasco. Shipment stoppage and recall orders, which for some reason or other were voluntary, not mandatory, were not timely. The delays in gathering information also suggest that the necessary monitoring procedures were not being conducted. There's also the appearance that the proprietors of XL Foods were given time to mount a public relations response, at which their failure is a textbook example of what not to do.

Finally, and maybe most importantly, we feel that many of the shortcomings were because there is a cultural identity problem within CFIA. Are they guardians or promoters? The preamble to the CFIA Act refers to “contribute to consumer protection and facilitate a more uniform and consistent approach to safety and quality standards and risk-based inspection systems” and that the “Government of Canada wishes to promote trade and commerce”.

The agency reports through the Minister of Agriculture, who is responsible for all matters relating to agriculture. This includes supporting agricultural productivity and trade, stabilizing farm incomes, and being responsible for the inspection and regulation of animals and plant life forms.

As we have seen from the XL Foods fiasco, CFIA has failed on both fronts. It allowed potentially harmful meat to reach the marketplace, and this resulted in the suspension of beef exports to the United States. It is our belief that the dual responsibilities that led to cultural schizophrenia inhibit CFIA's capability to proficiently do its prime job which is to protect the Canadian consumer from harmful food products. Unfortunately, concerns about how certain domestic actions and publicity may be viewed by our trading partners have an effect on the timing, details, and efficacy of response.

[Bill Jeffery, National Coordinator, Centre for Science in the Public Interest]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Centre for Science in the Public Interest is a non-profit health advocacy organization specializing in nutrition and food safety. We don't accept funding from industry or government, and we are supported by 100,000 subscribers to our newsletter, a nutrition action health letter. We have on average about one subscribing household within a one-block radius of every Canadian street corner.

Although the express focus of this meeting is on the food safety implications of Bill S-11, I would like to draw the committee's attention to the fact that, according to World Health Organization estimates, approximately 48,000 Canadians die every year as a result of nutrition-related illnesses, such as too much sodium and trans fat, and not enough fruits and vegetables. We believe that there are some implications in Bill S-11 for that.

Bill S-11 could improve the Canadian Food Inspection Agency's ability to protect public health and safeguard consumers against fraud and help public confidence, but it could do better if a number of concerns were addressed.

Number one, the impact of raising fine maxima may be minor in light of the history of very low fine levels in relation to the current fine maxima. While there are significant exemptions to the proposed higher fine caps, that's the increase from $250,000 to $5 million, in 2011 as an example, the average fine was approximately 5% of fine maxima for indictable offences; nearly two-thirds of fines were for 1% or less of the fine maxima; no fine exceeded 20% of the fine maxima; and the total quantum of fines for all prosecutions under about a half a dozen acts that the Canadian Food Inspection Agency administers was slightly more than $400,000, which works out to a little over $100 per year per inspector. As such, we wonder whether the government's desire to raise fine maxima is matched by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency's and the minister's willingness to impose higher fines and to do so more often.

Number two, Parliament needs to raise corresponding fine limits in the Food and Drugs Act to the levels that are specified in the safe foods for Canadians act. If the government's aim is to raise the fine limits to $5 million, and in some cases at the discretion of the board of arbitration, it should also do so for limits currently in place in the Food and Drugs Act, which will continue under the authority of the courts rather than the board of arbitration.

Number three, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency currently devalues nutrition information on food labels as a quality or a minor consumer preference issue, not as a health and safety issue. According to the fines information published by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, the website for the period January 2010 to September 2012 shows that not a single fine was levied for inaccurate nutrition information on food labels, despite the fact that at least two of the agency's own product sampling surveys demonstrated significant, widespread inaccuracies in nutrition information provided on prepackaged foods and restaurant websites. We welcome amendments to Bill S-11 to stipulate that nutrition-related offences are as serious as acute food safety ones, without trivializing the importance of addressing mass frauds concerning food quality factors.

Number four, evaluating the impact of food safety measures on public health requires better and more transparent surveillance of outbreaks of food-borne illnesses and the deaths and significant illnesses caused by those outbreaks.

Number five, the bill proposes a due diligence defence, which could significantly insulate companies from prosecution. We urge the committee to consider whether the proposal to permit a due diligence defence in subclause 39(2) would significantly weaken existing protections, whether it would diminish Canadians' confidence in our food supply, and whether it would meet the European Union's confidence in our exports. Apparently, the United Kingdom recently rejected a proposal to so amend its food safety legislation for this reason.

Number six, private prosecutors need stronger measures to discourage risky behaviour by food companies. If the federal government aims to rely on private parties, such as class-action law firms, to enforce consumer protection laws, as it did in the case of the Maple Leaf listeriosis outbreak, which killed as many as 23 Canadians, yet led to no fines, the Food and Drugs Act and other legislation should at least be modified to give courts ample authority to impose punitive damages, triple damage awards, profit disgorgement, or other extraordinary measures to better discourage dangerous, fraudulent, and reckless corporate behaviour.

Number seven, a public interest intervenor mechanism is needed at the board of arbitration and tribunal to balance the interests of companies, on one hand, and advocates for public health and consumers, on the other. Such a mechanism has long been in place to create a modicum of balance in proceedings of the Canadian Radio-television Telecommunications Commission, the CRTC. Also, the proposed power in clause 105 of the bill, for companies to challenge CFIA recall orders, may be dangerous in circumstances when swift action is vital.

Number eight, the proposal to incorporate by reference standards may permit conflicts of interest to influence policy-making and could abdicate government oversight entirely, even in two organizations with commercial conflicts of interest.

I'll leave it there, Mr. Chair. I'd be happy to take questions afterwards, of course.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you, and welcome back to the second part of our study today on Bill S-11.

Joining us from the Centre for Science in the Public Interest is Mr. Bill Jeffery, national coordinator. We have from the Consumers' Association of Canada, Mr. Mel Fruitman, vice-president, and as an individual, Mr. Keith Warriner, from the University of Guelph. Welcome.

I'm not sure if everybody has presented before a committee, but we open the floor to you to make a brief presentation, and then we'll move directly to questions from the members. I will advise the members that we have blocked off a few minutes at the end of the meeting. When we have about 15 minutes left in the meeting, I'll interrupt the proceedings, and we'll do some of our committee business.

With that, Mr. Jeffery, you have the floor.

[Francine Raynault, NDP, Joliette, QC]

Thank you.

Mr. Laycraft, Bill S-11 says that inspectors are acquiring new powers. They are losing the power to arrest and administer oaths, which the present Fish Inspection Act allows them to do.

Do you think the new powers will make inspectors more efficient, and ensure that requirements for food safety are met by industry stakeholders?

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses for coming today. It's important that we hear your issues and concerns in regard to Bill S-11. I believe most of you have already said this is potentially a really good bill to ensure food safety. I think Canadians across the country are certainly in agreement with that.

That has been very much highlighted as a result of XL Foods in Brooks, which is in my riding. I am happy to also say that they are up and running again. I think they processed about 1,200 to 1,500 head of cattle over the last few days. That's very positive not only for the community, for the employees, and for the company, but also for Canadians across the country. I believe CFIA has done its job to make sure that the facility is up and running and that they meet all the requirements set out.

I thought I would make that comment up front.

Mr. Hoback, Mr. Valeriote and a number of you have talked about the regulations. It's certainly much more difficult to change the bill. The regulations are probably the right place to address all of these issues and concerns you have. I understand there will be an opportunity for consultation on those regulations. I think that's an important point to note, that there will be an opportunity. I suspect you will be able to get that information into the appropriate officials at Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada or CFIA to ensure that in fact happens and help allay any of those concerns you may have.

There are a couple of concerns. Mr. Laycraft and Mr. Lacasse talked about licensing for producers. I don't think that is anything in terms of the bill itself. That is contained under the Health of Animals Act. I don't think there's a concern there. If you want to make any other comments on that, please feel free.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

There has been a motion put forward—it's on the floor and it is open for debate—that the committee extend the discussion of Bill S-11 by two meeting days.

Mr. Hoback.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Thank you, Chair.

Welcome here this morning to everybody. It's nice to see you all at the table.

I think we all agree that if there is one thing that's important to Canadians, it's to have safe food. That has to be a priority and job one here as we go through Bill S-11.

Mr. Mussar, of course a priority of this government is jobs and trade. You can't give up safety for jobs but in the same breath you've got to try to accommodate what makes sense when it makes sense.

You used the example of spices for Mr. Atamanenko, I believe, where you're bringing in ingredients from another country that you're going to export back to another country. I think that the regulations, when they come forward, will address those concerns. Do you not think that? Do you think it actually has to be in the legislation itself?

[Dennis Laycraft, Executive Vice-President, Canadian Cattlemen's Association]

Good morning and thank you for the opportunity to appear today. I'm the executive vice-president of the Canadian Cattlemen's Association, CCA.

On behalf of our 83,000 members from coast to coast, we want to emphasize that we consider food safety an absolutely critical issue for us every day.

I'm also the industry co-chair of the beef value chain round table and the industry co-chair of the agriculture subcommittee on food safety, which was created at the request of the various value chain round tables that represent industry in agriculture.

With me is Ryder Lee, who works in our Ottawa offices, and whom many of you know.

One of the bedrock pieces of our industry success and our brand promise—and you have seen this logo in many locations throughout the country, on many menus, the Canada beef advantage licensed logo that only certain people who meet our requirements can use—is our food safety system in Canada. Canada's food safety system as it currently stands is world-class. The system compares favourably to those in other developed countries, including the United States and European Union countries. Recently, as it was examined, it was considered one of the superior systems in the world. We believe that suggesting otherwise, as has happened recently, sends an inaccurate signal to Canadians that somehow foreign, imported foods are safer than Canadian food.

The reality is that all food for sale in Canada must be in compliance with rigorous Canadian food standards regardless of where it is produced. It is this strong world-class system that enables us to export our beef to much of the world; in fact, over half of what we produce is regularly exported. This export activity further enhances the safety of our system as it includes ongoing third party examination of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency's processes and performance by a rotating list of importing countries. We probably are the most inspected country in the world.

We believe Bill S-11 is a positive step in the continuous improvement of Canada's food safety system. This legislative step complements the regulatory modernization process now going on at the CFIA. We support these dual steps as they are important to the competitiveness of beef farmers and ranchers, and to the modernization of meat inspection as we continue to move forward with new technology, improved testing procedures, and the statistical analysis that becomes part of a robust system.

As you heard on Tuesday, increasing uniformity of regulation, consistency of enforcement, and enabling stronger reaction to tampering and other issues that endanger our food are all positive steps this bill enables.

The ensuing regulations from this legislative change will be important. How meats and foods are traced through the system is important to primary producers as well, as we've learned in the past couple of months. We hope the contents of this bill and its ensuing regulations can enable improved response, remedies, and resumption of production where inadequacies are discovered in the future.

These are regrettable occurrences, but the reality is they do happen. How we respond usually has a longer lasting impact than the initial event itself and really has a great deal to do with how people view the credibility of our system.

This bill also amends the Health of Animals Act regarding the traceability of live animals. It's our understanding the live animal traceability is governed by the Health of Animals Act rather than this bill. The CCA has long been a supporter of national individual animal identification and actually brought forward the recommendation that created that system and has been working with governments as we look to implement the next steps of live animal traceability.

This bill fits into the bigger legislative and regulatory agenda. As part of the current agenda, we appreciate the government's commitment to a one-for-one regulatory regime where new regulations have to be offset by eliminating the same number of existing regulations. We're also highly supportive of the Regulatory Cooperation Council's work with the United States. We urge lawmakers to do what they can to ensure this undertaking lives up to its potential. We really operate in an integrated market in our industry in North America.

As regulations are drafted with these commitments in mind, we'll work with the government to ensure Canada's competitiveness is improved along with improving food safety.

We had previously mentioned a small concern in the language that could leave the door open one day to increasing the registration or licensing burden on producers of livestock. We will continue to monitor that. We are visiting with those particular provisions in mind to ensure that this bill does not add an extra degree of regulation that would be unnecessary.

We look forward to the questions, and thank you for this opportunity to comment on this legislative process.

[Dr. Keith Mussar, Vice-President, Regulatory Affairs, Canadian Association of Importers and Exporters]

Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the committee.

My name is Keith Mussar. I am with I.E.Canada, the Canadian Association of Importers and Exporters. It is a privilege to appear before the committee to testify with respect to Bill S-11, the safe foods for Canadians act.

I.E.Canada, the Canadian Association of Importers and Exporters, is a national trade association that has been speaking on behalf of the Canadian trade community for more than 80 years. Our members include food manufacturers who import and export food, Canadian importers and exporters, wholesalers, distributors, and Canadian grocery retailers. We represent some of the largest food manufacturers, importers, and exporters in Canada, as well as small and medium size businesses. Our members import and export food across most food categories.

Bill S-11 will replace and modify the existing statutes governing food safety, packaging and labelling, and inspection under the Meat Inspection Act, the Fish Inspection Act, the Agricultural Products Act, and the food-labelling provisions of the Consumer Packaging and Labelling Act. It will also introduce new requirements on businesses that manufacture, import, and export food.

The bill provides authority to the minister to issue a licence to persons authorizing them to import, export, or convey food from one province to another. This builds on the CFIA regulatory initiative that will license importers of food in the non-federally registered sector. The bill extends the authority of the minister to license all food importers and exporters. In addition, the bill provides the minister with the authority to prescribe conditions to license, such as the requirement to implement a preventive food safety control system as a condition for obtaining and maintaining a licence.

The bill would allow for a number of other improvements, including tougher penalties for non-compliance, enhanced powers of the inspectorate, and consistent inspection and enforcement across all commodities. Also, the bill could provide for the creation of regulations to establish pre-clearance requirements for any imported food commodity. The latter could facilitate the movement of imported food commodities into Canada and would be consistent with provisions being proposed under the U.S. Food Safety Modernization Act .

While the objective to increase food safety is clear, the bill as currently written will have severe negative implications for Canadian food manufacturers and Canadian consumers. First, Canadian food manufacturing jobs will be lost. Canadian jobs will be moved to the United States or other foreign countries. Second, Canadian food exporters will lose access to foreign markets. Third, Canadians, particularly those in ethnic communities, will have less choice of safe, healthy, and nutritious foods. The following examples serve to illustrate these concerns.

First, many Canadian food manufacturers produce food exclusively for export to and sale in the United States or other foreign countries. It is common for such products to contain ingredients that are not permitted for use in Canada, yet are allowed in the foreign country of destination. Such products cannot be sold in Canada as they are not compliant with Canadian regulations. Clause 12 of the bill, which prohibits a person to have in his possession for the purpose of exporting a prescribed food commodity, unless it meets the requirements of the Canadian regulations, will preclude the manufacture of such products in Canada. Multinational companies that have manufacturing plants both in Canada and the United States will have no choice but to move the manufacture of these products from Canada to the United States.

Second, subclause 10(3) of the bill prohibits a person from exporting a prescribed food commodity unless the food commodity meets the requirements of the Canadian regulations. In other words, a prescribed food commodity that is exported to a foreign country must meet the requirements of the Canadian regulations as well as those of the foreign country of destination. This requirement will limit the export of Canadian manufactured products to foreign countries. For instance, the food and drug regulations require Canadian milled flour to be fortified with vitamins such as folic acid. Canadian manufactured products such as cookies, crackers, pasta, and breaded fish products, to name a few, if required to contain fortified flour, will not be allowed access to countries in the European Union, where fortification of flour with folic acid is prohibited.

Canadian companies are allowed under current Canadian regulations to import product that does not comply with Canadian regulations, provided it is brought into compliance before being offered for sale in Canada. This is allowed without prior notification to CFIA. CFIA inspectors visit Canadian companies and ensure compliance of these products with Canadian regulations as they would for any domestic manufacturing facility. This practice is used in particular to correct non-compliance related to food product labelling and often on products for smaller market segments, such as ethnic markets. Correction of non-compliance prior to sale is a cost-effective and efficient alternative to producing products in unique packaging exclusively for the small Canadian market. The prohibition to import non-compliant product under subclause 6(2) of the bill will prohibit this practice and limit food choices, particularly for consumers in small market segments.

In addition, it is estimated that 50% of the volume of spices imported into Canada are further processed in Canada to be made safe for consumption and compliant with Canadian regulations. The prohibition to import products that are not compliant with section 4 of the Food and Drugs Act will preclude the importation of such raw spices into Canada, resulting in the loss of these Canadian processing jobs.

I.E.Canada members have also raised concern regarding two other aspects of the bill.

First, the unrestricted authority for inspectors to take photographs under paragraph 24(2)(g) raises concerns over security and the possibility of intentional or unintentional disclosure of confidential information, such as processing, equipment design, and function. Many companies have taken steps to prohibit the use or possession of cameras, cellphones, and other devices with picture-taking capability by employees and guests in manufacturing facilities to minimize this risk.

Second, incorporation of documents into regulations by reference is an important authority that will allow regulations to maintain currency and allow for changes in a timely manner that will keep pace with the rapid changes in innovation. While desirable, a process is required to ensure stakeholder consultation is undertaken to allow those impacted by a change to have an opportunity to express their views. Additionally, a process is required to ensure that proposed changes to documents incorporated into regulation by reference are communicated internationally and an opportunity is provided to those impacted to provide comment.