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.

[Fred Gorrell]

If I may, one of the conditions.... Actually, this has been going on for a number of years. This hasn't just been starting. At the end of the day, our legislative base in the United States is different. They've always said that our system was close to theirs—close, but not the same—and at the end of the day we are being treated as all other countries that trade with the United States are being treated.

As one point you could say, at least from the point of view of the United States, it's very fair. I know we're not talking about the United States today, but they're making the same rules for all of us.

On what they took away from us, as they finally said, under the RCC, we agreed to comparable outcomes, and that's because we have limitations in our legislation, as my colleague said, from the bankruptcy and insolvency side. We talked about having comparable outcomes, and what that meant for us is looking at the Safe Food for Canadians Act regulations. We believe that with the implementation of that and the single dispute resolution body that's responsible for all licensing will greatly reduce the majority of all the no-pay, slow-pay, and partial payments, which is a big issue.

The real issue for the United States is the fact that we do not have comparable or similar bankruptcy and insolvency. That is the one area where the United States has deemed they would require to be a comparable system, and that is the area that we are at this time not able to respond to.

[Fred Gorrell, Assistant Deputy Minister, Market and Industry Services Branch, Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food]

Thank you very much, Chair. I'm very happy to be here.

Thank you for the opportunity to discuss financial protection measures for Canada's fresh produce sector.

The Canadian fresh produce sector is an integral component of our agriculture and agri-food sector. In 2014, the Canadian fresh produce industry produced $4.4 billion of fresh fruits and vegetables. In the same year, Canadian global exports of fresh fruits and vegetables were $1.6 billion, of which almost 95%, or $1.5 billion, went to the United States.

Canada's primary vegetable exports to the U.S. are greenhouse tomatoes, peppers and cucumbers, as well as mushrooms. Canada's primary fruit exports to the U.S. are predominantly blueberries, followed by cranberries and apples. Canada also imported $6.6 billion of fresh fruits and vegetables, 55% or $3.6 billion of which was from the United States. The horticulture industry benefits from access to numerous federal and cost-shared programs.

Since 2007, federal-provincial-territorial governments have provided $1.3 billion in support through business risk management programs to producers of fruits, vegetables and potatoes. In 2014, horticultural producers were advanced $131 million through the advance payments program. Additionally, the horticulture industry has received $37 million from our department for innovation and marketing initiatives.

Finally, the sector also has access to the AgriRisk initiatives program which supports industry in its efforts to research, develop and implement new agricultural risk management tools.

The U.S. Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act, also known as PACA, is a legislative mechanism for the fresh produce industry to resolve non-payment and is administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

It requires licensing of all buyers, it can suspend or revoke buyer licences for non-payment, and it provides mitigation and arbitration services between buyers and sellers. It also includes a deemed trust, which requires buyers' property to be held in trust to secure payment of any amount owed to a seller ahead of all other creditors. PACA addresses non-payment by both solvent and insolvent buyers.

Under the Canada-U.S. regulatory co-operation council initiative, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada and the U.S. Department of Agriculture committed to establish comparable approaches to achieve the common goal of protecting Canadian and U.S. fresh produce sellers and buyers that default on their payment obligations.

As part of our commitment, between 2012 and 2014, the Government of Canada amended the Canadian Food Inspection Agency's Safe Food for Canadians Act to provide authority for regulations that will require membership in a third-party single-dispute body for fresh produce sellers who trade interprovincially and internationally.

Currently the Canadian Food Inspection Agency's licensing and arbitration regulations require buyers of fresh produce who sell interprovincially or internationally to be members of the dispute resolution corporation, or be licensed by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. Both entities provide dispute resolution services and can require the posting of financial security by buyers as a risk mitigating measure. Unfortunately certain buyers have used the dual entities to evade seller payment and posting of financial security.

Exemptions within the current licensing and arbitration regulations have also permitted fraudulent activities. For example, buyers who buy produce from sellers located within their province are able to trade internationally and interprovincially without a DRC membership or a CFI licence, and therefore, they do not adhere to the trading rules pertaining to payment.

The Government of Canada is committed to the continued financial viability of the fresh produce sector. The government's priority is to implement the Safe Food for Canadians Act regulations. The regulations will require sellers and buyers of fresh produce, who trade interprovincially or internationally, to be members of a single-dispute resolution body, likely the DRC.

These regulations will ensure the adherence of fresh fruit and vegetable buyers to a unified set of trading rules that govern against slow, partial, or no payment by buyers, with strict penalties for buyer non-payment. This approach should address the majority of non-payment issues faced by sellers of fresh produce.

Non-payment also occurs between fresh produce sellers and buyers at the interprovincial level, but interprovincial trade does not fall within the federal government's jurisdiction. The Government of Canada will work with the provinces to create a comprehensive national framework that will help to ensure all Canadian buyers of fresh produce adhere to fair and ethical trading practices.

As of October 1, 2014, the U.S. no longer permitted Canadian fresh produce sellers free access to the formal dispute resolution process of PACA because they did not consider the Government of Canada's financial protection approach as comparable to theirs. Canadian companies trying to recover unpaid bills that are not resolved at the informal dispute resolution stage now need to post a bond to move forward with a formal claim.

Canadian sellers of fresh produce still have access to PACA and its dispute resolution services as well as the deemed trust. No interruption in trade or increased incidences of non-payment has been found subsequent to the October 1 announcement.

Regarding Canada's fresh produce sector's ability to recover any non-payments from U.S. buyers, statistics provided by the U.S. Department of Agriculture reveal that 90% of non-payments are resolved at the informal dispute resolution stage at no cost to the Canadian industry to initiate the process.

Further, the trade of fresh produce between Canada and the U.S. has continued to rise over the last four years, by 55% for fresh fruits and 26% for fresh vegetables, showing that the U.S. remains an important market for Canadian fresh produce.

The Government of Canada continues to explore approaches that will enhance financial protection for sellers of fresh produce and any decisions will be evidence-based.

Thank you.

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

Then you'll come back with the numbers. The information is on the CFIA's website, yes? I've found information saying that we had more workers before the 2008 listeria outbreak, where we lost, sadly, 22 people, and the forecast for 2016 shows a few less site inspectors.

We were together when we studied Bill S-11, the Safe Food for Canadians Act. Mr. Shipley and I were the last two remaining on the committee. One recommendation from the Sheila Weatherill report was that we would have a third party audit of CFIA. Was that done?

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

I would comment on what great work the CFIA has done, and the provincial partners, with respect to the control of PED. It's doing a great job in that regard.

A lot has changed since the CFIA was created back in the nineties, and a lot has changed since then as far as agriculture is concerned. Our government has made changes with Bill S-11, the Safe Food for Canadians Act. We've fixed some outdated statutes that have been administered by CFIA. Now with Bill C-18 before us, we have a bill that aims to promote a consistent approach to regulations and provide an environment for predictability with stakeholders.

I'm wondering if you could explain how Bill C-18 is comparable in terms of modernizing CFIA legislation and ensuring greater regulatory consistency within that agency while encouraging innovation and ensuring that Canadian industry has continued opportunity for international trading markets.

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

We've heard comments about some dollars coming out of CFIA when they were talking about food inspectors, but of course it had nothing to do with that. There was actually an increase in food inspectors and millions of dollars in new funding in order to help and prepare, so some of the things we heard from other sides have perhaps confused the issue.

Could you expand somewhat on the Safe Food for Canadians Act and the things that are happening there? I see a lot of that included in this brochure the minister presented to us, and of course this is something that many Canadians should take a look at. As I say, it's going back to what you should have learned in your home economics classes about how much you cook your food and the cleaning of the food and so on. I think that's important.

Could you expand upon that a little and give us a bit of an idea about what this brochure is and what it does to help Canadians?

Safe Drinking Water for First Nations Act

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, like my colleague, I had the privilege of sitting on the aboriginal and northern affairs committee under your tutelage as the committee chair, and also under my colleague from Peace River. That was an important part of an opportunity to learn a lot about the first nations.

Now, of course, we have the safe drinking water act. I am really pleased to be able to stand here and speak to this. The legislation includes a mechanism that would allow for the development of these regulations. They are desperately needed to safeguard drinking water and allow for proper waste water treatment in first nations communities.

It is time to move forward to create the regulations needed to safeguard drinking water in first nations communities. Bill S-8 addresses an urgent need, and I implore the opposition to support the government on this legislation.

Currently, provincial and territorial regulations protect the safety of drinking water in the vast majority of communities across Canada. In first nations communities, however, no such regulations apply. The lack of regulations has been a major contributor to the poor state of drinking water in many first nations communities.

A lengthy process of consultation did occur, and engagement and review contributed to the legislation now before us. The process began more than seven years ago, when the expert panel on safe drinking water for first nations considered a series of regulatory options. The panel hosted a series of public hearings in first nations communities across Canada. More than 110 people presented to the panel, and a total of more than two dozen individuals and organizations provided written submissions. This work helped identify that a region-by-region approach was needed to develop effective regulations, as stated by my colleague from Peace River. Bill S-8 proposes this approach and recognizes that no one-size-fits-all solutions exist.

In 2010, the Government of Canada introduced Bill S-11, a different version of the legislation now before us, which also called for a region-by-region approach. Although this version died on the order paper, the review conducted by the standing committee of the other place clarified many of the issues that remained to be addressed. A key issue was that legislation on drinking water might abrogate or derogate from existing aboriginal and treaty rights of first nations. Most first nations representatives and many parliamentarians repeatedly raised concerns that the legislation and subsequent regulations on drinking water could infringe on existing aboriginal and treaty rights. Section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, protects these rights.

Between Bill S-11 and the introduction of Bill S-8 in February of last year, the Government of Canada continued to discuss legislative options with first nations groups. A breakthrough on the non-derogation issue came during the “without prejudice” discussions that the Government of Canada held with regional first nations organizations. During these discussions, first nations proposed that future legislation include a non-derogation clause, a provision clarifying the relationship between drinking water regulations and first nations rights. This was also a sentiment echoed by many witnesses who appeared to speak to Bill S-11. The clause now included in Bill S-8, clause 3, is virtually the same as the version proposed by the first nations as a result of those discussions.

In essence, the non-derogation clause included in Bill S-8 would not prevent the government from justifying a derogation or abrogation of aboriginal and treaty rights if it is necessary to ensure the safety of first nations drinking water. The non-derogation clause in Bill S-8 would effectively balance the need to respect aboriginal and treaty rights under section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, and the need to protect human health.

It is a delicate balance to strike, but I believe the clause in Bill S-8 succeeds and would help achieve a larger goal. Consider the following example. Let us say that the only feasible water drinking source for the first nations community is on reserve lands. Under Bill S-8, regulations could be developed to protect this drinking water source, even if the regulations limited the ability of first nations individuals to use the land pursuant to their treaty rights.

Perhaps the first nation wanted to build a commercial development on the land. If the proposed land use threatened the viability of the water source, and by extension, the health and safety of community residents, derogating from a possible aboriginal treaty right to use the land could be justified.

The inclusion of the non-derogation clause in Bill S-8 would immensely strengthen the proposed legislation. It would address a key concern of first nations and other groups while promoting the health and safety of members of first nations communities.

Another important development that occurred with Bills S-11 and S-8 was the publication of the national assessment of first nations water and waste water management systems. It represents the most comprehensive study ever done of the facilities used to treat and distribute drinking water in first nations communities. The national assessment is valuable, because it provides not only an important point of reference but also an impetus for parties to work toward an effective solution.

It is important to recognize that Bill S-8 proposes a collaborative process to establish regulations in each region of the country. The government will work with first nations and other stakeholders to draft effective regulations. These regulations could be crafted to meet the particular circumstances of the region and the needs of the first nations community.

Much work remains to be done to ensure that residents of first nations communities can have the same level of confidence as other Canadians when it comes to their drinking water. Moving ahead with Bill S-8, complete with the non-derogation clause, represents an essential step forward in providing first nations with the regulations needed to safeguard drinking water in first nations communities. I encourage the members of the opposition to stop voting against Bill S-8 and to recognize the important health and safety issues at stake.

Canadians across this land, in most communities we are aware of, have safe drinking water. It is really important that all Canadians have safe drinking water, including first nations, who have suffered for a long time, in certain circumstances, without it. It is incumbent upon our government to assist those first nations to make sure that, in fact, they have the same kind of safe drinking water that all other Canadians enjoy.

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in the House today. For the second time in two days we will be addressing first nations issues. I would like to advise the Speaker that I will be sharing my time.

Today I am speaking with the help of the MP for Nanaimo—Cowichan, who has done a tremendous amount of work on the first nations file. It almost seems to me that she does more work for the first nations than the entire Conservative caucus put together.

The regulations the government wants to impose may incorporate by reference provincial regulations governing drinking and waste water in first nations communities. However, the expert panel on safe drinking water for first nations expressed concern about using provincial regulations, since that would result in a patchwork of regulations, leading to some first nations having more stringent standards than others.

These regulations would overrule any laws or by-laws made by first nations and limit the liability of the government for certain acts or omissions that occur in the performance of its duties under regulations.

New Democrats want to see safe, clean water and water systems that work for first nations communities, but imposing this legislation is not the solution. The federal government cannot simply unload its liability to first nations without providing the funding to bring the systems up to new standards.

First nations oppose the act because of the new liability provisions for first nations governments and the language around the non-derogation clause that is formulated to possibly be a first step to erode the constitutionally protected rights.

The delivery of safe drinking water to on-reserve first nations communities is critical to the health and safety of first nations Canadians, but for more than a decade, many first nations have lacked adequate access to safe drinking water. Bill S-8 is the second legislative initiative to address safe drinking water on reserve. Its predecessor, Bill S-11, did not proceed to third reading as a result of widespread concerns and subsequently died on the order paper when Parliament was dissolved on March 26, 2011.

Bill S-8 retains several of the features of former Bill S-11, particularly in areas to be covered by eventual federal regulations. Non-derogation language is still included in the proposed legislation, expressly allowing for the abrogation or derogation of aboriginal and treaty rights in some circumstances.

It also provides for the incorporation, by reference, of provincial regulations governing drinking water and waste water.

The text of the bill would not, on its face, adequately address the needs of first nations to build capacity to develop and administer appropriate laws for the regulation of water and waste water systems on first nations lands.

New Democrats agree that the poor standards of water systems in first nations communities are hampering people's health and well-being. They are also causing economic hardship.

However, this legislation would make first nations liable for water systems that have already proven inadequate, without any funding to help them improve their water systems or give them the ability to build new ones more appropriate to their needs.

In addition, although there is a slight wording change, there is a clause in this legislation that would give the government the ability to derogate from aboriginal rights.

A provincial regime of regulations would not do enough to protect first nations communities. The patchwork system of provincial laws was rejected by the government's own expert panel on safe drinking water for first nations. We need a national regulatory system.

Regulations alone will not help first nations people to develop and maintain safe on-reserve water systems. They need crucial investments in human resources and physical infrastructure, including drinking water and sewage systems and adequate housing.

This is not a difficult problem to solve. It just requires political will and adequate investment.

The Assembly of First Nations submitted the following to the Senate committee:

Bill S-8, as part of ongoing process started with Bill S-11 prior to the CFNG, continues a pattern of unilaterally imposed legislation and does not meet the standards of joint development and clear recognition of First Nation jurisdiction. The engagement of some First Nations and the modest changes made to the Bill do not respond to the commitment to mutual respect and partnership envisioned by the CFNG.

The AFN also passed resolution no. 58/210 at its special chiefs assembly in December 2010 calling on the government to: ensure appropriate funds were available for any regulations implemented; support first nations in developing their own water management system; and work collaboratively with the AFN in developing an immediate plan on the lack of clean drinking water.

This resolution also puts the government on notice that the AFN expects any new water legislation to comply with first nations constitutionally protected and inherent treaty and aboriginal rights, the U.N. Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People and the report of the expert panel on safe drinking water for first nations.

Chiefs of Ontario, the Nishnawbe Aski Nation, the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs and Treaty 7 nations in Alberta have signalled continued concerns with the proposed legislation, citing, among other things, the need to address infrastructure and capacity issues before introducing federal regulations.

In 2007, Dr. Harry Swain, chair of the expert panel on safe drinking water for first nations, told the Senate committee on aboriginal peoples that:

This is not...one of those problems in Aboriginal Canada that will persist for ever and ever and ever. This is one that can be solved and it can be solved with the application of a good chunk of money for a limited period of time,

The expert panel on safe drinking water for first nations argued that “Regulation alone will not be effective in ensuring safe drinking water unless the other requirements...are met...both human resources and physical assets”.

In 2011, Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada released its “National Assessment of First Nations Water and Wastewater Systems--Ontario Regional Roll-Up Report”. The results show that 1,880 first nations homes are reported to have no water service and 1,777 homes are reported to have no waste water service.

In 2011, the Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada commissioned an independent assessment on first nations water and waste water systems. The report clearly states that a significant financial commitment to infrastructure development will be necessary. It will cost $4.7 billion over 10 years to ensure that the needs of first nations communities in water and waste water systems are met. Instead, the Conservatives committed only $330 million over two years in 2010 and nothing in 2011.

I would just remind members of the House that most of us take for granted the fact that we own homes. When we are not in our riding we either live in a hotel or have an apartment. Every day, if we need a drink of water, we just turn on the tap. We take it for granted. Some first nations communities just cannot do that. We had a fine example of that lately in Montreal when there was a boil water advisory. People were shocked that they had to boil their water. All we have to do is think about the first nations that have to do that day in, day out every day of the year and have done so for years.

Food Safety

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

Mr. Speaker, the member for Medicine Hat knows that Canadian families must have confidence in our food safety system.

Following the recall of XL Foods last fall, this government initiated an independent review panel. I met with that panel earlier today. I am pleased to say I will be tabling that report in the House this afternoon.

Let me be clear. Our government accepts the recommendations that the panel has made. We will continue to work on bolstering our food safety system by improving inspections, strengthening food safety rules and recalls and improving communications of Canadian consumers and passing things like Bill S-11.

[Stella Ambler, Conservative, Mississauga South, ON]

Thank you for detailing the ways in which we have been engaging with first nations partners since 2006 and every step of the way with regard to this proposed legislation.

In fact, after the last iteration of the legislation, Bill S-11, died on the order paper, we took action to address some of the concerns that had been raised by some first nations and other stakeholders by making a number of amendments.

On the current bill, Bill S-8, we've also continued to consult and have taken action to address some of those concerns that were first raised with regard to the opt-in provision for self-governing first nations.

You stated in the House during second reading that the government has chosen to remove clause 14 from Bill S-8, as was also mentioned earlier. Can you explain how this amendment will address concerns related to the opt-in provision?

[Susie Miller]

In the current work that's ongoing, we have been working with the industry on a standard for icewine, which is critical, both for us in Canada and internationally.

In addition, although I can't speak on behalf of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, they are undertaking a regulatory review for the implementation of regulations under the Safe Food for Canadians Act. Within that, I believe there are plans and opportunities to discuss the standards for identity of various products.

From our perspective at Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, we work with many of the agriculture and food industries to identify what their regulatory objectives are. We would certainly be pleased to do that with the beer and spirits industry. We have regular dialogue with them.

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

Mr. Speaker, the minister was unable to manage the two latest crises and his only solution is to make more cuts within his department.

Bill S-11 made a simple promise: more resources for food inspection. Unfortunately, the minister is doing the opposite: he is allocating fewer resources and asking the employees to do more. That is a recipe for disaster. Three hundred food safety employees will be let go.

My question is simple: why is the minister making cuts to food safety?

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

Mr. Speaker, we are in the consultation phase on Bill S-11. We are working with a number of groups both domestically and abroad that would import food into this country. We have to have an idea of what is coming so that we know what is there when a traceability situation is asked for.

We will have these consultations and then we will plan our course of action and put moneys to that course once that plan is in place.

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Bill S-11, the safe food for Canadians act, brought in major changes to food inspection. Thousands of new import licences will be required and that is going to require more resources, not less. The minister promised that Bill S-11 would give the CFIA more tools and more resources. The minister oversaw two of the largest recalls in Canadian history and now he is planning to cut CFIA's budget and fire hundreds of employees.

Why is the minister telling Canadians one thing and doing the exact opposite?

[Gerry Ritz, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

The top priority for me as minister is to make sure that CFIA has the capacity to do its job, both from a budgetary and a manpower perspective. We've done that as a government. We've increased its budget by 20%. We have over 700 new people working at CFIA on inspection files and so on. We continue to build that capacity, and we won't stop.

XL was a very difficult exercise. These challenges always create opportunities. There are ongoing investigations, one by an independent panel and one internally at CFIA. There will be lessons learned. There will be things brought forward. As we learned with listeria, things will be brought forward that we will learn from again.

There's a much better collaborative approach between public health, both at the federal and provincial levels, and CFIA. We're making use of provincial labs and industrial labs to make sure that the turnaround time on samples is better. We've identified the gap, as Mr. Mayers was talking about, on the traceability side in-between the processor like XL and through to the multiplicity of people who reprocess that product.

What we're looking for is harmonization in the way they report and the paperwork that's required. You're putting together a road map and when every piece of paper almost contradicts the last one, it takes precious time to do that.

We're getting beyond that now with the capacity in Bill S-11 to have a harmonized, simplified set of forms that everyone will use so that when CFIA comes in, they'll be able to trace it out much faster than they did during that XL situation.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we have heard those misleading figures and dismissive remarks over and over. They do not change the reality that a lack of proper training, deliberate instructions to ignore fecal matter and no comprehensive third party audit of available CFIA resources have led to people getting sick. Perhaps the parliamentary secretary needs to repeat the exact same answer to convince himself that what he is being fed from above is true, but he has not convinced Canadians.

The facts do not change. The situation at XL Foods was indicative of a major collapse and there is nothing that Bill S-11 introduced to the food safety system that would have stopped it from happening. It is disingenuous to pretend that it alone is the solution. It was a step forward, which is why we supported it.

Will the Conservative government not join us in asking that we take one meaningful step forward for the sake of Canadians' food safety and conduct a comprehensive, independent CFIA resource audit now and every five years?

[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.

[Denis Blanchette, NDP, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech.

We will support the bill. It is a step in the right direction, but from what I understand, it does not solve the problem. I have a problem with a bill that is a step in the right direction but does not solve a crisis.

We are used to this government playing political games and rejecting all of our amendments. Nevertheless, I would like to ask my colleague what should have been added to Bill S-11 to make it worthwhile and to ensure that we do not see more crises like what we saw at XL Foods.

[Francine Raynault, NDP, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to talk about Bill S-11, but before doing so, I would like to provide a bit of background.

A few months ago, I rose in this House to speak out against the disastrous consequences of Bill C-38 to implement certain provisions of the budget. Among other things, I pointed out that the bill far exceeded its mandate. The Conservatives have brandished this bill like a magic wand to implement their ideological austerity agenda.

I also spoke out against cuts to the Canadian Food Inspection Agency that would allow private companies to carry out inspections. After repeated attempts by the NDP to convince the government to provide more information about this bill, the Conservatives proceeded. I sat for 22 hours straight in protest. It was in vain. The Canadian Food Inspection Agency budget was cut by $46 million, and 314 full-time jobs will be eliminated by 2015.

While it is true that the number of inspectors at the CFIA has declined steadily on the Conservatives' watch, I would be lying if I said that I do not support Bill S-11. Like my NDP colleagues, I immediately saw this as a step in the right direction that would give Canadians greater food safety.

I must say that the NDP did not expect any less: we have been demanding that the agency be modernized since Sheila Weatherill's report was released in 2009. Now that the bill has reached third reading, I still support it. Nevertheless, the Conservatives' attitude is unfortunate.

It is unfortunate because the witnesses we heard at the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food confirmed our fears: Bill S-11 would not have been enough to contain the crisis that recently struck XL Foods in Alberta. The government did not bother to listen to the NDP's recommendations, and our amendments were rejected without any discussion. The Conservatives missed an excellent opportunity to shed their reputation as an autocratic government and demonstrate a little co-operation.

The important thing to remember is that the government's reckless cuts are putting Canadians' lives at risk. In many areas, cuts are irrevocably affecting people's lives across the country. When it comes to food safety, it is a matter of life and death.

And if life is not important enough to the Conservatives—except, of course, the lives of the unborn—we must recognize that there is also an economic benefit to food safety. How many E. coli crises like the one that struck the community of Brooks, Alberta, can our economy withstand?

The NDP supported XL Foods from the very beginning. What did the minister do during the crisis? He took days to respond, burying his head so deep in the sand that he probably found new oil reserves.

The Conservatives' reaction to the XL Foods crisis shows that they do not hesitate to mislead Canadians by saying things in the House that are not true. On October 2, the minister himself assured us that the CFIA had added 700 new inspectors since 2006. The minister included in that calculation hundreds of people who have nothing to do with protecting Canadians from unsafe food products. What is more, the facts show that there was no new meat hygiene inspector position at the CFIA. How do they come up with it?

The only time the Conservatives added inspectors to the meat processing program was following the listeriosis crisis, another crisis that Canadians could have done without. The government added 170 inspectors to calm things down, but cut 314 a few years later.

Let me put this into words the members opposite will understand: do the math.

Looking at these sorry past decisions makes us wonder, and rightly so, whether Bill S-11 is just a smokescreen.

Among the amendments unilaterally rejected by the Conservatives was one that guaranteed anonymity to an employee who blows the whistle on a practice that contravenes CFIA rules. At XL Foods, some employees who saw that standards were not being met chose not to say anything out of fear of losing their jobs. That is why the CFIA should have guaranteed this necessary anonymity, but the Conservatives refused.

Another amendment seemed necessary to me, and it called for the immediate audit of the Canadian food system with the coming into force of the bill. We then proposed that an identical audit be done every five years to verify whether all the objectives set out in the legislation had been met. If not, the government could have made the necessary changes, but the Conservatives refused.

In closing, I would add that Canadians will not be fooled by the dramatic increase in food safety-related penalties. They have been multiplied by 20 for the sake of appearances, but historically at the CFIA, the maximum fines have never been applied at current levels. In 2011, for example, the average fine was just 5% of the maximum fine and none exceeded 20%. Instead of being tougher, such increases might put a damper on the regulatory environment and decrease the number of penalties.

I could continue for some time listing the problems with this bill. That being said, I can only commend this initiative and confirm my support for it, for the welfare of the community.

Even though it is a step in the right direction, unfortunately it looks more like a dance step.

[Fin Donnelly, NDP, New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Joliette.

I rise today to speak to 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.

The bill would streamline a range of existing food safety legislation under one act. Among other legislation, it would repeal and replace the Fish Inspection Act, the Meat Inspection Act, the Canada Agricultural Products Act and the food provisions under the Consumer Packaging and Labelling Act.

Bill S-11 would raise the potential maximum fine for food safety infractions to $5 million, a 20-fold increase over previous maximum fines. This of questionable value, given that the Canadian Food Inspection Agency does not have a rigorous history of enforcing fining of companies due to limited resources. In 2011, no fines exceeded 20% of the maximum fine.

The bill would streamline inspectors' powers and procedures for all types of food. Previously, these were different according to whether the product was fish, meat or another agricultural product.

The bill would provide for the availability of official certification for exported foods and also would require food importers to comply with the licensing regime. It would allow the CFIA to suspend or revoke the licence of an importee instead of prosecuting for non-compliance. This could provide for more timely response in the advent of international recall.

The bill would allow for traceability requirements to be introduced through regulation at a later date. The New Democrats support enhanced traceability, particularly for meat, fish and fresh produce in the advent of a recall.

Finally, the bill includes a prohibition against tampering with products or selling products that might risk the health of Canadians or that have been subjected to a recall.

However, we in the NDP have some concerns with this bill.

It would provide a new due diligence defence that could significantly insulate companies from taking responsibility for any risk. This could diminish the Canadian public's confidence in our food supply and undermine the European Union's confidence in our exports. The United Kingdom recently rejected similar legislation for this reason.

It would do nothing to protect workers in meat processing plants with regard to whistle-blowing protection.

It also would include provisions that may inadvertently disallow certain products for Canadian export. The proposal to incorporate by reference standards could permit conflicts of interest to influence policy making and could abdicate government oversight entirely in some cases. There is no clause to address possible material conflicts of interest.

It would also do nothing to address problems with fraudulent nutrition information, despite the enormous health and financial toll of nutrition-related illness. The CFIA considers irregularities in nutrition labelling to be lower priority quality issues, not health and safety issues. According to the fines information published on CFIA's website for the period of January 2010 to September 2012, not a single fine was levied for inaccurate nutritional information on food labels, despite the fact that at least two of CFIA's own product sampling surveys demonstrated significant widespread inaccuracies in nutrition information provided in pre-packaged foods and restaurant websites and brochures.

By streamlining inspectors' powers for all types of food, there is concern that inspectors will have insufficient knowledge and/or experience to undertake this task. There are very different products with very different hazards associated with them.

The bill would create an internal review mechanism that regulated parties could use to seek review of certain inspection decisions or deal with complaints, rather than the current judicial review process. This should be monitored for transparency with resources given to public interest interveners.

Finally, the bill would give the minister power to grant, suspend and revoke non-transferable licences or registration for persons and establishments as well as any conditions that the minister might choose to prescribe. This represents more centralized power in the hands of the minister.

Let me talk about cuts to the CFIA budget in 2012. The Canadian Food Inspection Agency report on plans and priorities signed and tabled by the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food himself on May 8, says, “Planned Spending is declining by approximately $46.6 million and 314 FTE's from 2012-13 to 2014-15--REF-CFIA Report on Plans and Priorities”. This comes from section 1.51 the financial resources and human resources CFIA report on plans and priorities.

The Conservatives like to say that they have invested $100 million additional funds to the CFIA. That claim is false. The $100 million is projected over five years and only $18 million have actually been allocated this year. In budget 2012 the next three-year outlook for food safety indicates a projected cut of $56.1 million.

Let me turn to auditing the CFIA compliance verification system, CVS. New Democrats believe that the CFIA processes such as the central verification system, need to be audited immediately. Bill S-11 was amended in the Senate so that a CFIA audit was required within five years of its coming into force, but this is not enough. Given repeated failures in the food safety system, we cannot wait five years. This is why we put forward an amendment at committee stage that would require an immediate audit in order to get baseline information to be applied in future reviews. Unfortunately, the Conservative members of the committee voted against it.

In January 2009, Sheila Weatherill was appointed by the Prime Minister to investigate what led to the listeriosis outbreak that left 22 people dead during the summer of 2008 and recommended how to avoid a similar tragedy. The compliance verification system was a new pilot inspection program adopted by the CFIA in 2005. Weatherill found that the CVS was flawed and was in need of “critical improvements related to its design, planning, and implementation”. She also found the CVS was “implemented without a detailed assessment of the resources available to take on these new tasks”.

In the aftermath of the 2008 disaster, it was discovered that Maple Leaf was under no obligation to report to the CFIA test results showing contamination in the plant. In a system which increasingly relies on companies to police themselves, this shortcoming was not addressed.

XL Foods, one of the biggest meat processors in the country, had also ignored this requirement to notify CFIA of test results. The CFIA does not have the resources in place to fully understand what was going on in that plant.

Important pieces of the Weatherill report were never fully adopted by the government, including a substantive internal audit that addressed CVS, the pilot reporting system being used for food inspectors during the Walkerton crisis that continues to be used today. A financial audit of the CFIA was completed by PricewaterhouseCoopers, but it did not address the systems and the processes recommended by the Weatherill report.

There is much more I could say about the resources to the CFIA, on penalties that one would say are adequate but not enforced, and on further resources. However, let me summarize what we are looking for.

New Democrats have a serious number of concerns with the bill, however, we support the bill moving to third reading. We know the Conservatives need to accept responsibility for gutting food safety resources. They have been proponents of increased self-regulation. Inspectors look at paperwork, not at meat. This is a direct result of fewer resources provided to CFIA, and we are seeing those consequences now.

There should be no super events that catch us unaware. Given the increased complexity and centralization of the food system and greater volumes handled by any single facility, resources for food inspection should be increased to ensure the safety of Canadians.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend raises a good point, something that this Parliament was victimized with the moment the Conservatives gained power in 2011, that they we will do things their way or no way. They are not interested in reasoned amendments, not on omnibus Bill C-38 or Bill C-45, and not on this food legislation Bill S-11.

There were many thoughtful amendments brought forward, not for the purpose of stage playing or any purpose than to make a good bill better, as my friend from Welland said. However, the Conservatives are not interested. As I said earlier, even at committee when I was moving my amendments, there was no response from the governing party. The Conservatives just asked the chair to call the question because they were not interested in discussing it.

[Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe, NDP, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his speech. He mentioned that amendments suggested in committee were simply dismissed, even though the opposition parties worked hard to develop those amendments.

Earlier today we were debating Bill C-44. What I find funny is that although everyone agreed on the principle of the bill, the opposition's suggested amendments were also rejected, without any real argument or debate.

That is unfortunate, because the NDP has been clear that Bill S-11, as it stands right now, might not have prevented the major beef recall we had recently—the largest beef recall in Canada's history—or the 22 deaths resulting from the 2008 listeriosis crisis.

The amendments proposed by the opposition deserve to be seriously considered, which the Conservative government did not do. That is unfortunate. I would like my colleague to comment on that.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the official opposition for raising the whistleblower amendment at committee. My colleague is quite right, that if whistleblower legislation were put in this legislation, it would establish a threshold of proof that is not absolute, in other words, not beyond a reasonable doubt. It would establish on a balance of probabilities whether someone has violated the law. That would have been helpful because a whistleblower wants to blow the whistle without fearing that his or her employer would suddenly be charged, possibly with criminal charges. Employees would be liberated by such whistleblower legislation in the bill, knowing that they could blow the whistle and that any consequences as a result of their employer's failure to do something would result in non-criminal charges. I am saddened that the government has not included whistleblower legislation in Bill S-11.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed the factual remarks by the member for Guelph. He laid out quite a number of facts that the government has basically misrepresented time and time again. One of those facts concerns section 13 of the Meat Inspection Act, where the the government has always had the authority it requires. It tries to portray Bill S-11 as needed to deal with the latest serious food recall in Canada, the second under the present minister's watch. The government really had the authority.

Bill S-11 was not a priority for the government, although it is now claiming that it was, because the government put it in the Senate. It was not an issue then. It was just luck that it happened to be there when this crisis developed.

The second major area where there seems to be government messaging that misrepresents the facts is that of auditing, which is important not just for what has happened but also going forward.

Could the member enlighten us why the government constantly misrepresents the number of inspectors and the facts by claiming it did an audit when it really did not do the kind of audit the Weatherill report called for? Why would the government go to these lengths to say it did something that it really did not do?

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to again speak to Bill S-11, the modernization of Canada's food safety system. This is, undoubtedly, a timely issue, especially given that we are hardly two months removed from the beginning of the largest beef recall in Canadian history caused by a collapse in monitoring and sanitation measures at XL Foods in Brooks, Alberta.

I also note that there has been no delay in addressing the bill. I last rose and spoke to Bill S-11 on October 22, not even a month ago. In fact, and I will address this through my remarks, I believe we may have proceeded a little too quickly, by only a few days perhaps, for how serious a matter this is.

We know there is widespread support for modernizing our food safety system. When the Canadian Food Inspection Agency was first created in 1997, it was understood that the agency was only the first step in a multi-step process that also involved consolidating its legislative framework. The first attempt to do this was by a Liberal government in 2004 through Bill C-27 and it has been tried a couple of times since.

Witnesses who appeared before the committee generally spoke well of the need to proceed with this legislation but were also sure to voice their concerns, concerns that we share and that are important to be heard because of how serious an issue food safety remains. When it is time to vote, we will support Bill S-11. However, it is important that our concerns and the concerns of stakeholders across the country get raised and discussed.

We all know the context that makes this legislation more potent: the remarkable failure at XL Foods in Brooks, Alberta, where beef left the facility destined for the United States contaminated with E.coli 0157, a harmful pathogen that can cause serious illness when consumed by humans, especially those most vulnerable, like young children and seniors. The facts are pretty clear. Whether the Americans caught it first and let us know or the CFIA discovered it independently on September 4, Canadian officials would have known that day that there was an outbreak of E.coli at Establishment 38. Right then and there, bracketing should have caught any further contaminated meat. It did not.

During testimony by the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, he stated:

The initial find, the problem, was that they had a discovery but then had not bracketed properly. That's taking production on either side of the affected batch out of the food cycle as well. They had not done that, and until CFIA was back in there doing the trend analysis, that was not discovered.

The government can argue that none of these shipments that the Americans stopped and that XL Foods tested on September 4 got out, but that E.coli contaminated meat from XL Foods made it to store shelves means it is playing word games and that tainted meat from that batch or not made it to consumers and made 18 Canadians ill. Semantics does not take the meat off the shelves. It was a recall issued on September 16, about two weeks later, that did.

The minister makes it clear in his statement that meat got out because XL Foods was not bracketing, nor was it monitoring E.coli trends. Why not? More still, we ask day after day what the delay was to no avail, until eventually we heard that only under Bill S-11 would inspectors finally have the power to compel conveyors and processors to supply the necessary documentation requested by inspectors. That is curious.

I will remind members that subsection 13(2) of the Meat Inspection Act states quite clearly:

The owner or person in charge of a place or vehicle referred to in subsection (1) and every person found in that place or vehicle shall give the inspector all reasonable assistance to enable the inspector to carry out his duties and functions under this Act and shall furnish the inspector with any information the inspector may reasonably require with respect to the administration or enforcement of this Act and the regulations.

That is the law now.

It also states in paragraph 13(1)(c) that inspectors may:

...require any person to produce for inspection, or for the purpose of obtaining copies or extracts, any book, shipping bill, bill of lading or other document or record that the inspector believes on reasonable grounds contains any information relevant to the administration or enforcement of this Act or the regulations.

That is the law now without Bill S-11.

Moreover, as recently as this past February, the CFIA made its regulations concerning inspectors' powers clear through the processor's guide to inspection, reinforcing the legal requirement to provide information to and assist an inspector when requested.

When I shared this concern with the CFIA president, George Da Pont, he assured me that while the Meat Inspection Act presently does provide these powers for inspectors, the new bill adds phrases like “timely” to the act, which will create an authority to provide documents in a certain timeframe.

Both acts have consequences for non-compliance and the addition of “timely” would not have changed what happened. In fact, much of our concern with Bill S-11 comes from what is not written and what will be incorporated by reference later on. We may very well see the appropriate timelines put in place but there is no way to know that now.

We are supporting this legislation because the language surrounding inspector powers will slightly strengthen and be made more clear but it remains abundantly clear that this bill is not a magic bullet that would have prevented 18 Canadians from falling ill last month.

What we all really require to augment our food safety system is the knowledge that the CFIA is adequately supported with sufficient staff and resources. I am not the sole voice on this issue.The only objective way to achieve this is through an independent comprehensive resource audit, such as the one requested by the independent investigator into 2008's listeriosis outcome, Sheila Weatherill. In her report the following year, which addressed measures necessary to help prevent another outbreak like the one in 2008 that killed 23 people and made many others sick, Ms. Weatherill was concerned with some of the information she received and stated the following:

Due to the lack of detailed information and differing views heard, the Investigation was not able to determine the current level of resources as well as the resources needed to conduct the CVS activities effectively. For the same reason, we were also unable to come to a conclusion concerning the adequacy of the program design, implementation plan, training and supervision of inspectors, as well as oversight and performance monitoring.

A full account of resources is absolutely necessary to not only ensure the adequacy of staffing but the effectiveness of training and allocation. I think members opposite are really concerned that we want to employ hundreds more inspectors. While we were justifiably concerned with their cuts to inspectors and the CFIA in the budget, some $56.1 million in cuts, which ostensibly have an impact on front-line resources, we thought they would like to know, that they need to know, if there are real efficiencies that could be attained once we know if everyone is adequately trained and where there can be redistribution. It is the smart way to run a business.

Given her concerns, Ms. Weatherill went on to recommend:

To accurately determine the demand on its inspection resources and the number of required inspectors, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency should retain third-party experts to conduct a resources audit. The experts should also recommend required changes and implementation strategies. The audit should include analysis as to how many plants an inspector should be responsible for and the appropriateness of rotation of inspectors.

That is pretty clear. We know that the CFIA did not do this because, in 2010, then CFIA president, Carole Swan, indicated that while it retained PricewaterhouseCoopers to conduct a review, she was very clear when she stated:

They didn't conduct it as an audit. An audit is a very specific process. It was a detailed review .

This means that not all the Weatherill recommendations were complied with. This means that even before the government's cuts in this year's budget, neither the agency nor the government had any clear impression of its resources and how best to allocate them. While cutting blindly may not have led to the E.coli contamination in Brooks, it certainly will not help the already compounded problem of inspectors in facilities who still do not have the necessary training in the compliance verification system, nor will it facilitate the transition of individual meat, fish and other agricultural product inspectors into a consolidated Jack of all trades and masters of none.

This very issue was highlighted during the Senate hearings on Bill S-11 when Bob Kingston, the president of the Agriculture Union of the Public Service Alliance of Canada, told members of that committee:

You will be interested to know that in the XL plant, only a small portion of the inspectors are actually trained in CVS. That is right; for more than four years after CVS was introduced, most inspectors there have not been trained in how to use it. Why, you might ask? The answer is actually simple. The CFIA cannot afford to deliver training any faster and does not have enough inspectors to relieve those away while being trained. As well, resources are often diverted to address crises, which further derails training.

To me, this is a clear statement that the CFIA lacks the resources and support to carry out its mandate.

According to the CFIA's website, the compliance verification system reads:

The CVS is a task-based inspection tool that:

is based on the CFIA’s regulatory requirements,

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 commodity’s inspection program.

This is particularly important to me because it is not only verification of industry compliance but of consistency in inspection. In fact, a specific example on the CFIA website, and I can provide the website address to my colleagues opposite if they would like to check it out for themselves, reads:

For example: inspectors must regularly check a plant’s sanitation records, employee hygiene, cooking temperatures, ingredient controls, and lab results for pathogens like Listeria, Salmonella, and E. coli.

Instead of the authority to request documents within a certain time, which they had, what it sounds like the inspectors really needed to prevent the outbreak at XL was adequate training on CVS and enough staff to cycle them off while training. This revelation strikes right at the heart of the often repeated myth that the Conservative government has hired more inspectors than ever. It can have record numbers of inspectors and even if we believed more inspectors were hired, which no one does anymore, how can they perform their functions fully without adequate training?

It is another clear indication that while the government is willing to build a car, it will not pay to hire a proper driver or, in this case, train one. Instead, it is adding an additional burden to inspectors who are responsible for keeping us safe.

Mr. Kingston continued in his testimony to say:

This situation is not limited to XL. As a matter of fact, ...we found the exact same scenario throughout Quebec.

This is yet another example of industry self-policing gone wrong because the CFIA is not adequately resourced to verify compliance. Does the government even know how many of its inspectors are adequately trained?

Since the beginning of October, when the hon. member for Toronto Centre and our leader, wrote to the Auditor General to commence an immediate audit and our now retired colleague from the other place, Senator Robert Peterson, moved an amendment for an audit function to be placed in the bill, we have argued the absolute necessity of this comprehensive study into the CFIA. Despite all of this, when I proposed an amendment to commence an immediate and comprehensive resource audit at committee, the Conservative members voted it down. All this, despite the fact that there was not one witness who thought it was a bad idea.

They love quotes on the other side. Karen Proud of the Retail Council of Canada said:

I can't see that our members would object to such an audit. It's always a good thing to look internally at whether you have the right resources to match your requirements and your mandates and, especially given a new piece of legislation, whether you've matched up the right resources.

Similarly, during a meeting of the Senate committee on agriculture and forestry, Mr. Albert Chambers, the executive director of the Canadian Supply Chain Food Safety Coalition argued:

It has become very common in the food industry to use an accredited certification body to provide a third-party audit to a food safety management system.

In fact, at the June 21 meeting of the same committee, the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food replied in response to a question about a third party audit that he would entertain the idea. In the weeks that followed the E. coli outbreak, he strangely became more and more resistant to the idea.

Sadly, Conservatives on the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food voted against every single amendment put forward by opposition members. As a matter of fact, there were not many. We used our opportunities judiciously, hoping to work collaboratively to make good legislation better.

Despite asking us to work with them on a bill that everyone agrees is a good start, the Conservative members refused to follow their own express wishes. In a spirit of mindless partisanship, they even blocked an amendment of mine that would have seen the clock start ticking for the five-year limited review, which is there now and the act does provide for, immediately upon royal assent instead of waiting an unknown number of months until the rest of the act came into effect.

There was not an inch given to improve the bill. Despite our co-operation, Conservative committee members were determined to vote against us at every turn. Towards the end of the study, I requested two additional days for us to speak to departmental officials and get their answers to questions and concerns posed by other witnesses and for us to shape strong, wholesome amendments to further improve a bill that we all support. It was so important to our food security that we needed the opportunity to get it right and to address all of our concerns the first time around. Alas, that never happened.

However, we remain optimistic that on some day, this arrogant, dismissive way of the government will give way to better, more responsive legislation.

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to debate Bill S-11.

Sincerely, and with great deference to the other place or at least with as much deference as I can give the other place, I believe it should have been Bill C-whatever number we would have given it. The bill should have started in this place, not the other place. The 120 days that the other place took should have been spent in this place with us studying the bill, rather than the paltry number of days that the government has decided we should have simply because the other place had it for a period of time.

Whether the other place debates it or not is of no consequence to New Democrats and it is certainly of no consequence to this member for Welland. What is of consequence at the end of the day is the House debating the people's legislation, because this is the people's House and this is indeed where the legislation should have started. That is why I have called the government to account on that particular aspect.

To get back to the bill itself, at one point in time we had an emergency debate, and I will not use the reference the minister suggested and the colourful language that he used to describe the debate. At one point in time I actually said to my friends across the way that when one cannot take yes for an answer, it is still yes. It was yes then and it is yes now.

The unfortunate part for my colleagues across the way is that they could not find a way to say yes to any of the suggestions that this side of the House had. According to the parliamentary secretary, they deferred to the “experts”, when indeed it was simply a question of someone parroting verbatim the good things that the PMO suggested they parrot.

Ultimately one gets back to Sheila Weatherill's report. I had the great pleasure of serving with my colleague from Malpeque on the subcommittee on listeriosis and that was when I first came to know about food safety. I came to know first-hand the devastating effects that food safety, when it is not followed in the way that it needs to be, can have on Canadians. We saw that with the great tragedy in 2008 when those folks died from listeriosis.

That is why it was so eminently important for us on this side to make this legislation as good as it possibly could be. That is the one shortcoming we find on this side. What we had said from the beginning was that we would be supportive, encouraging, helpful, proactive and bring forward what we believed would be good suggestions. We held to our word along the way, even though the government curtailed the amount of time we actually had to work on it.

When I was on the subcommittee during 2008, the government decided to call on Ms. Weatherill and do a parallel investigation. The irony of the investigation, which by the way cost the Canadian taxpayers millions of dollars, was that all but a handful of the recommendations were exactly the same, almost uniquely identical. We saw the same things.

One of the things that we saw in the CVS, the compliance verification system, that Sheila Weatherill also saw was that the compliance verification system was flawed and in need of “critical improvements related to its design, planning and implementation”. She went on to say it was “implemented without a detailed assessment of the resources available to take on these new [CVS] tasks”.

It was not just a question of adding up the numbers of how many people were there. Ms. Weatherill said that we had to audit the design, the planning and the implementation. That is what recommendation number seven said. It was not that we go out to PricewaterhouseCoopers, a nice place that adds them up and says, “Today, there are 22. Tomorrow there will be 24, and now we are done.”

The entire system needed to be looked at because the CVS was a pilot project. That is all that it was, leading up to 2008. It was started in 2005 by the previous government as an attempt to do food safety differently. There was nothing wrong with the pilot project. There was nothing wrong with making that attempt. What was wrong was verifying that the verification system actually verified what it was intended to work on. No one ever answered that question because no one audited it.

We are still left with the question hanging over our heads. Was the compliance verification system actually verified to see if it does what it was intended to do in the first place? We added up the number of folks who might be in it and we received a number. The government still does not really tell us the actual number. It uses this number of 700.

Let me offer a little help to the government. There are 170 new inspectors in the ready-to-eat meat sector. That came out of two places: the subcommittee that recommended that additional people were needed in that field and Sheila Weatherill who said the same thing. Since we are in the spirit of being nice, let me commend the minister for taking on and fixing the ready-to-eat meat sector and putting 170 new inspectors there.

That did not happen at XL. None of those new inspectors who went to the ready-to-eat meat sector are in those abattoirs. There are no additional inspectors in any of those abattoirs. The XL meat plant certainly has more today than two years ago. It simply filled the vacancies of the folks who left, because there is a great turnover in that plant as all of us now know. Sheila Weatherill actually went through that.

Carole Swan, who at the time was the president of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, the actual person in charge, said about this audit, which was supposedly conducted and the one that the government stands today and still defends as an audit, that:

They didn't conduct it as an audit. An audit is a very specific process. It was a detailed review.

Number seven of Sheila Weatherill's report has not been completed. Parts of it have been done. The government counted the number of people but it did not audit the design, the plan or the implementation because it never asked PricewaterhouseCoopers to do that. It did what it was asked to do and that is fair. It is fair for the government to say that it counted the number of people but it is unfair for the government to suggest that it did a strategic audit of the recommendation, which was fundamentally critical to ensuring that the CVS actually worked. We can have as many people as we like in CVS but if it does not work, it does not mean anything.

Consequently, the government has not lived up to fulfilling all of the recommendations of the Weatherill report, let alone the recommendations coming out of the subcommittee. Some of the recommendations were done and some were not. Some of the recommendations were just left out because the government did not really like them.

When it comes to resourcing, the government loves to tell us one number and play with another one. Let me quote again for the House what we know to be true. On May 8 of this year the Minister of Agriculture said, “Planned Spending is declining by approximately $46.6 million and 314 FTE’s”, which in human resource jargon means full-time equivalences. What that means is that over the next two years there will be 314 less jobs now than the before.

The government loves to tell us about the $100 million, but it neglects to tell us that it is actually over five years, not this year. It neglects to tell us that it has actually only spent $18 million of that $100 million already. It should have spent far more than that because it has been out there for over a year. The resourcing that the Conservatives' continually talk to us about is not always wholly there because it is the jig of the number. They throw numbers out and somehow they might look similar or perhaps not.

We do know the facts because we did read the budget, although I sometimes wonder about my friends on the other side. We did read that lovely book that the government gave us in budget 2012 that says the three-year outlook for food safety indicates a projected cut of $56.1 million annually.

That is the Conservative's budget. I am not making it up. I am just reading the stuff they gave us. Of course, if the other side is now telling us the book is not true, that they no longer believe that page of the budget is going to be enacted, then I think they would have to amend it. Surely they would have to retract it and tell us something altogether different. However, they have not done that.

It is unfortunate, as this is a bill that the House seems to want to pass. I have heard my colleagues from the far end and my colleague for Guelph, who works on the committee with us in the spirit of co-operation to make food safety the priority that we all believe it is. This is about safe food for Canadians, for the children and people out there who may be immune suppressed and for the elderly who we saw get sick once before and some in fact died. We want to ensure that we do not have that happen again. All members in the House believe this to be true.

Therefore, in the spirit of co-operation, the official opposition went to committee and told the government side that we could help make the bill better. We put amendments forward because we wanted to help make the bill better. No one person or one party is blessed with all the best ideas. Unfortunately, some may think that perhaps they are. The irony is that we all know that.

I know the member but I always mispronounce his lovely riding, so I won't go down that road. It is a wonderful place in New Brunswick, Tobique—Mactaquac. Every now and again Glaswegians can get their mouths around funny words. However, it was with that spirit of working together that we entered into making sure that this legislation came back to this place in an expeditious fashion, unlike the other place that hung onto it and then went on vacation for the summer, which is how important its members thought it was. They went on vacation.

Meanwhile, some of us worked on the special co-op committee during the summer, which was our vacation. I see some of my colleagues from all sides of the House who were there working. It was the members of the House who went to work during the summer and the members of the other place could indeed have done that. If they did not want to do that, they should have passed the bill to us.

There were a number of amendments that we put forward. Some were as simple as defining a container. In the legislation it says “containers” and then goes on to define a cargo container. What is a cargo container? Is it a box car? Is it a shipping hold? We suggested that we should better define it and talk about pails, totes and baskets to give it further definition. We thought that would be understandable so that when folks saw the legislation they would get a sense of what it was about, rather than having to wait for the regulations to come out for the definitions.

The Conservatives said no, but I have to give them credit, they had a reason. For the first four amendments we put forward they had some reason why they did not like it. However, on the other seven amendments, they just voted no. They did not seem to have any reason or they ran out of reasons, I am not sure which.

Clearly, the opposition side of the agriculture committee, including the member for Guelph who was supportive, felt that the two responsible factors were the compliance verification system and the audit. We felt an audit should be done now because in five years when we go back and look at the system, the problem is that we may not know where we started.

As I said in committee, if I want to drive to Edmonton and I do not know where I am when I start, in five years from now I will be somewhere. It might Edmonton but it might be in Malpeque, which is a wonderful place in Prince Edward Island. When I get there I know the member for Malpeque will say to me, “Member for Welland, you actually drove in the wrong direction. Turn around and go back the other way and then you will get to Edmonton”. However, I would then get there in ten years instead of five years.

Therefore, doing an audit now would give us a benchmark of where we are and where we are going to start from. In five years, we would know if we were better, worse or the same, and whether we need as many inspectors. Part of the government's problem is that when we say those things, it thinks we want to have more inspectors in five years.

Maybe we need fewer. Maybe the system is working so well and is so efficient that there are too many people doing that and we need to transfer them to where they are not doing quite as well. That would be the value of the resource. That would be the value of legislation.

Of course, my friends across the way on the government side just voted no. They did not really have a reason. They just voted no. Then when we suggested whistleblower protection, their response was that the Criminal Code covers that off.

We heard the parliamentary secretary say that the Criminal Code covers tampering but that it is not the best way to do it. Instead, it should be in the legislation. We agree. We think that is the best way to do it, as we do with whistleblower protection.

In the last crisis we just faced, there were workers who said that had they been protected, they might have come forward sooner, and we may not have had a crisis. That is “may”. We are not certain. However, any opportunity that would have prevented it would have been good for the cattle ranchers across the country. They suffered needlessly because of the failure of someone in the system. Whistleblower protection may have indeed helped those ranchers not suffer the unintended consequence of what happened when it came to that crisis.

We saw the government rely on the Criminal Code, but it did not rely on it for this one aspect of the bill because it believed it was better, more expeditious and made more sense to do it that way.

As for fundamental protection for people who want to come forward and tell the government something it ought to know, it is telling them to take their chances in the courts and see if they can convince a crown attorney to go ahead with the charge and see if they can get a conviction. What the government did not talk about was whether they could get their jobs back afterwards. They are more likely to be fired while going through the court system. Of course, if people won that one, they would have to go through civil proceedings to try to get their jobs back. Therefore, they would go to court twice, and along the way, would have to pay for lawyers.

However, if the Conservatives had put simple whistleblower protection into the act, it would have talked about people who make vexatious claims against a company because they are mad at the boss. This was about real claims to help prevent another food crisis for Canadians across the country.

We want to make food safety better. We want to help this legislation be the best it can be for two simple reasons. The first is that this may be the last opportunity for quite some time to do something with respect to the food safety act as we amend three acts into one. More importantly, this is about food safety for Canadian families, children, the elderly, and all of us. All of us eat. We all eat differently. Some of us graze, and some of us do not.

At the end of the day, this was about making fundamentally good legislation. It started out as decent legislation. It could have been great legislation, because all of the hands at the committee were indeed onside to make it so. The government side brought forward a bill that in its sense was pretty decent. All sides of the House at that committee, including my friend from Guelph, were bound and determined to try to make it better. There were no egregious amendments or poking sticks in eyes. There was none of that. This was about making it better from the day it showed up at committee. The unfortunate part is that as good as it is, the bill could have been so much better than it is. That is the shame of not having all sides work together.

When the government puts a hand out and asks that all sides work together, it should recognize when the hand comes from the other side to work with it to make it better. Our hand was extended to the government to make it better. Unfortunately, it decided to say no, and that is truly unfortunate.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary continually says that his government has completed all of the 57 recommendations of Sheila Weatherill when in fact they have yet to do that. Clearly, the seventh recommendation is an independent third party comprehensive audit, independent of the CFIA and outside sourced so that it can be objective.

When asked about that issue, Mr. Albert Chambers, the executive director of the Canadian Supply Chain Food Safety Coalition, argued that it had become very common in the food industry to use an accredited certification body to provide a third party audit to a food safety management system.

Even the former president of the CFIA, Carole Swan, said that only a survey by PricewaterhouseCoopers has been done, which is quite different than an independent third party audit.

One of the problems we have perpetually is not knowing whether the CFIA is properly resourced and has the proper support. While we support Bill S-11, the problem is that the Conservatives continually refuse an independent audit. Why do they refuse an independent third party audit?

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture]

Mr. Speaker, once again, I am in before you in support of our safe food for Canadians legislation. This is a bill in which I firmly believe.

This is also a bill that finds virtually unanimous support among stakeholders. Let me read some quotes.

The Food & Consumer Products of Canada says, “These changes will further enhance Canada’s reputation as a global food and beverage product safety leader”.

Martin Unrau, president of the Canadian Cattlemen's Association, says, “The CCA commends the government for bringing this ambitious but necessary legislation forward”.

Ron Bonnett, president of the CFA, says, “The Canadian Federation of Agriculture views the introduction of Bill S-11, the Safe Food for Canadians Act, as an important step to enhance and modernize Canada's already reputable food safety system”.

Our government is committed to making food as safe as possible for consumers. As I have said before, Canada's food safety system is world class. However, some of the legislation that governs it needs to be modernized. It is legislation that functions well, but it can be improved.

In this case, change is both needed and good. We must always ensure that the authorities granted by legislation are adequate for our goals of good governance. As well, we must look at our operating environment to see if things have changed so we can adapt and keep pace.

In light of the 2008 report of the independent investigator, Sheila Weatherill, regarding listeriosis, there is a need to strengthen and modernize much of the legislation that governs the activities of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. I should add that when our government introduced Bill S-11, we fulfilled the final recommendation of the Weatherill report. This demonstrates how seriously we take food safety.

I would like to explain how the safe food for Canadians act will strengthen and modernize our legislation. I would like to focus on five main points. The first involves strengthening the ability to trace and recall foods. The second has to do with consolidating our inspection and enforcement authorities. The third point involves providing stronger import controls. The fourth aims to modernize the certification of exports. Finally, the fifth point aims to protect Canadians from things like tampering, hoaxes, and deceptive practices.

First of all, let us look at how passing this bill will strengthen Canada's ability to trace and recall foods. There has been a lot of talk recently about food recalls, and everyone wants to know how products can be recalled more effectively. This bill is designed to fill those gaps.

I would like to ask the following question: who among us has not found some leftovers in the fridge and wondered how long they have been there? Although we know that bacteria attack food before we can taste or smell them, we inspect our leftovers by checking for mould and bad smells. As long as it seems okay, we think about keeping the leftovers for a little while longer.

Of course, cleaning out a refrigerator is one thing and getting unsafe food commodities off the shelves in our retail outlets is something else altogether. Here is how our bill would improve our capacity to recall and trace unsafe food products.

Our proposed legislation would give strengthened authority to the CFIA to develop regulations related to the traceability and recall of food commodities and the appropriate tools to take action on unsafe food as the need arises.

Our proposed legislation also includes prohibiting the sale of food that has been recalled. These new powers would go a long way to strengthening the CFIA's ability to keep consumers safe from potentially harmful food. Also included would be the authority to require regulated parties to establish a traceability system.

However, it is not up to the CFIA alone, and I wish to point out that our food safety system is a partnership between government, industry and consumers. We all have a role to play when it comes to food safety.

This leads me to consolidating our inspection and enforcement authorities. What exactly does that mean?

As I said earlier, Canada's food safety system is world class; however, we must recognize that it is getting old.

Take for example a wonderful recipe handed down by your great-grandmother. Over the years, every generation modified the ingredients and added comments in the margin. It is still a good recipe, but it is kind of difficult to follow.

Over the past 50 years, we amended food safety legislation as the need arose to take into account changes, including changes in technology. It was a good approach in that the intentions were good, but the results varied. I will provide an example.

When it comes to illegally imported food products, meat inspectors do not have the same powers as fish inspectors. A meat inspector can order that the product be removed from Canada, but a fish inspector cannot. It does not always make sense nor is it always practical for different powers to apply to different food products. After all, some companies produce both meat and fish, and there are inspectors in charge of examining a range of products.

Of course, the inspection work gets done, but it could be done more effectively. What we really need to do is incorporate various legislative provisions on food safety into one law, which would establish a subset of rules that everyone could understand and follow easily and that would apply to all food products. This streamlined process would have many benefits.

It would allow the current inspectors to do their job better and it would simplify training for the next generation of inspectors. It would also allow the Canadian Food Inspection Agency to be more efficient and effective and the inspectors to manage risks more consistently, whether we are talking about meat, fish or other food products. That is precisely the purpose of this bill: to establish a subset of powers that will make all food products and regulated parties subject to the same inspection rules.

Since the 1960s, many cooks have changed the recipe to control food safety in Canada. They did excellent work, but the time has come to adopt a new version of the recipe.

Our proposed legislation also addresses strengthening import controls, and here is why.

Thanks to our globalized marketplace, consumers can purchase almost any food they desire in Canadian grocery stores. With so much of our food coming from abroad today, many consumers are asking good questions. At the end of the day, they want to know whether imported foods are really safe to eat.

This bill and our government's planned overhaul of our food safety system would address some gaps in our legislation with regard to food imports. First, a specific clause in the legislation would prohibit the importation of unsafe food, thereby stopping it before it makes it to the marketplace. Second, we would licence importers. We need to ensure that we sustain the parity that exists, in terms of standards and compliance, for both domestic and imported food commodities, and that is what we plan to do.

These are just some of the tools we can use to do that: keep unsafe food out of Canada more effectively; track food importers and remove unsafe imports from our shelves more efficiently; and impose tough new penalties on importers who break the law. Together, these measures would better protect the health of consumers and would give Canadians greater confidence in the safety of imported food.

Let us now talk about export certification. While the bill is geared towards import, or keeping unsafe foods out of Canada, it is also geared towards export or certifying that Canada's products leaving this country are of the highest quality.

I have noticed that, when Canadians talk about food safety, they often ask questions about what is coming across our borders from other countries. But, frankly, what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. If we demand high standards in food safety from our trading partners, then they have the right to demand the same of us.

That is why, around the world, the idea of food certification is taking hold. Many countries, including Canada, have been insisting that food imports be certified to give consumers an added layer of confidence in the safety and quality of the food they are buying.

Some of you might be thinking this is one more burden on the food industry. The fact is, despite the high quality of our food, some foreign markets have been closed to Canadian producers. Armed with an official seal of approval, our food exporters may finally be able to pry these markets open. So certification will heighten our capacity for food exports, not hinder it.

But there is a major stumbling block to certification. At the moment, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency can only certify some foods for export. We need to expand that authority to encompass all food commodities. In this way, all Canadian food exporters can get the edge they need to go after new foreign markets.

The proposed legislation would allow the CFIA to certify all food destined for export. Essentially, this would create a level playing field and show potential export customers that the food we are offering them is every bit as safe as what we consume ourselves. In so doing, we could be helping more Canadian food producers to gain a foothold in international markets.

Last, but definitely not least, let us have a word about protecting the Canadian public from food tampering, deceptive practices and hoaxes.

Canada is blessed with one of the world's best food safety systems, but the confidence of Canadians is based to a certain extent on faith. We trust that the system works effectively and that our food is safe to eat. When Canadians hear that someone has tampered with a food commodity, it can cause alarm. We worry not just about the product or the brand in question; we start to think that if it could happen to this brand, it could happen to any brand. Even if the threat turns out to be a hoax, the damage is done. Our faith in the food safety system has been called into question.

Until now, in Canada, tampering with food, threatening to tamper with food or falsely claiming to have tampered with food was dealt with through the Criminal Code. However, we think there is a better way. Passing the bill would mean that the Canadian Food Inspection Agency could act immediately when there are reasonable grounds to believe that this type of activity has occurred. That could save time and potentially lives.

We need to update and modernize food safety in the country. I am proud to say that our government is taking action. This new food safety legislation would allow the CFIA to go after those who put hazardous foreign objects into food, those who threaten to tamper with it, or those who knowingly or recklessly communicate false or misleading information to strike fear into the hearts of consumers. Those culprits could face prosecution. The proposed legislation would provide new authorities to address immediate food safety risks and would build additional safety into the system, from the producer or importer to the consumer.

We need to work together. That includes making Bill S-11 into law. Previous governments, both Liberal and Conservative, have tried to enact legislation with similar aims. The NDP recently voiced support for what the bill strives to accomplish. At agriculture committee, and during previous debate in the House and in the other place, both opposition parties made a point of voicing their support for our legislation.

During an agriculture committee meeting, the member for Welland said: “...hopefully, it will become a standard across the country for food safety”. At another meeting, the member for Guelph exclaimed: “...everyone around this committee table supports Bill S-11”.

I now call on the opposition members to make good on their word and help pass this important bill.

Some have claimed that because this important legislation was dealt with efficiently at the House of Commons agriculture committee and no amendments were made to the bill there, the government has not done its due diligence. However, the fact is that this legislation has been debated numerous times in both the other place and in the House of Commons.

Bill S-11 has been studied in both the Senate and House of Commons agriculture committees for over 20 hours during which 46 witnesses appeared, including the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food on two occasions. Both the Senate and House agriculture committees have, indeed, done their due diligence in their study of the bill.

While journalists and opposition members are entitled to their opinion as to whether proposed opposition amendments to Bill S-11 would improve the bill, the expert legal advice offered to our government was that these amendments were not necessary at best and would be an encumbrance to the CFIA and the food safety system at worst.

When it comes to the safety of Canadians and their food, our government listens to the experts.

The changes we are proposing would go a long way toward strengthening and modernizing our already robust regime. Passing this bill would give Canadians even more confidence in the safety of the food they eat.

With so much good will and good intention from my honourable colleagues, I see no reason why we cannot deliver on this bill to provide Canadians with a modern food inspection system and the protection they deserve.

The House resumed from November 7 consideration of 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, as reported (without amendment) from the committee.

Business of the House

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon, before we depart to our constituencies and events for Remembrance Day where most of us will be participating in remembrance services in our ridings, we will resume third reading debate on Bill C-28, the financial literacy leader act.

The week of November 19 will continue to see a lot of important action at the House committee level, where we are looking at the budget implementation act, Bill C-45, the jobs and growth act, as it advances through the legislative process. The finance committee is supported by 10 other committees looking at it and all together they will conclude the review of this very important bill and the very important job creation and economic measures that are laid out, measures that were first put before Parliament back in our March budget.

Meanwhile, on Monday the House will continue the third reading debate of Bill C-44, the helping families in need act, which we started this morning. Given support for the bill from all corners of the House, I hope it will pass that day so the Senate can pass it before the end of the year.

After Bill C-44, it is our intention to take up the report stage and third reading of Bill S-11, the safe food for Canadians act, which was reported back from the agriculture committee yesterday. I hope we will see strong interest in passing that bill quickly, just as we did for second reading.

Once that bill passes on Monday, the House will return to third reading of Bill C-28, the Financial Literacy Leader Act, if we do not finish the debate today.

That will be followed by second reading of Bill S-8, the Safe Drinking Water for First Nations Act. On Tuesday, Wednesday and Friday, the chamber will consider report stage and third reading of Bill C-27, the First Nations Financial Transparency Act, which was also reported back from committee yesterday.

I should also advise the House that on Tuesday when we return from the Remembrance Day week, immediately after question period I will call ways and means Motion No. 14 respecting some technical amendments to tax laws. Let me assure the House that there should be no doubt about this, but the opposition will no doubt be disappointed. This motion will definitely not implement the New Democrats' $21.5 billion job-killing carbon tax.

Finally, on Thursday before question period, the House will resume second reading debate of Bill S-8 and after question period we will take up Bill S-2, the family homes on reserves and matrimonial interests or rights act, also at second reading.

Agriculture and Agri-food

[Merv Tweed, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the fourth report of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-food, regarding Bill S-11, Safe Food for Canadians Act.

The committee has studied the bill and has agreed to report the bill back to the House without amendment.

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

Chair, I think the whole question of, for example, what is considered to be commercial and in confidence is an issue, as is what is considered to be releasing technically advantageous information into the marketplace that pertains to the company in question with regard to a food safety incident. I mean, these are the types of things where there has to be....

He's asking for agreement in writing to maintain the confidentiality of the legislation. Well, then, just what...? In order to determine what can and can not be divulged, there has to be an understanding as to what is confidentially protected or not protected. This is where everything is going to bog down.

I think that's what we're trying to avoid with Bill S-11. We're trying to give the minister and the agency the tools they need to be able to respond quickly to situations when they arise.

[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.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Good morning, everyone. Welcome to the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, meeting number 54.

Orders of the day, pursuant to the order of reference of Tuesday, October 23, 2012, are 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 are: from the Canadian Association of Importers and Exporters, Keith Mussar, vice-president, regulatory affairs; from the Canadian Cattlemen's Association, Dennis Laycraft, executive vice-president, and Ryder Lee, manager of federal-provincial relations; and from the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, Christian Lacasse, vice-president.

Welcome.

I think you have appeared before committee, so you know that you present and then we'll move right to members' questions.

Mr. Mussar, would you like to start, please.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Once again, I'd like to thank both organizations for being here today and for expressing your support for Bill S-11. I think it is important legislation. I think that there are a lot things going very right in food safety, but there are always improvements to be made. It's never a completely perfect system.

On some of the wording, particularly in clause 24, Ms. Bilkhu made a suggestion on changing the word “they” to “CFIA”. Right now, it says that “an inspector may, for a purpose related to verifying compliance or preventing non-compliance with this Act, enter a place, including a conveyance, in which they have reasonable grounds...”. A suggestion was made that the word “they” should be changed to “CFIA”.

My concern is that the inspector is acting on behalf of CFIA, with the authority of CFIA. To put it back to the institution to somehow have to sanction his presence there I think runs counter to what the inspector is trying to achieve, which is a timely response to what he sees as a concern based on reasonable grounds.

What we just saw with the XL situation was that being able to respond quickly is very important. My concern with changing the word “they” to “CFIA” is that it institutionalizes a decision-making process that has already been vested in the inspector himself or herself and that the inspector is there to respond quickly. But it must be based on reasonable grounds. In fact, if a company were displeased with the way in which an inspector had conducted himself or herself, it now has recourse, not back to the inspector, but back to a tribunal that would look at the situation and consider both the arguments made by the inspector and the concerns of industry.

Could you comment on that? Do you agree with what I'm saying? My worry is that it's going to slow things down for the inspector trying to do his work with the authorities, with which he's already vested through legislation. He is an inspector of the CFIA.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thanks to all of you for coming today.

This is for Robert and Sukhdeep.

In your opening remarks you said that imported food is regulated to a lesser extent. This confirms testimony that was given before this committee a year or so ago. That testimony suggested that only 2% of the food coming into the country is actually inspected, meat to a much greater extent, which you also said. As a result, a lot of Canadians have concerns about imported food when they hear about melamine in milk from China. I'm not trying to discredit; I'm just trying to clear up some of this, okay?

Bill S-11 will include provisions to register and license importers, and it will require them to maintain a written preventative food safety control plan, so it sounds like the government is downloading responsibility for food inspection to the importing industry. If there's still a lack of inspection of this food that is coming into our country, can you tell me how being licensed and adopting a preventative food safety control plan will indeed assure Canadians that their imported food will be any safer than it is now?

[Ron Versteeg, Vice-President, Dairy Farmers of Canada]

Mr. Chair and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to participate in the committee's consideration of Bill S-11, the Safe Food for Canadians Act.

Dairy Farmers of Canada places a high priority on food safety and such related standards as traceability, animal care, and biosecurity. These aspects are important for the Canadian dairy sector.

I'm a dairy farmer from Cumberland, Ontario, just outside of Ottawa. With my family I manage an operation of 110 cows.

In June, DFC welcomed the new legislation, stating that food safety was a high priority for dairy farmers. We recognize it is a shared responsibility between the public and private sectors. The consolidation of food safety legislation would further clarify CFIA's role and responsibility related to food safety. DFC also indicated support for a more consistent inspection regime across all food sectors, and for tougher penalties on activities that put the health and safety of Canadians at risk.

DFC looks forward to seeing how the new act will recognize the role of technology in food production, enhance control over food imports and exports, deter from tampering and deceptive practices, and add strength to labelling, as well as maintain the authority to provide standards for food in Canada.

DFC believes that food quality is directly related to animal health and care. Healthy and well cared for animals produce high-quality milk. Consumers also expect that the environment will be respected in the process of producing milk.

Traceability is a tool to mitigate risk related to animal health, and will speed up market access recovery and the return to normal business in the advent of an animal disease outbreak. All dairy cows are already identified with unique ear tags under the existing legislation. The animals we export are identified of course, and all purebred animals are documented in their respective breed herd books. Premise ID information is already a matter of public record. For example, 45% of the dairy animals in Canada that are located in Quebec are fully traceable today. This is the standard we want to see implemented consistently Canada-wide.

DFC and its 10 provincial member organizations have worked closely with the CFIA and Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada to develop on-farm programs: the Canadian quality milk, or CQM, program, and more recently the national standard on biosecurity for dairy farms.

Several stakeholders were also involved in developing the code of practice for the care and handling of dairy cattle. DFC believes in integrating these tools so that farmers can assure the public about how their dairy products are produced and where they come from.

Consumers continue to trust the government's role in the food safety system. External and reputable third party oversight is necessary to continue to maintain strong confidence in Canadian food.

Mr. Chair, DFC is looking forward to the timely enactment of this bill and to participating in the consultations to develop the related regulations.

Thank you for your attention. I will be happy to answer your questions.

[Sukhdeep Bilkhu, Chair, Canadian Association of Regulated Importers]

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, for the invitation to appear during your hearings on Bill S-11, an important bill for everyone in Canada and those outside Canada who buy Canadian-produced food products.

This bill will provide the regulatory environment for food production and marketing in Canada for at least the next 30 years, and therefore, we need to get it right. It is CARI's view that Bill S-11 sets out the framework needed to modernize food safety in Canada.

What is also needed is a Canadian national food strategy that will help guide the creation of the regulations that will quickly flow from this bill. It's like buying a much-needed new car but not having an agreement on how it will be used or where we would like to go with that. A national food strategy is being worked on by both industry and the CFIA, but this work is still far from completion.

CARI supports Bill S-11 because it will put all imported food on the same footing when it comes to food safety. We also note that Bill S-11 will increase the powers and tools available to CFIA's food inspectors.

Recent incidents have shown that there were gaps in the tools available and in which part of the food industry the regulation could be applied. We understand these weaknesses can now be corrected.

One area of concern CARI would like to raise is found in subclause 24(1). This subclause gives inspectors a lot of powers including, for example, the power to access a company's computer if a non-compliance is suspected. CARI agrees this is a reasonable approach providing the grounds to believe have been documented.

There's a difference in the wording between the English and the French versions of clause 24. The English version states “they have reasonable grounds” while the French appears to reference the inspector. We would suggest this difference be fixed by amending both the English and French versions to read “the CFIA” instead of “they” or “the inspector”.

Much like the Competition Bureau has to document the reason to believe before being granted access to company records, so should the reason to believe non-compliance is taking place be documented before an inspector has access to company computers and all the other actions that can be taken under clause 24.

The change CARI is proposing for the English text is the replacement of “they” with “CFIA” and the insertion of the word “documented” between the words “have” and “reasonable”. The passage would read, “in which the CFIA has documented reasonable grounds”. This would ensure that an individual inspector could not decide on his or her own to exercise the powers set out in clause 24, without first convincing the CFIA officials that the powers are needed and putting on file the documentation setting out the basis for the reasons to believe. CARI believes this change will significantly reduce the concern about this clause among industry stakeholders and harmonize the investigation process with other federal acts.

Finally, to balance the no liability clause in Bill S-11, CARI suggests a contingency fund to be put in place as part of the act and to provide firms with access to funds to compensate firms for mistakes made by inspectors, test results, or other actions that proved to be wrong.

Thank you very much for your time.

[James Laws]

One important thing that Bill S-11 puts in place is that it requires all the importers of food to be registered, which is not currently the situation. It's my understanding that a few years ago, when there was a scare involving imported melamine, they had trouble tracking it as quickly as they could have had they had all the importers registered, as this bill will require. It will make it a lot faster. It will help them out a great deal in that regard.

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Chairman, I am going to ask them to expound on that layer next.

My next question is, how do you think the new legislation, Bill S-11, will improve food safety for Canadians? What are your impressions specifically on that?

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Thanks for coming today.

I want to ask you both a general question, and this is a big one. I want to know what your general impression of our current food safety system is before Bill S-11. Can you give your impression of it to the committee today?

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Laws.

Ms. Proud, I have some questions for you as well.

It's pretty clear that Bill S-11 is aptly titled as the safe food for Canadians act. It clearly will make Canadians' food safer; there's no question. You look at strengthening inspection, increasing penalties for those who are risking food safety, giving inspectors the right tools to do their jobs, traceability requirements. All these things are going to improve Canadians' food safety and that's obviously something we should all support. I know you do, and that's appreciated.

Probably equally as important is the perception, and for you particularly with the Retail Council, consumer confidence is vital. As much as we need to ensure we are improving food safety, we need to make sure it's visible and known to consumers as well.

I would like to hear your thoughts on whether you believe the changes under Bill S-11 would do that. Do you believe consumer confidence will be increased? Do you think Canadians will think their food is safer as a result of the measures taken in this piece of legislation?

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to both witnesses for being here today. I appreciate your testimony and the questions that you've answered so far. I have a couple of questions for each of you.

I'll start with you, Mr. Laws.

You testified before the Senate committee concerning this bill. You said that the Canadian Meat Council “support[s] the consolidation and modernization of the legislation presented in Bill S-11”. Could you explain to the committee a little further why you feel that consolidation and modernization of Canada's food safety legislation is so important, particularly to your meat industry here in Canada?

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

Very good. I appreciate that, thank you.

I'm glad we had the opportunity to clarify the difference between the monetary penalties and actually being found guilty of a violation in a court of law by a judge, because sometimes those get confused and someone thinks the CFIA inspector can write a ticket up to $5 million, which is not the case.

I want to ask a question about traceability. Traceability, as you know, plays a key role within our food safety system. This legislation builds on what we already have, and of course, it wants to move the industry toward even better traceability. I believe the industry wants to go to traceability as well, because it's a win-win for everybody. Yes, there can be some initial costs incurred to move in that direction, but of course, the savings and the benefits are tremendous.

I want to ask each of your organizations your thoughts on the traceability portions of Bill S-11.

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

Thank you very much, Chair.

Thank you to our guests for being here today.

I thank you and your members for your commitment to food safety. I appreciate the fact that you support Bill S-11 and what we're trying to accomplish here, by taking something that is good and robust and making it even better, particularly based on feedback provided by you, by the members of your organizations, and by the industry at large.

I wanted to ask a question regarding fines, because sometimes there can be confusion about fines or penalties. They basically break down into two groups, as you know. CFIA inspectors can use AMPS, which are the administrative monetary penalties where, I guess, a ticket can be written by an inspector for minor violations, serious violations, or very serious violations, but the monetary amounts are very modest. I think a minor violation is $1,300 and a very serious violation is $10,000.

Bill S-11 prescribes penalties through the court system. In other words, if someone is actually found guilty of contravening the act in certain circumstances and a judge rules on it, there are summary conviction fines and indictable offence crimes. I believe there has been a significant increase. Penalties used to be up to $250,000, if found guilty by a judge in a court of law. These have been increased to $5 million, as a maximum, and not in every case, of course. It's at the discretion of the judge, depending on the circumstances.

I wanted to ask each of you whether you feel this is reasonable, if you feel this is a positive step. What are your thoughts on that?

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

Ms. Proud, we see at the retail end standards that retailers have set. Sometimes they seem to vary by individual retailers, especially large ones. Do you see this as being problematic with this legislation? The minimum standard is Bill S-11. If folks ask for standards beyond that, how does it affect this piece of legislation? We have producers who come to us and say that the standard is here or the standard is there. It goes back and forth. Do you think we should have uniform standards at the retail end, so that we all understand whatever the benchmark is? Should we have legislation that speaks to that safety standard?

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

Thank you, Chair, and thank you to the witnesses for being with us today as we go through Bill S-11, I agree it is an update, and hopefully it will become a standard across the country for food safety. It's one bill rather than a multiple and makes it more transparent for all to understand exactly what the rights, obligations, etc. are for all parties whether they be primary producers or end consumers.

The legislation talks about an audit five years after it comes into force. They'll do a review to try and see what's working and what's not working and make adjustments. One of the things we've been saying is that if you don't have a reference point to start from, how will you know where you end up in five years? Specifically around CVS, a compliance verification system, it's still our contention that in the Weatherill report, although done by PriceWaterhouseCoopers, and in Carol Swan's analysis and review, an audit is still needed.

I'll look to both of you to comment. Do you have any suggestions about whether that's something that should be looked at? I realize you may not have a definitive answer on that. Is it reasonable to suggest that we have a reference point so when we count to five, we know we actually got to five and didn't get to four and a half? It's difficult, it seems to me, that if you don't have a reference point to start from, how do you know what you've counted? You'll know at 10 because you can count from 5 to 10.

I'll let you comment. Why don't we start with Ms. Proud. We'll work right to left.

[Karen Proud, Vice-President, Federal Government Relations, Retail Council of Canada]

Good morning, Mr. Chair, members of the committee. I'd like to thank you for giving us the opportunity today to speak to Bill S-11.

My name is Karen Proud. I'm the vice-president of federal government relations for the Retail Council of Canada. I'm going to keep my remarks fairly brief this morning because we've already submitted a brief to the committee and it details our position around Bill S-11.

The Retail Council of Canada represents over 9,000 members with 45,000 storefronts across Canada. Our members range from the large multinational companies that you're all familiar with to the smaller, independently run and owned companies.

In February of last year, a new grocery division was added to the Retail Council of Canada which amounts to about 95% of the total grocery industry in Canada. Our grocery members include: Loblaws, Walmart, Metro, Federated Co-ops, Co-op Atlantic, Sobeys, Costco, and Canada Safeway.

I'd like to start off by saying that RCC and our members fully support Bill S-11. This is evidenced by the fact that Minister Ritz announced the introduction of this bill at the location of one of our members and I was in attendance in support of that bill. I'd like to also mention that last week Minister Ritz appeared before you and said, “Consumers remain this government's number one priority when it comes to food safety and consumer confidence.”

I can tell you with certainty that if it was any one of our members sitting here today, they would say that exact same thing. Food safety is the number one priority for the grocery members. They expend considerable effort and resources ensuring that the products they sell to their customers are safe. In this, we are completely aligned with the policy intent behind this legislation.

As you will see from our brief, we are proposing a few amendments to the bill that we believe will improve it. I'm not going to go over these in detail as you've already been provided with a copy of our detailed brief, but I'd like to draw your attention to a couple of key points.

We do believe that there a few areas in the bill where the authorities are a bit broad. In the interest of transparency and clarity, we have suggested some minor changes that we feel don't detract from the intent of the bill and still provide the minister with the necessary authorities.

With regard to disclosure of confidential business information, we feel that the language that can be found in the recently passed Consumer Product Safety Act actually provides for a balanced approach that would give the minister necessary authorities in this area while recognizing the sensitive nature of this information.

As my friend, Mr. Laws, commented, we also have some concerns about incorporation by reference. We're not actually suggesting any sort of amendment to the bill, but we are asking that the committee make a recommendation that the Treasury Board Secretariat develop guidelines for departments in using this authority, as we've seen more and more pieces of legislation being passed that have the authority to incorporate documents by reference.

We'd like to make sure the departments are given guidance on how and when to use this authority, what sort of documents can be incorporated by reference, and the need for proper consultation with industry on those documents.

As I said, I wanted to be brief and I'm hoping that I achieved that. I would like to thank the committee again for providing us with the opportunity to share our views. I look forward to any questions you might have.

[James Laws, Executive Director, Canadian Meat Council]

Thank you. Mr. Chair, I am going to make my comments in French.

Good morning, everyone. My name is James Laws and I am the Executive Director of the Canadian Meat Council. Thank you for the invitation to speak to you today about Bill S-11, the Safe Food for Canadians Act.

The Canadian meat sector is the largest in the food processing industry. It employs close to 70,000 people. Its annual gross sales of pork, beef, veal, lamb and poultry exceed $24.1 billion. Last year, Canada exported more than $1.3 billion in beef and $3.2 billion in pork to over 125 countries throughout the world. In total, there are close to 740 federally registered meat establishments that slaughter, process, quarter, bone, package, preserve or provide storage for meat and are inspected by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency.

Food safety is the top priority of meat processors. We support measures aimed at consolidating and modernizing the legislative framework governing food products. The CFIA currently runs eight food inspection programs. Each of them uses different inspection methods and tools.

Proposed Bill S-11 will improve food surveillance by instituting a more uniform inspection regime for all food products and increased control measures for imported food products. The government and the industry have known for some time that Canadian legislation governing food products needs to be modernized and strengthened.

In July 2009, the independent body tasked with investigating the 2008 listeriosis outbreak recommended that the government simplify and modernize the federal legislation and regulations that have a significant impact on food safety. That is the very objective of Bill S-11. We have long maintained that the meat industry in Canada is treated very differently from other food sectors.

That is why we support the consolidation and modernization of the legislation presented in Bill S-11, which is causing the repeal of the following acts: the Fish Inspection Act, the Meat Inspection Act, the Canada Agricultural Products Act and certain provisions of the Consumer Packaging and Labelling Act.

We believe in the importance of a modern approach to inspection based on the audit and compliance system. Grouping various powers and provisions in a single act will harmonize inspection and enforcement powers, make them coherent for all food products and allow inspectors to be more effective, and the industry to reach higher compliance levels.

Bill S-11 gives the government the power to create regulations to strengthen the act. For instance, subsection 51(1)(m) of the bill will require that certain persons prepare, keep or maintain documents and provide them to the minister or the inspector or that they give them access to them. Thus, consumers will benefit from a safer food supply system.

The bill repeals the Meat Inspection Act, a 17-page document, and replaces it by this new act, a document of over 60 pages. The bill contains several notable provisions, among them clauses 52 to 55 which describe incorporation by reference. Clause 52 states:

52. A regulation made under subsection 51(1) may incorporate by reference any document, regardless of its source, either as it exists on a particular date or as it is amended from time to time.

The meat industry is the most regulated sector in the food industry in Canada. Aside from the requirements that apply to meat and food under the Food and Drugs Act and its related regulations, and the Consumer Packaging and Labelling Act, we must comply with the Meat Inspection Act and its related regulations, as well as with the standard and comprehensive requirements of the Meat Hygiene Manual of Procedures, published by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. The manual has 19 chapters and over 1,200 pages of text, and is already incorporated by reference in the meat inspection regulations, which are themselves 120 pages long.

The agency often changes sections in the manual without consulting the industry. Incorporation of documents by reference, under the regulations, is an important power according to which regulations will remain updated and could be modified. Indeed, section 55 of the bill states:

55. For greater certainty a document that is incorporated by reference in a regulation made under subsection 51(1) is not required to be transmitted for registration or published in the Canada Gazette by reason only that it is incorporated by reference.

We hope that incorporation by reference will be applied through a process that will guarantee consultation among the stakeholders. In that way, those who are affected by a change will have an opportunity to express their opinion. We think that this risks becoming a vicious cycle, because at least the Canada Gazette process, which is slow, is clear and well-explained.

Allow me also to point out that the new legislation applies only to meat processors that are inspected by the agency and that export or sell their meat through interprovincial trade. The new legislation will not create a unique standard, a national standard for meat inspection. We will continue to have hundreds of meat processors in Canada operating under different inspection regimes in the provinces. We think that all the provincial meat inspection standards should be consistent with the federal meat inspection standard.

Canadians should expect that all the meat products they consume are compliant with the same rigorous standards, regardless of where they live or make their purchases. We are willing to work closely with the government representatives and officials to make sure that the new act establishes a regulatory framework that will ensure that we are competitive in the international arena and will encourage the Canadian meat industry to attain the highest standards in food safety.

Thank you for your attention. I will be pleased to answer your questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Good morning, everyone. Welcome to meeting number 53 of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food.

Our orders of the day are pursuant to the order of reference of Tuesday, October 23, 2012, on 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 are, from the Canadian Meat Council, Mr. James Laws, executive director, and from the Retail Council of Canada, Ms. Karen Proud, vice-president, federal government relations.

Welcome. I think you know the drill, so we'll ask you to make your presentations and then we'll move to questions from the committee.

Mr. Laws.

Food Safety

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

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives claim that Bill S-11 is crucial to preventing other problems related to E. coli. Yesterday, however, the minister admitted that his department did not impose strict rules when it comes to food safety. If the inspectors are not doing their jobs and do not have the resources they need, new legislation will not change anything.

The minister has admitted that his system does not work. Will he now allow the external review of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency that the NDP has been calling for?

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture]

Mr. Speaker, what is clear is that the CFIA acted appropriately and responsibly with respect to XL. What is also clear is that the member is not conversant with what is in Bill S-11.

We have a superior food safety system. This has been recognized in a report on OECD countries.

Bill S-11 takes our superior system and makes it better. The member is asking about the authorities that the CFIA has. If he would only read Bill S-11, he would see where we are headed.

[Neil Bouwer]

The Criminal Code, under “mischief”, does cover tampering. Normally, property-related mischief offences are prosecuted under the Criminal Code. Of course, that is not pursued or enforced by the CFIA. The new tampering provisions enhance and clarify the penalties for tampering to make clear that it's a clear prohibition.

As I mentioned in my earlier statements as well, this is a key provision that we heard discussed in our consultations, because tampering—for example introducing certain foreign objects into food—or threatening to tamper, which can be also very negative to the confidence in the food supply, is basically a gap in terms of the existing legislative framework. Bill S-11 proposes to strengthen and enhance those provisions by pointing out specific prohibitions on tampering and threatening to tamper.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

The relevancy is very clear. All we've done here in the last two weeks is spread a lot of misinformation and fear. That's why I'm so happy to have you here to explain this, because they would not accept any explanation from the minister, and I don't think they'll accept the explanations you have posted on the website, which is very unfortunate.

I will move on to Bill S-11. Bill S-11 is a piece of legislation which.... Again, you addressed Mr. Valeriote's concerns. He's been talking in the House about how you didn't have the mandate or the ability to get information in a timely manner. You've explained that to him, so I hope he now understands that. I know the minister explained it to him probably four or five times.

One thing I want to talk to you about is labelling. You've taken the labelling provisions from the old act into the new act. Have there been any changes in the labelling legislation? Then when it comes to tampering, can you explain the process around that?

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Da Pont.

First, you should know that everyone around this table supports Bill S-11. Second, nobody's questioning any of your commitments to food safety in this country. It's not so much what's in the bill as it is what might not be in it. Sheila Weatherill, in the report, recommended a third party independent audit. All sorts of successful companies—private, public—have third party audits, an outside look-see at the total resources.

I have four questions for you.

One, do you see the merit of a third party audit being undertaken every five years? Somebody outside of the CFIA would come in and look at it so parliamentarians and CFIA are informed on what exists, what may be needed, and how efficiencies can be achieved.

Two, you heard the minister say that CFIA could have been a lot more hard-nosed on getting the material from XL, rather than being nice. That tells me they had the authority. It might be a matter of culture in a particular plant where the authority wasn't exercised, whereas it is exercised in other plants. I'm still troubled with this seeking refuge behind some lack of authority under the existing legislation. Do you not feel they actually had the authority and it was a question of culture?

Third, I'm concerned that clause 27 doesn't authorize the inspector to require a specific format in which information is delivered, so time could be lost between delivery of information and the interpretation of that information.

Fourth, would you, Mr. Da Pont, undertake to provide within a week the names of all inspectors at CFIA, their job descriptions, and where they are located?

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

I have 20 seconds. There is to be consolidation of the inspection system for fish, meat, and agricultural products, the idea being that the inspectors will now consolidate their knowledge. How will Bill S-11 ensure that the differences will be taken into account? In other words, will a former meat inspector have the qualifications to go to other areas? How are you looking at that?

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

Let me just say that not only is Bill S-11 legislation that we support but also that we want to try to work with you, Minister, and obviously our colleagues across the way, to ensure this legislation can be as good as possible.

We certainly agree there are some very good things in Bill S-11. It addresses some of the issues identified by all people in the legislature, as well as by CFIA—both administratively and by its inspectors in the field—and the industry in general, so we believe this bill is pointed in the right direction.

We'd like to see whether there are some things that can enhance and help it. We'll put those forward in a constructive manner. That's going to be our attempt here.

I want to get back to the usable data. I think that's a critical piece and I'm glad you raised it. It should be in a usable form and not, as you described—and I think probably very accurately—a bunch of boxes with a bunch of paper in them; that's not necessarily usable.

HACCP is the centrepiece for the plant itself. When we look at that, HACCP is not something we control per se as policy-makers. It is an independent piece that comes in as a control point that the plant has to administer and has to actually live up to; it has to be authorized and has to be registered. All of those things it has to do underneath that HACCP program.

The questions for me are these. How does the request that we now have through Bill S-11 about usable data get integrated into the HACCP piece? Does that become a change to the folks who register HACCP as well, or does it just become an augmentation to it? I'm happy either way, to be truthful. In fact, if it goes into HACCP, perfect; if it is an augmented piece to the HACCP program, that's good too.

I'll put the next question and allow you to get to it, Minister.

We know the HACCP programs, for those who have them in their plants, are reviewed annually by a third party, and not necessarily CFIA, by the way, just for the folks who are watching. These are registration programs. ISO 9001 registration is outside that and is not a CFIA responsibility, and folks need to know that.

That being the case, will there be an obligation that not only would we see that their registration has been effectively kept up, year to year to year, but we would also get more than just seeing their registration certificate? Would we see they've done the things they need to do to continue to get that registration?

Would this bill help make sure that kind of information-sharing continues, because the HACCP program is indeed supposed to be, in the words of a Toyota production assistant, “an ongoing quest for excellence”? If that is the case, should then that reporting mechanism be a two-way dialogue back and forth between the plant and its front-line inspectors to understand how that's working out?

[Gerry Ritz, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Well, we've had a number of bills before the House that talked about tampering with food. There are things under Health Canada and things under CFIA.

We get these hoaxes. Around Thanksgiving, you always end up with somebody saying that they've done something to a turkey. Whether they did it or not, you still have to treat it as though it has happened, and you seek to bring that product back in. CFIA resources, Public Health Agency resources, and the store owners themselves all take part in that. It is a three-way partnership to make sure that food is safe.

What Bill S-11 does is make sure that if someone does that and they've shown intent by warning that they're doing it, they can be prosecuted to the full extent of the law and beyond, should it be required. It's just not on, those types of things. It's like talking about a bomb in an airport. Whether you did it or you didn't, it still creates a furor that is hard to dispel.

The one thing that people need to realize is that food safety is not a static exercise. HACCP programs, the CVS report card on the HACCP programs, what CFIA does, and what the Public Health Agency are not a static operation. It's a living document, or a living tree in a lot of respects, in that things ebb and flow.

As a plant like XL expands or does things differently, those changes call for different HACCP controls and for different reporting on those controls, and they call for different people and different training for the CFIA staff. There's ongoing and constant staff training, upgrading, and so on at CFIA to adjust for what industry is doing. They give us their plans and we analyze them. When we say, “Yes, this looks better”, CFIA will staff up accordingly. There are those living, breathing changes all the time that are to be adjusted to.

At the end of the day, that partnership among industry, CFIA, Health Canada, and the provincial health boards is to make sure your food is safe. The provinces concentrate on facilities at the provincial level, such as the Costco in Edmonton or restaurants and all those types of things. The Public Health Agency assembles all that data nationally to make sure there aren't spikes somewhere that show unhealthy food products out there. Then CFIA reacts to it, proactively as much as we can. That's what Bill S-11 seeks to do: add more tools to the proactive side of their tool kit.

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Thank you, Minister and CFIA staff, for coming today.

I read Bill S-11 and I was happy to see how it would benefit Canadian families. I have four kids myself and—I've said this before—we're “meatatarians”. We have burgers.

I see Bill S-11 like a computer update; it's an update of legislation to make it current and bring it into our modern world.

It introduces consistent food inspection practices across all food commodities. It increases some existing fines and introduces new fines and penalties. It gives the CFIA the ability to require regulated parties to have traceability systems, including a prohibition against selling food commodities that have been recalled. It introduces new and stronger prohibitions against deceptive practices, tampering, and hoaxes, giving the CFIA the ability to require the registration or licensing of regulated parties and establishments, and it prohibits the importation of unsafe food commodities. It's great stuff.

I have a few questions, though. What specifically can be done in legislation, or what is in the legislation, that deals with tampering?

[Gerry Ritz, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

There's growing support, right from the farm gate through industry, for traceability. More and more consumers in Canada and around the world are asking to know where the product came from and how it was handled.

I know that in Japan, you can take your cellphone camera and take a picture of the bar code, and it will bring up the farm where that pork or whatever was raised. It will show you a picture of the farmer hugging the pig. It's an unbelievable system. It's a little bit over the top for what most people require, but they've gone to that extent because of some food situations they've had over time.

I know that at the Senate hearings, there was some concern from the cattlemen, but I am here to assure them, as I have done personally in my meetings with them on the XL crisis, that the Health of Animals Act takes precedence on the farm and on the ranch. Bill S-11 only comes into play as that animal is loaded and moved on to the next stage for backgrounding, feedlot, processing, or whatever it is. They have that ability.

Farmers were concerned that somehow we were going to develop a cow registry. We had this huge computer system from a gun registry that went nuts, so they figured that we should put it back to work. I mean, they don't figure we should put it back to work. I'm here to tell you that this is not going to happen. We got rid of that gun registry. We're not going to have a cow registry.

What we are seeking to do is have traceability. As I said in response to another question, if something shows up at a processing facility or in a feedlot in the form of an ill or sickened animal, we can trace it back to the farm or ranch it came from. There are specifically reportable instances, such as tuberculosis and BSE. To maintain our status on the BSE scale internationally, we have to test so many animals a year. We do that. It has to be done at slaughter. You can't do a brain examination on a cow and send it back out to the pasture.

All these types of things are done. That's all kept. That's all databased. We need to be able to go back to the farm if there is a problem. Every once in a while that does happen, and we're able to go back and quarantine that farm should there be something like TB and so forth.

That's the whole concept. Farmers are also poised to make use of genetics and feed regimens and so on to put out a superior product. The plants now have the ability to database meat. For example, if there's a side of beef that is perfectly marbled and is going to get extra dollars in a premium market like Japan or Korea, we want more of that. Who produced that beef? We can go back now, through a program called BIXS, to that producer—Cargill or XL in Guelph, or wherever it is—and say, “Give me 200 more head of that, because I have an order from Korea.”

That's the nature of this. It's to build a more vibrant, effective system that works to the benefit of everybody. It provides safer food and also the ability of farmers to produce more of what they're doing for a specific market.

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

Thank you. I have half a minute.

I'll ask this question in regard to enforcement. The fines, according to Bill S-11, would increase. In the past the average fine was approximately 5% of the maximum fine for an indictable offence. In other words, they weren't enforced to the maximum.

My question is this: is there a desire now, in light of what has happened, to start enforcing these fines to the maximum, and do we have the personnel to do it?

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

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Minister, and your officials, for being here.

We're here to look at Bill S-11. Obviously the reason there is a new bill is it was felt that the current system isn't working, so we're here to improve it. I would hope, as we examine this bill, that if certain amendments are put forward, we'll discuss this and strengthen it, because that's our purpose here: to strengthen this piece of legislation.

Minister, you stated in your opening remarks that the Canadian and U.S. systems are equally as strong when it comes to food safety and to inspection. I'd like to zero in on what happens at the border for a few minutes, if I may.

I know that in committee in the past we've had witnesses who have stated that only, I think, 2% of the products that come into our country are inspected for food safety. In fact, we have inspection that checks out the pests and checks out other problems, but on the American side 100% of food commodities going across the border are inspected.

I'd like to refer to the testimony made by Paul Caron at the Senate committee, an inspector with 35 years of experience, who questions the fact that our system is as strong as the American one at the border. He states that, for example:

Shipments going to the U.S. have to be screened by the USDA for animal health reasons, plant health reasons, then by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, then Homeland Security, then customs and border services, which directs the load to a meat inspection establishment located in close proximity of the border.

Apparently, according to him, all food shipments entering the U.S. are cleared at the port of entry, while Canadian meat shipments are often released to be possibly inspected later inland.

There seems to be, from what I'm reading, a discrepancy in the way we treat items going back and forth across the border. I'd like you to comment on that if you could, please.

[Gerry Ritz, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Sure. With the deficit reduction action plan, CFIA is not immune, nor is any other department or agency of this government. We're all looking for efficiencies, and that's what CFIA strove to do. They have identified a number of efficiencies. Absolutely not one nickel affects front-line food safety, not one nickel. I would challenge the opposition to actually point to that in any way, shape, or form. We do hear some noise from the unions on how this will affect such-and-such, but they cannot show where that is actually true.

You mentioned the $56 million outlined; that's over a three-year period. During that same timeframe, and there are still moneys to be announced, we also have sunsetting programs. This is the problem with Kevin Page's report; it's an incomplete report. It doesn't speak to the renewal of sunsetting programs. We fully expect to renew two for some $25 million, but that takes a vote in the House. You can't claim it until you've actually voted it through.

During the same timeframe that we're removing $56 million in efficiencies, we have on the table $223 million in new money, plus the go-forward over the next couple of years when we buttress or take sunsetting moneys and put them back in again.

This idea that somehow this is a horrendous slash to their budget is absolutely ridiculous. Since we've formed government, the overall budget of CFIA has gone up by 20% because it needed at certain times to do certain things. We fully expect the inspector modernization to be funded out of the $100 million in the 2012 budget over the next four years now, and we have a year under our belts.

Someone pointed out that we'd only spent $18 million. Well, that's the first year, and it takes time to build the capacity and train and get them all in to E-Certs and all those types of things to enhance commerce and still maintain our food as safe.

We've increased traceability from gate to plate. We've done that under other jurisdictions. The Health of Animals Act takes precedence on the farm, but as soon as that animal hits the farm gate on its way to a feedlot or a slaughter facility, then Bill S-11 starts to pull in to play. It's the next step, the logical sequence in maintaining that traceability part of Bill S-11 to make sure that our food is safe right from gate to plate. We have to be able to trace food from a processor on, which we do in a recall, but we also have to be able to trace it back to the farm.

There are people in these slaughter facilities who simply check the head of an animal and the brain to make sure there's no BSE. We also check lungs for TB. We check liver for cysts. A number of different operations are undertaken. That's really the traceability back to the farm.

There all of those things in Bill S-11 that start to build a stronger food safety system from gate to plate.

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Minister, for being here today along with the officials.

I'm sure most of you realize that XL Foods Ltd. is in my riding in the city of Brooks. I want to thank you, first of all, Minister, for keeping me up to date on a regular basis, on a daily basis, including weekends, with what was going on in the facility. It was important for me and certainly for my constituency.

I also want to thank CFIA. You had stated that this facility should not be reopened until it could be recertified to make sure that it met all the standards. I believe that was the correct decision, and I support that 100%.

I've had the opportunity to give a couple of speeches, Minister, on this facility, and certainly on Bill S-11. I know the opposition has talked about things a number of times, and made a lot of noise about this, particularly around deficit reduction. I belive that CFIA’s reduction is $56 million, over time, and I understand that this is offset by $52 million in new dollars. That's what the opposition has said, and it complained that in fact inspectors have been cut. I understand that these are transfers of meat inspectors from CFIA to the provinces of B.C., Saskatchewan, and Manitoba, as federal inspectors were doing provincial work.

[Gerry Ritz, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

I am answering your question.

You talk about demanding papers. Yes, CFIA has the ability to demand papers, but not in a timely way and in a format that is usable. Those are the changes in Bill S-11, so don't muddy the waters any more than you already have.

CFIA has the ability to decertify a plant. That's a nuclear strike, and CFIA is loath to do that simply because of the recertification process that is required.

Having said that, to answer your question, the Auditor General of Canada has the ability at any time to audit any department, any agency, of this country. We would welcome that, certainly. He has that ability, and we would look forward to that.

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

Here's what I would like to ask you, Minister. I know that there has been consultation done on Bill S-11 and on what the industry itself has been asking for. Could you share with the committee what industry has been saying about Bill S-11 and the measures contained in this bill?

[Gerry Ritz, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Well, when you look at the timeline shown behind me, Mr. Lemieux—you'll have a copy of that in front of you, or you will have shortly—you will see that CFIA began reacting immediately, asking XL for documentation and asking them to show where the bracketing was done on that first batch. I'm not saying that XL was negligent or criminally intent on hiding anything—absolutely not. What I'm saying is that they came forward with boxes and boxes of paperwork over a period of time, as they amassed it. Did they put enough attention on it? Probably not, but that's for them to describe and explain as they move forward.

At the end of the day, Bill S-11 now will give us extra tools in the CFIA tool kit. I'm happy to help put them there, with your help and the help of the opposition in getting this bill passed, so that they have the ability to ask for it on Monday morning and expect to get it by Monday afternoon, and in a useful format.

This is the important part: you can have timely access, but if you get 12 boxes of paperwork and have to sit down and start to analyze and go through all of it, that's time wasted, time lost, but if you have it in a format that is standardized across all food commodities and across all manufacturing processing in this country, you have something that can be worked with very, very quickly to initiate recalls or to say that we don't need a recall because it has been handled. That's the important part.

The biggest concern with Canadian consumers is the timeliness. They want to know that their food is safe, but they also want to know that when there is a breach, when there is a problem, we are timely in getting that product off the shelves. That's why I said right away, to assure consumers on the initial outbreak, that the product never made it to store shelves. Consumers needed to know that.

We have not seen any huge move away from beef in Canada. Actually, beef products are still moving, are still being consumed. We're not seeing any beef being stopped from export around the world, even into the American market, other than any product coming out of number 38, the Lakeside XL plant in Brooks. Even XL product—live animals and so on—that the Nilssons own is still available to go to the U.S. It's only the product coming out of that plant as CFIA works towards recertifying that particular facility.

[Gerry Ritz, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

It's not really a genuine comparison, because with radar you have a speed gun that says you were doing this. There is no speed gun in a facility such as XL.

You know, I don't think anyone would say that XL was trying to hide anything. You have to prove intent in order to put AMPs in play, and I don't think it was intentionally trying to hide anything. What it was doing was giving voluminous boxes of paperwork, trying to cover off all the bases, which then had to be deciphered and gone through one at a time, put in a proper sequence, put in the right order to make sense of all the files, the testing data and so on, that it put in play.

What Bill S-11 would do is set a format that XL and other plants would be asked to follow, a format that would actually give you usable data when you ask for it—not boxes and boxes and files of paperwork, but actual usable data with trend analysis captured and so on, on a go-forward basis. Bill S-11, by regulation, would set a standard; all plants would be asked to do this.

Some do it now, voluntarily; some don't, because they're not asked to by regulation. These regulations would now set the benchmark for everyone to come to that standard.

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

We'd like Mr. Da Pont to add, but we only get five minutes, as you know.

A follow-up to that piece is this. If indeed we have an XL—let's use the vernacular of the bad actor—what, then, in Bill S-11, through an enforcement mechanism or through the fines you've escalated, which we are pleased to see, would then allow you or CFIA to actually impose penalties because they were not forthcoming, without actually saying, “Now, we'll charge them because of all the other things they've done”?

Simply say, “Look, you were supposed to bring them forward; you decided not to; here's the enforcement piece; here's what you pay; this is the penalty.” It would be similar to what we see, Minister, when we drive down the highways in Ontario: it would say, “Go over the speed limit and enforcement is basically through regulation and fine.” You don't get off easy.

[Gerry Ritz, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

You've mixed a couple of things together there, Mr. Allen, in talking about CARs as well. Those are separate from the production of documents on the timeline we're talking about. We'll certainly address that at some point, I'm sure.

The Weatherill reports are predisposed on a company that is transparent, that is looking to facilitate and help CFIA move forward in a recall situation. Unfortunately, in this instance, XL was not that forthcoming.

The CFIA, I should stipulate, did receive boxes of documents over a period of some three days, after constantly going back to XL with written asks—of course they were verbal to begin with—and expediting it to the point where it finally got documentation. As I said, it received boxes of paperwork over a period of two or three days that then had to be analyzed and worked back through to start to put together an assessment on a trend analysis to show where there were gaps and where there could possibly be spikes in E. coli.

The initial find, the problem, was that they had had a discovery but then had not bracketed properly. That's taking production on either side of the affected batch out of the food cycle as well. They had not done that, and until CFIA was back in there doing the trend analysis, that was not discovered. That then started CFIA to look even deeper. That's the timeline leading up to the 12th, as they put all of that together with sound scientific evidence to begin the process of asking for more documentation, and so on.

With XL not voluntarily coming forward with documentation, it became apparent that Bill S-11, which we tabled last spring, well in advance of this, started to look like the right thing—even more so than we thought—because by regulation it would force a facility such as XL, or any other one, to be transparent, to come forward with information in a timely way and a way that is formatted to be usable right away, not with boxes of paperwork that take days to work through It would be a format that is usable, very similar to our timeline. When you see it written down on a pad of paper, it doesn't give you the same impact as a flow chart does. This is the type of information we're requesting from facilities like XL.

George, did you want to add anything, or Paul?

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

Thanks to the minister for being here today.

As he noted in his opening, I believe he referred to recommendation 43 being the last one from the Weatherill report to be completed. Recommendation 43 actually speaks to recommendations 6 and 20 of the Weatherill report. I will read from the last half of section 6. This is a quote from the Weatherill report:

Meat processors should not wait for requests for information from the CFIA inspectors and should, in the interests of food safety, ensure that inspectors have all information they require.

I would draw the minister's attention to the timeline that he supplied to us, showing that indeed it was the CFIA that was actually making the requests, not necessarily XL Foods that was providing them voluntarily. Section 20, which is on page 43 of the report, also speaks to that:

The Canadian Food Inspection Agency should formally communicate its expectation that registered meat processors will bring all information with potential consequences for food safety to the attention of their assigned inspector in a timely manner.

Around the document issue, Mr. Minister, it has been clear in the CFIA's timeline that one of the weaknesses of this particular incident was the availability of the information in a timely fashion and the fact that, in the vernacular of the CFIA, a lot of CARs were put out there—calls basically requesting information. There were delays in that process.

Can you point to me in Bill S-11 where sections 6 and 20—the two recommendations in the Weatherill report—will be fulfilled in the mandate of Bill S-11, understanding, of course, that there is a piece in Bill S-11 that talks to the production of documents when requested? Sections 6 and 20 call for more than just the production of documents when requested; they actually call for the facilities to produce them without a request, knowing full well something is occurring.

Can you help me find that in Bill S-11?

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm joined today by officials from the Canadian Food Inspection Agency: the president, George Da Pont, as well as Neil Bouwer, Paul Mayers and Dr. Martine Dubuc.

It's a pleasure to be here as a former chair of this committee myself. Congratulations to you, Merv, on being elected to your position. Like you, I didn't tolerate tardiness either.

It's good to be back at this table to speak about an issue that is important to Canadian families.

As you know, Mr. Chairman, consumers remain this government's number one priority when it comes to food safety and consumer confidence. That's exactly why I'm here today to urge the members of this committee to pass Bill S-11—and you read out the long title, Mr. Chair, so I won't—the Safe Food for Canadians Act, as expeditiously as is possible.

The Safe Food for Canadians Act will strengthen and modernize our food safety system to make sure it continues to protect the safety of Canadian food.

This act will give CFIA more authority to require industry to produce timely and usable information when it is requested. It will also require companies to have traceability systems. These additional powers will help food inspectors analyze data to speed up any future recall investigations, thus more quickly protecting Canadian consumers.

The Safe Food for Canadians Act will improve food safety oversight by instituting a more consistent inspection regime across all food commodities, implementing tougher penalties for activities that put the health and safety of Canadians at risk, providing better controls over imports, and strengthening food commodity traceability.

The act will implement tougher fines for those who knowingly tamper with our Canadian food supply. Under current legislation, the maximum fine that could be imposed for such an offence is some $250,000. The Safe Food for Canadians Act raises the maximum fine level to $5 million, and possibly more with court activity, for activities that intentionally put the health and safety of Canadians at risk. This bill will allow the CFIA to create a regime for administrative monetary penalties, or AMPs. AMPs, Mr. Chair, will be a key tool in our inspectors' arsenals to discourage those who are looking to cheat or subvert the system.

We all know that Canadians depend on the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, the Public Health Agency of Canada, and industry itself to make sure that their food is safe. These monetary penalties are an intermediate step to ensure that food processors are taking the safety of food production seriously. The act will also consolidate the CFIA's food commodity acts and will align inspection and enforcement powers across all food commodities.

This move specifically addresses recommendation number 43 of the Weatherill report. In fact, Mr. Chairman, upon passage of this important legislation, our government will have addressed all 57 of the Weatherill recommendations.

This new act gives government more authority in areas critical to food safety inspection and investigation.

While the number one priority is strengthening food safety for Canadians, the Safe Food for Canadians Act will also benefit Canada's agricultural industry.

The agricultural industry, as you well know, helps drive Canada's economy, with over $44 billion in exports and one in eight Canadian jobs. This act will further align Canada's food safety system with our key trading partners and increase importing countries' confidence in Canadian foodstuffs. This will help increase demand around the world for our top-quality Canadian products.

Finally, to address a concern that has been heard many times around this table, the act will strengthen controls over imported food, introduce the ability to license all food importers, and prohibit the importation of any unsafe foods.

Mr. Chair, recently consumers have heard a lot of fiction from opposition parties with respect to Canada's food safety system. I'd like to take this time to correct some of the fiction we've heard in the debates last week.

Let me begin with the member for Guelph, who recently said that Bill S-11 is not a panacea that would give the CFIA more powers than it has today.

Mr. Speaker, that is patently incorrect. The fact is that this act will give the CFIA more authority to require industry to produce timely and usable information. It will implement tougher penalties for intentional activities that put the health and safety of Canadians at risk while providing better control over our imports of foods.

Dr. Sylvain Charlebois, associate dean of the University of Guelph's college of management and economics, recognizes that this power is currently missing from CFIA's toolbox. He said:

The CFIA, on the other hand, does not have the authority to compel the speedy delivery of information from industry during an outbreak.

That is testimony coming right from the member for Guelph's riding, Mr. Speaker.

The NDP have stated that CFIA has fewer inspectors and less resources. This could not be further from the truth. Just because you didn't vote for it doesn't mean it didn't happen.

The fact is, Mr. Chairman, that our government has increased the budget of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency by some 20% since we took office. With this budget increase, CFIA has hired over 700 net new inspectors. The CFIA has also increased the number of inspectors at the XL facility in Brooks by some 20%, adding two veterinarians and six inspectors to the complement at the plant.

The member from Welland continues to make erroneous claims that the initial detection of E. coli was done by the United States. He continues to do this despite knowing full well that Canada detected E. coli on the same date that the U.S. notified Canada of their finding. Furthermore, he knows that no product associated with this initial finding entered the marketplace.

To repeat, at that time all affected product was contained and there was no evidence that any additional product had been affected. Thus, no recall was needed. As I said at the time, no product made it to store shelves.

The CFIA started investigating immediately. They have been acting ever since to protect consumers, as outlined in the timelines on display here, working in concert with the Public Health Agency of Canada and the provincial agencies they serve.

The opposition continues to mislead Canadians by saying that the U.S. system is somehow better than Canada's. This is false, for a number of reasons that I am sure the CFIA would be happy to explain to you, but I will give you two very clear reasons here today.

First, Canada and the United States maintain one of the largest trading partnerships in the world. That is only possible because our food safety systems are equivalent. We will continue to make sure that our food safety system is strong and that our imports and exports continue to meet this high standard, which is revered around the world.

Second, you will see by the chart provided that it was Canada that issued the first recall health alert to the public. While I realize that the facts do not suit the opposition's rhetoric, I'm pleased to get these facts on the record again here today.

Mr. Chairman, at each step of the process, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency and the Public Health Agency of Canada have run a transparent investigation. They have published science-based evidence and information on websites as soon as it was available and have held many public briefings and technical briefings. Canadians can also sign up for instant information on recalls and food safety concerns. The agency will continue to rely on science-based evidence and a commitment to protect consumers. Our government will continue to provide the CFIA with the workforce and resources necessary to protect Canadian food.

In closing, Mr. Chairman, we all know that food safety is an issue that is very important to Canadian families. That is why consumers are our government's first priority when it comes to food safety. The Safe Food for Canadians Act will provide the Canadian Food Inspection Agency with much-needed additional authorities to protect Canadian food and consumer confidence.

I urge the members of this committee to help our government make Canada's robust food safety system even stronger and send this bill back to the House as quickly as possible.

Thank you for your kind attention, Mr. Chair. As always, I look forward to your questions.

[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 52. 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 their 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 we have Mr. Ritz. I will just advise the committee that I will be adding 10 minutes to the end of the meeting for the minister to stay. He is the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and the Minister for the Canadian Wheat Board. I will ask him to open with his comments, and then we will move to questions from committee members.

Mr. Minister, welcome.

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 second reading stage of Bill S-11.

The House resumed from October 22 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 second time and referred to a committee.

[Joy Nott]

The point I was trying to make overall is that we've heard here about strategy concerning physical infrastructure, whether it be trucking terminals or rail lines or whatever else, but the point I'm bringing to the table is to have a strategy around the policy and regulatory environment.

What I mean by that is shown by the two examples I've put on the table. These are real examples that our members deal with every day.

To go back to the first example, with food, if Canada, for example, through Bill S-11 makes it a requirement that baked goods have fortified flour and it is required in all product that is going to be exported, then if the receiving country has a different regulation, those goods may be prohibited from entering. What I'm asking is, are we prepared for success from a regulatory standpoint?

The second example I brought up was that in a competitive situation with the United States—and we've had long-standing trade with the United States, and I don't need to elaborate for this committee exactly what our relationship is with the United States—it took almost four years to catch up with something that the Americans did simply because it got lost in the bureaucracy.

All I'm saying is that if we're going to enter into more trade agreements with different countries around the world, and we are wholeheartedly in favour of that, we need to start thinking very strategically. Traditionally we've only been focused on the United States, our major trading partner. They are always going to be our major trading partner. We can't take our eye off the United States. I'm just saying that we need to be a little more aware of how other countries are responding when we sign these agreements and they change regulations after the fact, and of what a negative impact this may have.

For those negative impacts not to become lost in the shuffle, we need to have some sort of body that recognizes them and reacts quickly in order to even the playing field again.

[Joy Nott, President, Canadian Association of Importers and Exporters]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and members of the committee, for giving us the opportunity to present today.

My name is Joy Nott. I am the president and CEO of I.E.Canada, otherwise known as the Canadian Association of Importers and Exporters. We've been around for about 80 years. Our members include importers, exporters, Canadian manufacturers, retailers, and supply chain service providers. Our members in total employ over a million Canadians and in 2010 generated $270 billion for the Canadian economy.

In brief, I.E.Canada very strongly supports an EPA with Japan. That said, there are strategic considerations that must be taken into account when Canada considers signing either an EPA or a free trade agreement, an FTA, with any country. It becomes even more critical when we look at doing it with an economy such as Japan, which is so well developed.

In the world of business, supply chains are integrated. Business people don't really differentiate between an import and an export. It's one continuous flow of materials, components, and finished goods until it actually hits the end consumer. Unfortunately, traditional government structure and policy doesn't match that business reality all that well.

In government, import and exports are generally viewed as two discrete operations where imports are generally considered bad for the economy and exports are generally considered good for the economy. In today's global environment with the supply chains integrated the way they are, that's not really the case any more for business. In fact, I think it actually hurts Canadian companies when the philosophy is that imports are less than favourable for the Canadian economy, because no Canadian exporter can successfully export without importing at least something for the manufacturing process.

To illustrate even further, imports and exports are also governed by two separate ministries of the Canadian government: exports by the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, and imports by the Department of Public Safety under the Canada Border Services Agency.

Canadians would be well served if there was a single body that was tasked with overseeing both imports and exports. If you're wondering what this has to do with Japan, I'm getting there.

Japan and the Japanese are very sophisticated traders. They are well versed in the world of global trade. They are very successful business people. If we are going to enter into agreements with countries such as Japan, once again I need to clearly state that the Canadian Importers and Exporters Association and our members have made it very clear to me that they are fully in support of this agreement with Japan and other agreements that are currently being negotiated and discussed.

That being said, as a colleague of mine said when testifying to a Senate committee in late September on Bill S-11, the devil is in the details. I have two very quick examples here, one where under Bill S-11 there are going to be requirements that products manufactured for export comply with Canadian regulations and if they don't comply there's going to be potentially a prohibition to export. What that accidentally does is it prohibits Canadian-made goods from entering foreign markets.

The second example I have is an issue that has been recently resolved, but I think it's a really good example of what we're talking about. Both Canada and the United States, along with other developed countries, are signatories to something called the Wassenaar Arrangement. It's a treaty that ensures sensitive goods are controlled for export so that they don't end up in the wrong hands.

On October 3, 2008, the U.S. allowed, and I'm going to call it an exception to this agreement, companies to transfer information intra-company among each other between countries without having to go through a formal process of applying for paperwork. It took Canada three years, nine months and 28 days to catch up, and we're both signatories to Wassenaar.

What does that have to do with Japan? Japan is a very sophisticated global trader and the message that I'm here to deliver today is that while we are fully in support of this sort of thing, we think there is definitely the opportunity to start looking at importing and exporting in Canada strategically, as opposed to two discrete operations. Business doesn't look at it that way and to ride the wave of optimism of my colleague at the other end of the table, I do think we need to be prepared for success.

If we're going to be successful and if we're going to actually enter into the trade agreements that we're currently negotiating, we have to get ourselves in a more strategic mindset so that we look at imports and exports, the general flow and what's good for business overall, as opposed to two discrete processes. Thank you.

Food Safety

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on Friday I asked the minister to consent to amending Bill S-11 to include a third-party comprehensive CFIA audit, like the one that was requested by the Weatherill report. The minister said he had a panel “waiting for this type of an issue to move forward on”. The recommendation for an independent comprehensive audit was made three years ago and yet no action was taken. What panel is the minister talking about?

Could the minister confirm that he was not waiting for another outbreak like this to act? Will he tell us who his experts are, otherwise will he finally do the right thing and call in the Auditor General?

Safe Food for Canadians Act

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member and he used a lot of interesting phrases such as “scoring cheap political points”. I have not heard more cheap political points in five minutes than I heard coming from his corner. Because members raise their voices and yell does not make their point that much truer. The truth is we did increase the number of inspectors.

The member also asked why one plant was closed and the other plants were open. That is because this plant failed to comply and that is why CFIA closed it.

Why does the member choose to utilize certain phrases when in actual fact he is the perpetrator of most of these phrases? Why does he not recognize the fact that Bill S-11 is designed to make a good system, a system that the OECD says is a good system, in fact, it has used even higher words of praise? We want to make it even better. Why is it so difficult for the member to admit that and say that he wants to work with us to make it better? Why does he have to score those cheap political points?

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture]

Mr. Speaker, in his recent speeches on the issue of food safety in the House there have been inaccuracies that have had to be corrected. I too hope that the opposition will not play partisan politics with Bill S-11, an important food safety bill before the House that will be moving to committee.

However, I want to follow up on a comment the member made during his speech and in earlier speeches too. He said that the CFIA currently has all the powers it needs and he asked why it did not do more. Sylvain Charlebois is the associate dean of the University of Guelph's College of Management and Economics, a university that is, of course, in this member's riding. Mr. Charlebois recognizes that the CFIA does not have all the powers that it needs today and says: “The CFIA...does not have the authority to compel the speedy delivery of information from industry during an outbreak”. What Mr. Charlebois said seems to be contradicting what this member just said. Could the member clarify for the House who is right?

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today and speak to the modernization of our food safety system. It has been a long time coming. If anything has been made clear by the recent outbreak of E. coli at XL Foods in Brooks, Alberta, it is that we need to take a closer look at food safety in Canada. We need to take a closer look because a system that the government recently claimed is one of the foremost in the world has inexplicably failed and left 15 people sick across Canada.

After nearly a month of constant coverage in the media, Canadians are all too familiar with the constantly evolving situation at the XL Foods establishment 38 in Brooks, Alberta, which led to the largest beef recall in Canadian history. It is important that Canadians watching this are not that fooled by the feigned urgency of the minister or his government when it comes to this legislation. The government is simply trying to change the channel on a rather dire issue.

When Conservative senators first introduced the legislation in the upper house in June, there was no urgency to seeing it debated expeditiously. In fact, it did not become a priority until the Conservatives were embroiled in defending their cuts to the Canadian Food Inspection Agency in the last month.

Bill S-11 gave the minister an opportunity to claim that inaction on our part would hinder giving powers to inspectors that would prevent food safety breakdowns like XL's in the future. Unfortunately, this is a terrible ruse, an all too familiar tactic by the government.

Let us assume for a second that Canadians were not aware that under the current provisions of the Meat Inspection Act, the inspectors at XL Foods in Brooks were unable to request the documents they needed, which of course is not true. Why would the government let a bill granting these authorities languish for a summer in the Senate if that were the case? This is all to characteristic of the government. There is no willingness to make good public policy for the sake of Canadians. Instead, it waves it around the House like a hammer, scoring cheap political points.

The bill is important, but Canadians need to understand that it is no panacea. Once the bill is passed, Canadian food inspectors will not magically be able to prevent further outbreaks of food-borne illness and will not have that many more tools than they already have at their disposal. In effect, the bill will streamline some of the elements of inspection at the CFIA. Many of the changes are superficial, and all are primarily designed to modernize our food safety and inspection system. While it is nice to build a more efficient and modern vehicle, we need to ensure that we have enough resources to drive it.

This spring the government announced some drastic cuts to the CFIA, including a reduction of $56.1 million in the budget. Only recently did we discover that the government had no clear picture of the resources available to the CFIA before making those cuts, because it had not performed the comprehensive audit of resources that had been requested by the independent investigator into the listeriosis crisis.

We support modernizing our food safety system. After all, it was a Liberal government that introduced Bill C-27 in November 2004, a legislative measure designed as a second step in our modernization process, intended to consolidate and enhance the existing inspection and enforcement powers of the CFIA for food, agriculture and aquatic commodities, agricultural inputs, animals and plants.

Interestingly, the member for Haldimand—Norfolk, now a minister but then the official opposition agriculture critic, complained that the bill might restrict industry too much and noted that her party “supports a less intrusive approach to regulatory policy in Canada”. The bill died the following year upon the dissolution of Parliament. Since then there has been a major food safety crisis, one that killed 23 Canadians and made many more extremely ill.

The first lesson we learned from the 2008 listeriosis outbreak was that once the contaminant is in the market, it is already too late. Food-borne illness targets the most vulnerable of our population: children, seniors, pregnant women and their unborn. The only way to fully protect them is to catch contaminated food before it hits the shelves.

An independent investigator, Sheila Weatherill, was appointed in the wake of that tragedy to determine what went wrong and delivered a series of recommendations on how to ensure that the situation would never happen again.

In responding to her report, the government has made great fanfare about completing all of her 57 recommendations, Bill S-11 included as the final one. Yet the proof of this completion remains to be seen.

Before this House passes another bill on food safety, the government will have to reassure this party and Canadians that if it is to make real and meaningful changes, it will provide independent assurances that the CFIA will finally get the resources it needs and, in that regard, doing a comprehensive resource audit is required to see what it needs.

On its face, Bill S-11 is relatively straightforward. It would consolidate the Meat Inspection Act, the Fish Inspection Act, the Canada Agricultural Products Act and the food provisions of the Consumer Packaging and Labelling Act into a single act.

Furthermore, it would establish a parallel inspection and enforcement structure for all food commodities, meaning there would no longer be dedicated meat or fish inspectors but inspectors trained for all commodities. This is slightly concerning to me. I have the greatest esteem for our inspectors who work so diligently to ensure we have safe food once it reaches our tables, but I know that even right now they are not given all the tools they need to perform their roles to the fullest. We are asking inspectors to become jacks of all trades, spreading expertise even more thinly than it is right now.

I ask the government, what mechanisms would be instituted to ensure that all inspectors receive adequate training across all commodities, when it has still not, four years later, trained all inspectors on the comprehensive verification system?

This issue was highlighted very recently in the wake of the E. coli outbreak at Brooks. Mr. Bob Kingston, the president of the Agriculture Union at the Public Service Alliance of Canada, made the following comments at the Senate Standing Committee on Agriculture about this bill:

You will be interested to know that in the XL plant, only a small portion of the inspectors are actually trained in CVS. That is right; for more than four years after CVS was introduced, most inspectors there have not been trained in how to use it. Why, you might ask? The answer is actually simple. The CFIA cannot afford to deliver training any faster and does not have enough inspectors to relieve those away while being trained. As well, resources are often diverted to address crises, which further derails training.

This revelation strikes right at the heart of the oft repeated myth that the current Conservative government has hired more inspectors than ever. Moreover, it is another clear indication that while the government is willing to build a car, it will not pay to hire a proper driver or, in this case, train one.

It is concerning to us on this side that we might only be increasing the uphill battles that inspectors are facing while training to keep our food safe.

Mr. Kingston continued in his testimony to say:

This situation is not limited to XL. As a matter of fact, we were just at a conference this weekend and we found the exact same scenario throughout Quebec. This is yet another example of industry self-policing gone wrong because the CFIA is not adequately resourced to verify compliance.

What then happened in Brooks, Alberta? This kind of food safety decay does not happen overnight. A plant does not get shut down for three weeks for a faulty nozzle; a plant gets shut down for three weeks because there are compliance problems from top to bottom.

The minister stated that the Brooks facility boasts 40 inspectors and 6 veterinarians. How many of those inspectors are fully trained on the compliance verification system? Where in the legislation has the government addressed the number of inspectors required for each plant?

Pretending this legislation has the answers that Canadians need is disingenuous and not at all reassuring, because it creates no clarity and gives no answers to the issues I have just raised.

The bill would also establish a number of prohibitions, primarily relating to importing, exporting and interprovincial trade, as well as the manufacture, preparation, and sale of food commodities. It would also bring in tougher penalities for tampering, hoaxes or other deceptive practices. Here, we agree that the CFIA should be given the necessary tools to enforce import standards and to penalize deceptive practices. However, simply giving the CFIA a bigger stick is not reassuring to inspectors.

Since the outbreak of E. coli at XL, the government has tried to claim that the CFIA does not have enough enforcement powers at its disposal. The minister claimed that it took two weeks to issue a recall of contaminated meat because CFIA inspectors on the ground were not given timely access to documents that would have shown that XL was not monitoring trends leading up to the outbreak.

That is a convenient narrative. However, the existing Meat Inspection Act already gives powers, compelling:

[that] any person produce for inspection, or for the purpose of obtaining copies or extracts, any book, shipping bill, bill of lading or other document or record that the inspector believes on reasonable grounds contains any information relevant to the administration or enforcement of this Act or the regulations.

Additionally, the current regulations state:

The owner or person in charge of a place or vehicle referred to in subsection (1) and every person found in that place or vehicle shall give the inspector all reasonable assistance to enable the inspector to carry out his duties and functions under this Act and shall furnish the inspector with any information the inspector may reasonably require with respect to the administration or enforcement of this Act and the regulations.

As recently at this February, the CFIA made its regulations for processors clear on its website in “A Processor's Guide to Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) Inspections”, which reinforces the legal requirement to provide information to and assist an inspector when requested.

In reading the government's release on Bill S-11 from earlier this year, it is clear that the power to request documents is not new. Question 8 of the FAQ sheet asks if inspectors are getting any new powers. The question is answered as follows:

Under the Safe Food for Canadians Act all inspector powers of the Fish Inspection Act, Meat Inspection Act, and the Canadian Agricultural Products Act have been consolidated into one suite of authorities with a modernized language. The Safe Food for Canadians Act does not distinguish between different food products, as each individual statute did.

So far, the only new thing about this is that the powers are now uniform instead of separated. It goes on to answer:

The main new authority that did not exist in any of the former food safety statutes is the power to request a warrant by telephone. In addition, the proposed legislation provides more explicit authority for an inspector to pass through or over private property to get to a place for inspection purposes or to take photographs.

This new act gives the power to phone in a warrant and to make private property more accessible. Perhaps my colleagues across the way could tell me how that would have helped the 40 inspectors on the ground at XL Foods. Were they somehow unable to monitor the lines? Was it a closed-door facility they were unable to gain access to? It does not seem that way, as the ministers claimed they had a very close working relationship with the XL Foods staff. However, the answer continues:

Many authorities have been updated from their previous version to reflect new drafting conventions and to make them clearer for all stakeholders. Some of these authorities include the power to request that an individual start or stop an activity to prevent non-compliance with the act, the power to ask for documents to be produced, and the prevention of obstruction and interference with an inspector carrying out his duties.

Finally, we have the piece that they claim was missing, except, as the department clearly states, it was already there. This super power that finally will be granted to inspectors was there all the time, but the drafting language just needed to be made clearer. This is information coming right from the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food's own department. I am glad that the language will be made clearer, but it reinforces further that this legislation is not the magic bullet our food inspectors need.

Our inspectors need, and consumer safety demands, that the government includes in this bill a comprehensive third-party resource audit, including human resources like the one our hon. colleagues in the other place attempted to include and which our leader, the hon. member for Toronto Centre, requested from the Auditor General.

In fact, the audit was first called for by the independent investigator into the listeriosis outbreak, Sheila Weatherill, who said:

Due to the lack of detailed information and differing views heard, the Investigation was not able to determine the current level of resources as well as the resources needed to conduct the CVS activities effectively. For the same reason, we were also unable to come to a conclusion concerning the adequacy of the program design, implementation plan, training and supervision of inspectors, as well as oversight and performance monitoring.

Accordingly, she recommended:

To accurately determine the demand on its inspection resources and the number of required inspectors, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency should retain third-party experts to conduct a resources audit. The experts should also recommend required changes and implementation strategies. The audit should include analysis as to how many plants an inspector should be responsible for and the appropriateness of rotation of inspectors.

To this day that has yet to be done. A mere survey was undertaken and the former president of the CFIA, Carole Swan, stated that the review was not the same as a comprehensive audit. The government could not answer who its inspectors were, what their roles were or where they were located. It obviously cannot answer the question of whether there are enough or if we might need more. The members opposite will attempt to observe that the Auditor General already has the power to inspect the CFIA. However, having studied the last omnibus bill closely, all of the members opposite will also have noted that at page 187 the bill removed from the authority of the Auditor General of Canada the power to request that the CFIA provide information about the agency's performance. Certainly, it is within the mandate of the Auditor General to examine whatever departments he or she sees fit, but there are restrictions on how many audits he or she can perform yearly.

Furthermore, if the Conservatives object so strenuously to the Auditor General performing the review, they should open up a transparent third-party, arm's-length process so that we might finally know which resources are required, where they are required and if we have enough, among other things. Sadly, for the government it is all about communications victories, not real assistance for Canadians. In the minister's speech today, he talked more about us in the opposition than his own bill. While this bill contains a number of important measures that we could support, it does not go far enough to ensure there are appropriate resources allocated, and we have given the Conservatives every opportunity to date to add viable and important measures like an audit, yet every time they have refused.

We agree with Bob Kingston when he says:

Generally speaking, the bill is a good start but we need to ensure that the proposed appeal mechanism does not give industry too much power to undermine the work of CFIA inspectors.... The government has made an important policy statement today with the tabling of the Safe Food for Canadians Act. Now it’s up to the government to provide the CFIA with the resources to enforce the new rules and CFIA management to adopt a prevention mindset.

We will be moving this bill to committee next. I sincerely hope that the government will be more amenable to making the necessary changes to ensure that our inspectors have adequate resources. I hope that the members opposite can make this about more than scoring cheap points, and I look forward to the opportunity to take a closer look at the bill in the coming days.

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague spoke about the bill being started in the Senate. I would like to explain to the House that it is concurrent activity. Once the House returns after the summer, we have legislation to deal with in the House but the Senate does not. We started the bill in the Senate so that it could be sent to the House of Commons and we could use Senate time most effectively when it did not have other parliamentary bills to deal with upon its return after the summer.

My colleague knows that Bill S-11 is not a partisan bill. It is a bill that deals with food safety and about giving more regulatory authorities to the CFIA to help inspectors do their jobs effectively and efficiently. I am glad that my colleague has committed to passing this bill expeditiously. What I would like to ask is what types of things he likes in Bill S-11.

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join the debate on food safety, which is a critical issue, especially at this moment in time when we are witnessing somewhere close to, I think it is, a million pounds being dumped in the Brooks city dump. It is being dumped there because there is no other place to put contaminated beef, or supposedly contaminated beef because we are not really certain.

Clearly, this is the largest beef recall in Canadian history. This is not an insignificant event. This is one of the most significant events in Canadian history. This is the largest beef recall.

What we do know is that under the current government and indeed the same minister, we saw the listeriosis crisis of 2008, which was a hugely significant issue because 22 people died.

One would have thought, coming out of that, we would have done some things that would have averted what has now just transpired.

However, what we saw was a subcommittee, in 2009, that was established by this House through the ag committee, and then an independent inquiry commissioned by the government side, conducted by Sheila Weatherill, who basically paralleled the subcommittee, worked at the same time and came back with a series of recommendations, I believe 57 in total.

One was to clean up the ready-to-eat area and ensure we had the resources in the inspection facilities, because that is where 22 people contracted listeriosis and actually died from that contagion.

So, when the minister and the government talk about 700 net new inspectors, of course, we now know that 200 of those 700 are out looking for invasive species. It was highly recommended that we do that. We do not need to have invasive species in this country that would be detrimental to our agriculture and indeed to other animals, plants, insects, et cetera. So, that is desirable.

What we do know when we sort of pull back from that is that 170 went into meat inspection, but they did not go into an inspection plant like the one at Brooks. They went into what is called the ready-to-eat meat plant, where the listeriosis crisis came from. So, that was addressed. One can actually say and give the government credit that it addressed the ready-to-eat meat part, after 22 people died.

Now, because it has now taken care of that piece, one would have thought the government would then have turned its attention to what we call the hygiene plants, or the slaughterhouses, to use the vernacular term, and done something similar.

We are now aware of this plant that has been operating in the last year or so, perhaps two, at a capacity of 4,000 to 5,000 animals a day.

I had the great pleasure to be in Nova Scotia during the constituency week and met with the minister of agriculture for Nova Scotia, Minister MacDonell. He told me that they slaughter 5,000 cattle, in Nova Scotia, annually. This plant does in a day what Nova Scotia does in a year.

What kind of resources do we need there?

The minister has told us it put 20% more. Actually, if we unfurl that back, we would see that those were not actually new; they were new people. There is no question that they were new inspectors, new people. It could have been a new Bob or a new Frank or a new Josephine. I am not sure what their names would have been. That might have been the new part. What the government was actually doing was filling vacancies in the plant that had existed for quite some time. So, it was not a 20% increase from a number before. It was just simply filling the vacancies that already existed.

So, as I said earlier, there are 4,000 to 5,000 animals a day going through this plant. There were 6 vets and 40 inspectors, at that particular time. Divide that by two shifts, because they run two shifts a day, and that means 20 inspectors and 3 vets to do somewhere between 2,000 and 2,500 animals on a shift. It is pretty easy to do the math on that one, I think, as to how many animals they are responsible for. Not only has the vet seen them come in before they were slaughtered, but throughout the process, as well as having to do all the other things that happen in those plants.

Why do I raise that?

We now know there is a compliance verification system, which is the backbone of CFIA's new inspection regime. That is what had been decided after a pilot that was run in 2007, which actually started in 2005, all the way through to 2008.

One of the major components of the Weatherill report was that they have to know if CVS works, the compliance verification system. She said that they do not know, that they ran a pilot. She said they do not know if the system works the way they think it does and they have no idea if they have resourced it to make it function properly. So she said, first and foremost, to verify if the system they intend to have as the backbone of their meat inspection system actually does the functions they want and, second, if they have enough resources and people doing it in the plants they are responsible for.

We know the Conservatives decided to go ahead and do what they called an audit. At least, they said from time to time that it was an audit but the reality ended up being that PricewaterhouseCoopers, which came in to do the so-called audit under the Weatherill recommendation, did not do an audit.

Carole Swan is no longer the president of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, but she was at the time of the Weatherill report, and she was at the time when this supposed audit was done, as attested to by the government. She said they did not conduct a traditional audit:

They didn't conduct it as an audit. An audit is a very specific process. It was a detailed review.

For the government to still lay the claim out there that it has actually committed and done all of the recommendations Ms. Weatherill put in her report, is not absolutely accurate. That is why this side is saying yes to moving Bill S-11 to committee and the Conservatives should say yes to our amendment that says we want to have an audit of the system done now.

I say “now” because the government has agreed to an amendment to do an audit in five years. I would hope that is going to be an independent third-party audit conducted in a traditional audit fashion. If the Auditor General decides he would like to do that, it would be wonderful and we would love for him to do that, but we cannot instruct the Auditor General to do something. We can only ask him if he agrees and it would be wonderful, and perhaps he will. If not, there are other agencies out there that can conduct a third-party audit. We would expect that to be done and we would expect it to be a full and wholesome audit, not a review. Clearly, reviews do not quite measure up.

Therefore in five years we would get an audit. The problem is if we do not get one now, we will have no idea five years from now what we are measuring it against. It is like saying that five plus something will be just five plus something. If we have one and it is five years later, we have six, and in another five years we have eleven. However, if we have five plus “I don't know”, we have five plus “I don't know”, and at the tenth year when we do the next five-year audit, we can measure against the last five years and we would have a measurement point. When we do not have a measurement point to start from, then what are we measuring? Clearly it is imperative that the government does this with this legislation, not five years post. That is one of the weaknesses that is presently in this particular legislation.

I will take a moment to speak to the idea that somehow this legislation would have averted what has happened at the XL Foods plant. Unfortunately, it would not have. Yes, there is a piece in here that talks about the speedy delivery of documents that companies have, and that is true. It articulates that and that is a good thing. We can actually wave the document to the company CEO or managers and say, “You are supposed to give me this at this particular moment in time; now you will have to go ahead and do that”. So what happens when the company says, “Yeah, we'll get to it”? As my colleague from Edmonton—Strathcona said, where is the enforcement piece? Where is the compliance through enforcement?

It reminds me of driving down highways in Ontario with signs that say if we speed it will be compliance through enforcement. In other words, someone on the highway, an OPP officer, will write a big ticket for speeders and if they go a certain number of kilometres over the speed limit, the car will be impounded for 24 hours and drivers' licences will be taken away for the day. That is compliance through enforcement. I do not see that in this legislation.

While they are divided into different pieces—fish, meat, et cetera—we know the previous legislation pieces also require fines for those who abrogate the rules and responsibilities they are subject to. However, most times they are not actually applied. Therefore if we do not have the application of those, then we just have a toothless tiger. We have a piece of paper. We have a bill that says people can be fined $5 million but we are never going to, just like we could have fined them a couple of hundred thousand dollars and we did not do that either. There is nothing wrong with the sense that the fine is $5 million. We would agree that $5 million is perhaps an appropriate amount to be fined. We disagree with the question of how they intend to do that. If people have abrogated their responsibility, if it is found to be true that they abrogated their responsibility, when will they get fined and how will they get fined? Will we take the enforcement mechanism and make people comply by enforcing the fines, or will we keep doing what we are doing now, which is basically saying, oh, it is okay.

Why not do a voluntary recall and avoid the fine? The voluntary recall is probably the greatest misnomer in recalling food products that I have ever seen. It takes on a wholly different attribute when we find out who the players are who discussed the voluntary recall. This is not about a company putting its hand up right at the very beginning and saying it will have a voluntary recall. There are negotiations that happen between CFIA and sometimes the minister and sometimes CEOs and managers as how to do that. Why the plant puts its hand up is that it can avoid the fine if it does a voluntary recall. It is not voluntary in the sense that most folks would recognize they were volunteering willingly to do something. It is not quite the voluntary recall that folks think it is.

Where are we headed with this legislation? We are going to head to committee. We are happy and pleased to move the bill as quickly as possible to committee. I am hopeful that members on the other side are amenable to concrete and good suggestions we will place before them to actually make the bill work.

If we are going to make food safety the number one priority, as I heard the minister say, let us make it such that in the House we can come together and say the bill will actually improve food safety for Canadians and will do all of the things we want it do: protect consumers, which is our number one concern to ensure that folks do not get ill through contaminated food, but also to protect industries so that they do not again suffer the way Canadian cattle producers are suffering today. Through no fault of their own, cattle producers are seeing the price for their cattle go down, seeing it being held in feedlots and other places. Different things are happening whether it be cow culls, or calf operators finding a lack of transportation, all manner of things, because there was a weak link in the system. It was not the cattle producers. They were not the weak link in the system.

One particular processor was the weak link in the system. If we had good food safety legislation in place that was tougher than this and had the appropriate measures in place, we could strengthen those links so that we have that strong link all the way from the producer through to the consumer's plate and can reassure our international trading partners that the beef they get from this country is the finest they can get anywhere in the world because that is the type of producers we have. We must make sure processors do not let those primary producers down.

That is what this legislation should start to do. The number one concern is to protect consumers and enhance the reputation of the entire industry from the primary producer to the plate at the end. That is what it should do. It does not do it yet, but that is why we are going to take it back to the committee. That is why we are going to offer some real positive and concrete suggestions around how to make it better.

At the end of the day this is not about being partisan and saying that only one group of individuals who support one particular party eat. We all eat. My grandson, who is 16 months old, eats meat and he likes it. I want him to be safe. We all want to be safe, and not only for ourselves personally. Most of us still like to eat meat, although there are some who have chosen, for whatever reason, not to, but that is a personal choice and there is nothing wrong with that personal choice.

However, for all us, it is about ensuring the safety of the food we get, wherever we happen to get it from, whether it is a farmers' market or a retail outlet. We absolutely want to ensure that when Canadians take that product home, they can be convinced in their heart of hearts that product safe, knowing how hard everyone along that food system has worked to ensure it is the safe product that we all deserve. This would go a long way to convincing our international partners that they should trade with us when it comes to those types of agricultural products.

As we can see, it is an absolute goal on our side, as the official opposition, to get the best safety legislation we can. I will touch on the timeline for a moment.

My House leader informed me that he offered the government the opportunity to debate this bill last Thursday afternoon and, if memory serves me correctly, it was the government side that declined. Everyone has reasons, and it is understandable why people would say yes or no to a particular request, but this back and forth as to who offered what and when it was offered needs to be put behind us.

We need to concentrate on how to make this the legislation into what it needs to be. This may be the one and only crack this Parliament takes at food legislation. As my friend from Malpeque said earlier, the government has been trying to do this for quite some time. It actually goes back to 1990s. I think it was Bill C-80 at the time, if memory serves me correctly. When the opportunity was taken then, it was on the order paper but it died on the order paper when Parliament was dissolved. Bill C-27 came along after that but that died on the order paper as well.

Now we find ourselves with Bill S-11. I am hopeful that this is the bill that will finally get enacted but enacted with the bits and pieces that we think can make it a better bill. It seems to me that this is the one opportunity the House can take, because I know there is a lot of partisanship back and forth, as with the omnibus bill, or OB2 as it is being called in the vernacular. I understand the difficulties with that and the back and forth on that.

Ultimately, we all agree that food safety is a number one priority for all of us across the country. We ought to be able to find a way to take the best ideas and incorporate them, regardless of who has that best idea, whether it is a member of my caucus, a member of the Liberal caucus or a member of the Conservative caucus, whether they be on the agriculture committee, the health committee or another committee. We should consider all ideas.

I am pleased that the legislation is finally here but I am disturbed that it went the other way. As New Democrats, we believe that the people's legislation should start in the people's House, not in the Senate. The Senate is clearly an unelected body. Under our present system, the Senate does what it needs to do to pass legislation and get it to royal assent. No one disputes that.

However, in my humble opinion, the people's business starts in the people's House. It is unfortunate that it did not start in here but it is here now. We are bound and determined to make this legislation better and to move it expeditiously because Canadians deserve no less than that. It will be our absolute attempt to ensure that actually happens.

[Gerry Ritz, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Mr. Speaker, there is no such thing as a voluntary compliance regime in this country. There is no self-regulating of food processing in this country. There is a very dynamic set of rules and regulations that our processors follow and that we expect imports to follow as well, to level that playing field.

I am certainly happy to share information with the member. We have made technical briefings available to members and we will continue to do that should they want to take advantage of that.

Having said that, as minister, my job is to ensure that CFIA and agencies such as that have the powers in regulation, which they do. A lot of the go-forward with Bill S-11 will be regulatory to ensure that they have the manpower and the budgets to continue to move forward.

However, at every opportunity we see the NDP members vote against these types of things. If we add staff to verify more of what Bill S-11 does, I am sure that they would vote against it, and that is really unfortunate.

[Gerry Ritz, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite is great at rewriting history too. Bill C-27 was under a majority Liberal government. If it saw fit to move that through it had the ways and means to do that. There were a number of problems with Bill C-27. At the end of the day, not even the Liberals supported it. This continued, even when it was brought back when they had a minority government in the following days.

There are a number of things in Bill S-11 that are required. Regardless of what Bob Kingston or other people say, we have analyzed and worked with industry on this. We have worked with a number of other entities to do an assessment as to what the gaps are. Bill S-11 tends to plug the holes on those gaps.

When it comes to addressing the manpower, as in the quote from Sylvain Charlebois, we actually spend more than a lot of the other industrialized countries on our food safety. In most cases it is not a matter of manpower, it is a matter of budgetary capacity, which we keep enhancing by some 20%. We have added the front-line inspectors and we want to make sure that they have the tools, and Bill S-11 gives them more tools, to make sure that they can do their jobs efficiently.

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I always listen with great interest and intent when the Minister of Agriculture gets to his feet and does revisionist history. It is always a marvellous experience to hear revisionist history according to the minister.

It reminds me of something he said: “Which part of yes don't you get?” Mr. Speaker, you can check Hansard if you like.

When the response is yes, it means yes. A little while ago the minister referred to that debate with a term that I refuse to use. He did retract and apologize for his comment, but nonetheless, he did use it.

We said yes then, that we would move Bill S-11 to committee, and we are saying yes now to the minister. Clearly, we have said that for a while. It begs the question of why the bill languished for so long in the Senate. The minister is asking that opposition move this along quickly, yet in his response to a question about why it was in the Senate for so long, the minister said they had to take a holiday. One would think that if this was expeditious legislation, the Senate should have sat, like the parliamentary secretary and I did during the month of August when we were working on the co-op and writing the report.

You should have asked the senators to sit. You should have made them pass it along. We would have this done by now if you had not sat on that legislation. Answer that question—

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

moved 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 second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to the many merits of the safe food for Canadians act, Bill S-11. As you have already outlined the comprehensiveness of the act, I will not repeat the title.

I urge all hon. members to help our government pass this bill as expeditiously as possible.

Consumers remain this government's top priority when it comes to food safety. We know that consumer confidence is critical for Canada's food industry and our agricultural sector overall. That is exactly why this government will never compromise when it comes to the safety of Canadians' food.

Canada's food safety system is world class. A recent report of OECD countries called Canada's food safety system “superior”. Every day over a hundred million meals are served in Canada. Over the past six years, our government's efforts have driven the number of incidents of E. coli illness down by over 50%. We will continue to work to reduce that number even further. Passing the safe food for Canadians act is another critical step along that path.

The safe food for Canadians act will strengthen and modernize our food safety system to make sure it continues to provide safe food for Canadian consumers. In fact, this bill contains new provisions that will strengthen the authorities of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. This legislation gives the CFIA more powers for food safety oversight than ever before.

To be crystal clear, the proposed bill is not about self-regulation. In fact, nothing in Canada's regulatory process for food safety is self-regulating. The bill is about continuous improvement in food safety oversight. Canadian consumers deserve a food system that anticipates the direction in which the food industry is headed. Bill S-11 does just that. It modernizes existing legislation to ensure that the CFIA has the tools necessary to manage today's food safety risks.

The proposed act focuses on three important areas: improved food safety oversight to better protect consumers, streamlined and strengthened legislative authorities, and enhanced international market opportunities for the Canadian industry.

For an example of improved food safety oversight, we need only look at the new provisions against food tampering, deceptive practices and hoaxes that this bill provides. Currently, tampering or attempting to tamper with food can only be addressed by engaging the police. Under Bill S-11 the CFIA, which is often the first to be notified of when such issues are detected, can act right away. This new act will provide new authorities to immediately address food safety systems and will build additional safety into the system. While oversight and prevention are always best, related penalties and fines will also be increased to deter wilful or reckless threats to health and safety. This new act includes a provision for fines of up to $5 million, far beyond the existing $250,000 cap. These fines will make people think more than twice before intentionally threatening the safety of Canada's food supply.

This proposed legislation will provide the CFIA with strengthened authorities related to traceability and the recalling of food, and new tools to take action on any unsafe foods.

The timing of this bill, tabled last spring, could not be more appropriate given the concerns raised by the recall of beef products from XL Foods Inc. During a food recall, one of the most time-consuming activities is getting access to a company's records to try to sort out who their suppliers are and who in turn they supply.

The CFIA also needs to know what food was processed at precisely what time and precisely where in the facility that processing went on. Every business keeps records in its own unique way. This information is usually kept in a format that expedites shipping and receiving or accounts payable and receivable. This is the way business operates.

However, what we need to speed up food safety investigations is full traceability. Having enhanced authority to require industry to have traceability systems in a standardized format will be a powerful tool in the hands of food safety investigators at the CFIA and, of course, the Public Health Agency of Canada.

Furthermore, this legislation provides for an authority that will require industry to keep and provide records in a manner that is more easily understood by these regulatory bodies. It would also provide for an authority to compel industry to turn over records in a more timely manner. This last part is key.

The Liberal Party has claimed that this provision already exists. That is false. While currently CFIA inspectors can require a company to produce documents, inspectors have no provision to demand those documents in a more timely manner. While the Liberals refuse to accept this, those who understand the issue know that this discrepancy exists.

Dr. Sylvain Charlebois, associate dean of the University of Guelph's College of Management and Economics, recognizes that this power is currently missing from CFIA's arsenal. He said:

The CFIA...does not have the authority to compel the speedy delivery of information from industry during an outbreak.

This is testimony coming right from the member for Guelph's own riding. Our government knows this is something that must be remedied and the safe food for Canadians act would do just that.

The bill also provides improved import controls at our borders. The new act would strengthen import controls by including powers to license all importers and prohibit the importation of unsafe food commodities. Holding importers ultimately accountable for the safety of imported food sustains a level playing field between importers and domestic producers.

Canadians know that the CFIA is made up of professionals who take their jobs seriously. In fact, Ellen Goddard, an agricultural economist with the University of Alberta, recently said she thinks there is nothing more CFIA can do and that they are taking every precautionary step they can to ensure the system is as safe as it possibly can be.

With the passage of the bill, the CFIA will have even more authority to protect Canadian consumers because the bill has numerous provisions, which the Speaker outlined, that seek to strengthen our already robust food safety system.

Our government takes the safety of Canadian food very seriously. With all the added attention to food safety, the opposition has continuously tried to muddy the waters when it comes to our government's record of supporting food safety. Allow me to clarify our record right now.

Since taking office, our government has hired more than 700 net new inspectors. This includes 170 dedicated to meat. Our government has increased the CFIA's overall budget by 20% since 2006. Dr. Sylvain Charlebois again stated recently, “Canada spends about $10 per capita on food safety, which is more than most industrialized countries”.

With respect to the XL facility in Brooks, our government has increased the number of CFIA inspectors at this plant by 20%.

Budget 2012 included an additional $51 million to further strengthen our food safety system. This is built upon our government's food safety investments of $100 million over five years in budget 2011. As members can see, this government consistently provides the CFIA with the workforce and the resources it needs to protect Canadian food.

As minister, my first job is to ensure that CFIA has the workforce, the budget and the regulatory powers it needs. Second, I work with CFIA to make use of this capacity to ensure consumer confidence.

Let us contrast this with the record of the opposition. It is no secret that while our government provided tangible resources for Canadian food safety, the opposition voted against our investments at every opportunity. If the opposition had its way, the CFIA would not have a single penny to operate.

Further to its repeated record of opposing food safety improvements, certain members of the opposition have gone above and beyond to publicly fearmonger about the safety of Canadian food. As the House will recall, just last spring the member for Welland accused our farmers of trying to put roadkill on the plates of Canadian families. He has since been forced to stand down from those remarks, and I am glad that he did.

Last week the member for Guelph rose in the House and spoke of a four-year-old girl from Alberta who had suffered kidney failure due to E. coli. We on the government side certainly empathize with this little girl and her family. No child should have to experience something like this. However, the member for Guelph rose in the House and asserted that this girl had contracted her E. coli from the XL plant in Brooks. This is not true. This case has not been linked to XL. In fact, the CFIA and the Public Health Agency of Canada have tested 30 different samples with regard to this case, and time and time again it has been found to be completely unrelated to the particular strain of E. coli found at XL Foods.

This is exactly the type of fearmongering that Canadians cannot afford to hear from the opposition parties but unfortunately is reflected in the opposition's overall stance on food safety.

I would remind the hon. member that food safety should never be a matter of politics. It is not a matter that can be strengthened by fearmongering or posturing. Food safety is strengthened by real actions, by voting in support of important investments, measures and legislation like Bill S-11, the safe food for Canadians act.

Last week I and a number of my colleagues moved a motion that would have expedited this legislation to committee. The motion was an important step to make sure the safe food for Canadians act gets passed as quickly as possible. The opposition once again chose to play politics with Canadians' food safety and blocked those attempts to move the bill to committee.

Canadians and our government know the importance of this legislation and we know that the CFIA needs the additional powers the bill would provide. I have outlined numerous provisions that will strengthen our food safety system when the bill is made law. I stand here again to give my opposition colleagues another chance to do the right thing for Canadian consumers. I call on them to put politics aside and vote with the government to move the safe food for Canadians act through the House and to committee. We must act quickly to provide Canadians with a modernized food inspection service and the increased protection they require.

Food Safety

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

Mr. Speaker, there are provisions in Bill S-11 that would allow this type of thing to happen. It is not against anything in Bill S-11.

We also have the independent expert panel, which was put together out of the Weatherhill report, that has been waiting for this type of an issue to move forward on. The panel will do an independent audit which will become public.

The Liberals keep gnashing their teeth over the fact that the Auditor General should be called in. He already has those powers.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we know that XL is trying to fix its problems, but the CFIA is still unable to properly move forward without having a clear picture of its entire human and other resource needs everywhere, not just at XL, and how best to use them.

For weeks, we have called on the government to request the necessary immediate comprehensive third party CFIA resource audit recommended by the Weatherill report on the listeriosis outbreak.

With Bill S-11 finally before the House, will the minister consent to an amendment that would guarantee an independent audit immediately and then every five years thereafter?

Opposition Motion--Food Safety

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, five or six times today Conservative members have stood and asked for the consent of the House to push Bill S-11 through right away. Why did they do that? They did that as a ruse. They did it so that the people watching this debate will think that Bill S-11 is the panacea for food safety. Had Bill S-11 been in effect, does anyone think this problem would not have arisen at XL Foods? Of course, it would have arisen. The government had all the time in the world to get Bill S-11 through the Senate last spring. It did not have to adjourn the Senate but could have asked the Senate to complete the bill and send it back to the House quickly.

Again, he trivializes the issue. There are 15 people across this country who are suffering from illness related to E. coli contamination and he should be apologizing to every single one of those people.

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture]

Mr. Speaker, I listened very attentively to my colleague's comments, and once again his speech is full of inaccuracies. I will give two examples. The first is that he says we are presenting Bill S-11 as the panacea for all food safety. No one has said that but him. We are saying that this bill has important measures to improve the regulatory powers of the CFIA and that it is an opportunity to modernize the system, taking a good system and making it better. No one has used the word “panacea” except him. That is an inaccuracy.

The second one I would like him to correct. He mentioned that a four-year-old girl had suffered kidney failure because of an XL Foods product. That is false. Our hearts go out to the girl and her family, but she was not sick from an XL product. This was thoroughly investigated. I would ask the member to please tell the House that he was wrong on that point and withdraw his comment.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, they say that those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Never did I think that the government would fail to learn from the frightening lessons from the listeriosis crisis in 2008 that killed 23 people and made hundreds others ill, or from the Walkerton tragedy, which a number of members of the Conservative government's front bench actually presided over, that killed 7 people in 2000.

Yet here we are, three years on from the report of the independent investigator, Sheila Weatherill, into the listeria outbreak of 2008, in the midst of the largest beef recall in Canadian history, with 15 people sick and consumer confidence once again rattled, unjustly punishing Canadian cattle farmers who are producing good, safe beef.

The manner in which the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food handled his file is an embarrassment, trivializing the listeria outbreak, as he did, claiming it was contained. His mismanagement of the recall and communications around the E. coli contamination are directly to blame for the negative impact on our cattle ranchers and exporters.

However, he is not alone in the blame. Every Conservative member who stood and supported cuts to the budget and a number of inspectors at the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, before he or she had an idea of what resources were necessary to successfully protect our food safety system, should take a long, hard look in the mirror.

As we stand here to debate this issue today, we are 45 days removed from when American food inspectors found E. coli in a shipment of beef destined for the U.S. and stopped it at the border a day before Canadian officials first became aware of an E. coli contamination at the Brooks, Alberta, XL Foods meat processing plant.

Had the minister learned the lessons from past failures of food safety, this is where our story would end. In fact, had the minister treated food safety on at least an equal footing as trade, the contaminated meat would not have left the plant at all.

Two weeks after becoming aware of a contamination of E. coli 0157, the same pathogen that killed seven in Walkerton in 2000, did the CFIA first issued a recall on XL Foods beef. The minister attempted to have Canadians believe this was standard. However, he neglected at the time to mention that beef only started being recalled three full days after the Americans had delisted the plant, shutting their doors to any more product from Brooks.

On September 25, even as the recall was expanding daily, the minister informed the House:

I reiterate that none of the product made it to store shelves and no illnesses have been linked back to this particular strain of E. coli. We have actually done a tremendous job.

Two days later, the XL Foods plant was closed. Surely, the minister knew the closure was coming when he misled Canadians.

Had the minister waited as long to gloat as he had to initiate a recall, he would have known that 15 Canadians would fall ill due to this strain of E. coli, including a four-year-old girl who suffered kidney failure as a result of coming into contact with contaminated meat.

Now, just the other day, the minister dismissed our concerns by stating that all 15 had recovered and had gone on with their lives, but as I am sure a doctor could tell the minister, one does not just walk away from kidney failure.

We were extremely fortunate that no one died, but that is no consolation, not enough for the victims of this contamination, and it is certainly does not reassure the vulnerable Canadians who might fall victim to the next possible contamination should the Conservative government not correct its course on food safety.

Of course, it is important to note that it was XL Foods that failed Canadians first by not tracking E. coli trends or maintaining adequate sanitation standards, which would have prevented such a widespread contamination, but it was the minister who compounded that failure by refusing to provide adequate resources to inspectors at the front line to investigate and enforce our food safety standards. Senior management of the CFIA, following last spring's budget cuts, acknowledged that we could not cut 10% of the budget without affecting the front line.

The government failed to properly communicate with Canadians. If we learned anything from the listeria crisis in 2008, it is that clear, open communications are necessary to address concerns and reassure Canadians. People want to be told the truth, but the Conservatives do not believe Canadians deserve the truth.

We still have so many unanswered questions. When did the minister become aware of the E. coli contamination? Why did it only take the United States days to initially confirm E. coli contamination, but it took Canadian officials two weeks? How did the sanitation situation get so bad at the Brooks facility to warrant being shut down now for three weeks?

This kind of food safety decay does not happen overnight. A facility does not get shut down for three weeks for a faulty nozzle. It gets shut down for three weeks because there are major compliance problems from the top to bottom.

The minister was clear that the Brooks facility boasted 40 inspectors and 6 veterinarians. How many of those inspectors are fully trained on the compliance verification system? Is he aware that the level of training should be 100% of inspectors and that they are not fully trained because there are not enough inspectors to go around and replace inspectors in training? How about this one, were the 46 CFIA staff on the ground in Brooks enough for the 4,400 head of cattle every day?

Canadians need answers. Simply put, consumers will not trust their food supply until the government opens up about what went wrong and what is being done to fix it. However, as we know, Conservatives do not believe Canadians deserve to know the truth.

There is no trust when the government insists everything is under control and yet the recall continues to expand daily, over a month after initially being put into force. That uncertainty is hurting ranchers across Canada. It is one thing that a facility that processes nearly 40% of our beef is out of commission because if its health and safety lapses and farmers are scrambling to find other processors for their livestock; it is entirely another that because the government does not trust Canadians with the truth about food safety, consumer confidence is shot.

We have given the government every opportunity to explain itself. Earlier this month, I called for and was granted an emergency debate on the XL issue, except the minister could not be bothered to participate and left behind his talking points to act as cold comfort to Canadians. He has since shown his true colours and called the debate, which was an effort to get to the truth, “silly”, an emergency of a nature that the Speaker of the House agreed was worthy of a debate granted only sparingly. What is truly silly is that the minister will not take his responsibilities for food safety seriously and he continues to trivialize it.

I also put a motion on notice for the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food to call before our committee all the relevant witnesses and experts from the CFIA, to XL Foods, to inspectors on the ground to discover what really happened.

Hon. members will note that my motion is no longer on notice and the committee will not be dealing with it further. They can draw necessary assumptions as to what happened while in camera on a Conservative dominated committee.

Perhaps some of those members elected from Alberta should reconsider the position of their government in the face of appeals from both the Progressive Conservative government in Alberta and its Wildrose opposition along with Liberals and New Democrats who all agree there is a definite need for a public inquiry. However, we already know Conservatives believe we cannot be trusted with the truth.

Just last week, I sent a request to the minister's office to reinstate a technical briefing for the members and senators on the respective agricultural committees that the minister's office cancelled and while the minister feels comfortable enough making comments about its cancellation, his office has yet to reschedule the meeting or even give me the dignity of a response. The Conservatives simply do not trust Canadians with the truth.

That could be why they have refused to call for a comprehensive third party resource audit of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, which we have requested as early as October 3. I thank the member for Welland for including it in his motion today.

In fact, the audit was first called for by the independent investigator into the listeria outbreak, Sheila Weatherill, who said:

Due to the lack of detailed information and differing views heard, the Investigation was not able to determine the current level of resources as well as the resources needed to conduct the CVS activities effectively. For the same reason, we were also unable to come to a conclusion concerning the adequacy of the program design, implementation plan, training and supervision of inspectors, as well as oversight and performance monitoring.

Accordingly Ms. Weatherill recommended:

To accurately determine the demand on its inspection resources and the number of required inspectors, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency should retain third-party experts to conduct a resources audit. The experts should also recommend required changes and implementation strategies. The audit should include analysis as to how many plants an inspector should be responsible for and the appropriateness of rotation of inspectors.

To this day that has not yet been done. A mere survey was undertaken. The former president of the CFIA, Carole Swan, stated that the review was not the same as a comprehensive audit. The government cannot answer who its inspectors are, what their roles are or where they are located. The Conservatives obviously cannot answer the question of whether there are enough inspectors or if we might need more. Yet this spring Conservative MPs stood up en masse to slash the CFIA's budget and lay off food safety workers. On that, the Parliamentary Budget Officer has already confirmed that there were $16 million in cuts and 308 jobs lost.

Accordingly, the hon. member for Toronto Centre, the interim leader of the Liberal Party, wrote to the Auditor General at the beginning of October asking him to begin an immediate audit of all Government of Canada resources supporting food safety in Canada, as well as to issue recommendations for changes and improvements.

While the government's new food safety legislation, Bill S-11, was before the Senate, we asked that the bill be amended to require a comprehensive audit at least once every five years. Sadly, that amendment was defeated both at committee and at third reading yesterday by a Conservative dominated Senate.

What possible reason could the government have for voting against our amendment except that it remains afraid of the truth? Even more than it being beneficial to ensuring that further outbreaks would be minimized or avoided, a regular audit would simply be good for any institution. A review is not effective if it is internal either. We need outside auditors without an agenda to make sure that we are getting things right. That is the healthy way to find efficiencies. It is common sense for fresh eyes to see what is missing, and we are fortunate in Canada to have an officer of Parliament who specializes in that, the Auditor General.

One would think that food safety, if it were such a priority for the government, would be at the top of the list for areas under review and scrutiny.

The truth is that the government made a mistake by cutting those resources in the last budget, but even more startling is that the Conservatives have not devoted the appropriate resources all along, and they know it. More concerned with communication victories than public safety, Conservatives are now caught empty-handed as Canadian consumers and Canadian cattle ranchers come looking for answers.

They are not even ashamed that Canadian facilities are now in line for audits by the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety Inspection Service. The organization that found the contamination in the first place and was first to shut down shipments from the plant after finding subsequent positive tests is now coming to audit us. That is a standard move by one country importing from another, but how are they supposed to have confidence in our system if we will not open the books up for them to look at? Are we really going to start relying on American food inspectors to catch our mistakes and then clean up after us too? None of that would restore consumer confidence and it would not help our ranchers sell their livestock.

We need some solutions.

First, the government should order a third-party comprehensive audit of all resources, including the human resources of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. The minister has shown that outside of lacking the will to act on this file, he is too close to the industry and has proven that he cannot be trusted to do it objectively.

I agree that we need to be opening doors to trade, but to save the government from itself we should make sure that we are working not just to open new trade doors but also that we can guarantee food safety standards that keep those doors open, doors that take years to open and only days to slam shut.

Second, the government should have open communication with the Canadian people. Here is where it should start: “Our beef is safe”. Full stop. “XL Foods went out of control because we did not have the resources in place to ensure it was properly policing itself”. Full stop. “We will have an independent auditor to determine the resources they need and give them what they require”. Full stop.

Canadians need to know that it is not uncommon for E. coli to be present in raw meat and that through safe cooking, proper sanitation and cleanliness, meat is perfectly safe to eat. When it gets into muscle cuts and is as widespread as this, it is a result of a lapse in food security. Canadians need to know that from coast to coast Canadian cattle ranchers are raising healthy, safe beef. They should not be punished for XL's lapses or for the CFIA's lack of resources.

In her report, Ms. Weatherill said, “Until the system is remedied, events like those of the summer of 2008 remain a real risk”. Despite that being three years ago, here we are again and her initial concerns still ring true. When these events recur there is collateral damage. Getting out in front of the situation would have eliminated or minimized it. It is just another example of how poorly the minister handled this.

The Conservatives argue that all of these issues would be resolved by Bill S-11. They have created a myth that Bill S-11 is key to ensuring that inspectors have all the resources they need. It is not true. I will grant that it is an important step toward modernizing; however, it is one thing to build a new car and yet another to ensure there are the resources for a driver and gas.

The authority highlighted by the Prime Minister, his Minister of Agriculture and the Parliamentary Secretary is one that inspectors already have. The Meat Inspection Act already gives powers compelling:

—any person to produce for inspection, or for the purpose of obtaining copies or extracts, any book, shipping bill, bill of lading or other document or record that the inspector believes on reasonable grounds contains any information relevant to the administration or enforcement of this Act or the regulations.

Additionally, current regulations state:

The owner or person in charge of a place...and every person found in that place...shall give the inspector all reasonable assistance to enable the inspector to carry out his duties and functions under this Act and shall furnish the inspector with any information the inspector may reasonably require with respect to the administration or enforcement of this Act and the regulations.

That is why beef is safe in other abattoirs in this country, because they have the authority. They do not need Bill S-11. For those who remain unconvinced, I would invite interested members to visit the CFIA website and read one of the six new guides for inspection from February of this year and peruse “A Processor's Guide to Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) Inspections”. The bottom line of that guide is that “You are legally required to provide information to, and assist, an inspector, when requested”.

As we discuss Bill S-11 further, I sincerely hope that none of that is lost in translation and that the members opposite will be more open to constructive amendments than their colleagues in the other place. What remains clear is that this minister and the Conservative government did not learn their lessons from the listeriosis outbreak. Until they do, food safety will remain a question and consumers and producers will be left wondering when the next crisis will arise. For all our sakes, even though it has taken more than a month to do so, I urge decisive action to restore consumer confidence now.

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture]

Mr. Speaker, I want to comment on the fact that the member said the government had not done much. We have Bill S-11 in Parliament. The opposition has the opportunity to move that bill to committee, where it can be studied thoroughly by the agriculture committee. If the opposition wants to propose amendments, it can do so clause-by-clause at the agriculture committee, yet it is holding it in Parliament.

I have two questions. Has she read Bill S-11 to see what the important measures are regarding food safety and the CFIA regulatory powers within that act? Why will she not allow it to go to committee in the shortest time possible so we can move it through Parliament?

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture]

Mr. Speaker, I wish the opposition would act for food safety rather than just follow through with partisan politics like it is doing today.

Demanding the resignation of the minister is right out of opposition playbook 101. We actually have a bill in front of Parliament today, Bill S-11. There was discussion among House leaders this morning to move that bill to committee for an in-depth review and not have it sit in the House for debate but opposition members keep saying no. They have been asked time and time again.

I would like to know what my colleague thinks about the cheap partisan politics that the opposition is playing with Canadians' food safety and with an important bill that is in front of Parliament now.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member keeps perpetuating this ruse that started this morning that Bill S-11 is the panacea for food safety. Interestingly, it was in the Senate and the Senate could have passed it last spring. The Senate does not have a school term schedule. It stays at the will of Parliament. The Prime Minister could have asked the Senate to stay and pass the bill and then return it to the House but he chose not to.

I want to inform the member that section 13 of the Meat Inspection Act provides the CFIA with all the authority it needs to impose regulations and require compliance by the industry with all the rules. It was repeated in “A Processor's Guide to Inspection” sent by her government to the processors in February of this year. That is why Cargill is running well and why all the other abattoirs are running well.

I would encourage the member to be a little dissuaded, to stop with the talking points and to understand that Bill S-11 is not the answer.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise and speak in the House. On the topic today, it is important to know that whenever there is a food recall of unsafe products it does cause concern for Canadians about our food safety system. But what Canadians need to know is that we have one of the best food safety systems in the world. Our recall system is proof positive that our food safety system is functional. It catches problems, it alerts us to problems and it alerts Canadians to things they need to know about their food supply.

I mentioned this earlier in my question to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health, but a recent OECD report recognized Canada's superior food safety system. So there is international recognition that Canada does have stringency in food safety rules, in inspection and in making sure that Canadian consumers have that right, have that access to safe food.

However, no system is foolproof and there are clear safeguards in place to detect problems and clear procedures and policies to address these problems as quickly and as efficiently as possible.

Canadians expect safe and healthy food, and this is why our government has heavily invested in strengthening Canada's food safety system and has introduced Bill S-11, Safe Food for Canadians Act. It would strengthen our ability to trace and recall foods, including the authority to allow the creation of tracing systems and stronger record maintenance requirements; enhance food safety oversight, including new prohibitions targeting unsafe practices such as tampering, hoaxes and deceptive practices; reduce regulatory duplication; increase co-operation among food safety authorities; provide standardization and uniformity in the way CFIA carries out its inspection and enforcement duties; provide stronger import controls on food coming into Canada; further align our food safety systems to those of our key trading partners; and provide the authority to provide export certification for all food. I am very glad to highlight these things in the House today.

These are great things. These are timely to issues that are going on in our country right now, and I find it very unfortunate that my colleagues opposite are not willing to expedite the bill's passage through the House of Commons. I really do not understand their rationale for doing this, and I hope that one of them can accurately speak to this today because I have not heard any good rationale whatsoever in the debate today.

Bill S-11 builds on our government's already strong track record of investment and policy-making in Canada's food safety system, including delivering the biggest budgets ever for the Canadian Food Inspection Agency—budget 2011 in fact committed an additional $100 million over five years to the CFIA to improve food safety capacity—establishing guidelines for product of Canada/made in Canada labelling; funding the Canadian integrated food safety initiative to the tune of $47.16 million under Growing Forward to support the development of food safety and traceability systems by national organizations.

Highlights of this initiative include up to $7 million for the Canadian Pork Council to strengthen the national swine traceability system; up to $2 million in funding for the Canadian Animal Health Coalition for the West Hawk Lake zoning initiative, which will help to monitor the movement of animals and agricultural products between eastern and western Canada; and up to $4.45 million to help the Canadian Cattle Identification Agency to strengthen livestock traceability.

There are so many things that our government has invested in for food safety, and with this new legislation that is about to come to this place, I feel our government is getting it done with regard to food safety. However that said, we also understand that there are three pillars of food safety in this country. There are three different groups that play active roles in this. Consumers have a role, industry has a role and so does government. When we look at industry's roles, we see that all federal government inspected meat and fish processing facilities must follow strict guidelines and rules for food safety. This involves identifying what can go wrong, planning to prevent a problem and taking action where a problem is identified.

Industry must not only ensure a culture of food safety and consumer protection from the top leadership through to employees, but it must adopt a science-based risk management practice to minimize food safety risks.

To that end, industry works to identify potential sources of food contamination, update production practices to reduce risk, comply with inspection and testing protocols and pull unsafe products from the market.

Again, going back to the government's role on this, it begins with effective laws and then CFIA delivers all federally mandated programs for food inspection, plant and animal health products and production systems.

As Canada's largest science-based regulator, the CFIA holds industry to account for the safety of its products, responds to food safety emergencies, carries out food recalls and prevents the spread of animal disease to humans.

Given the complexity of this mandate, as we were saying earlier, the CFIA works with a variety of partners including Health Canada and the Public Health Agency of Canada.

One of CFIA's key jobs is to inspect both domestic and imported food. It also inspects audits and tests products to verify that industry is complying with food safety regulations, and it enforces those regulations in federally regulated food processing facilities.

Once the food safety system has identified a contaminated food product in the marketplace, an investigation takes place that can lead to a food recall. More often than not, under the CFIA's direction, industry itself takes charge and carries out the recall of its food product.

In fact, it is extremely rare for a firm to be found unwilling to remove an affected product. In these cases, the CFIA can issue a mandatory recall letter. The agency can also seize affected products and prosecute any firms that do not comply with recall orders. Again, this is an example of Canada's very safe, very effective food safety regulations.

When dealing with potentially unsafe food, the CFIA's investigations are driven by three imperatives in ensuring the safety of the food supply: accuracy, thoroughness and timeliness. As one can imagine, the gathering of facts is critical to a science-based thorough investigation.

Thus, the CFIA must achieve two objectives in such a situation. It must undertake a robust review process that produces accurate and reliable information, because there is an impact on the outcome of this investigation both to consumers and industry, while ensuring that the public is informed as soon as possible about potential risks.

To achieve this balance, the CFIA issues regular alerts for recalled products even while an investigation is ongoing. As a result, it may issue several public alerts for the same recall. Once a product is known to pose a health risk, it is recalled immediately.

This is an important point: the series of expanded alerts issued over the past few weeks related to the XL Foods recall reflect the new information obtained during the course of a continuing science-based investigation. The timing of these notices is a normal part of the recall process.

It is important to note that the XL Foods plant will not be allowed to reopen until the Canadian Food Inspection Agency has certified it is safe. At the moment, XL Foods continues to work with the CFIA to identify and trace contaminated food products that might be in the market.

At the plant right now, the CFIA's immediate focus is to verify that XL Foods has put measures in place and follows those measures to effectively control E. coli contamination at all stages of production.

As an Albertan and someone who is also concerned about food safety, I know this is a delicate balance. We want to make sure the plant is producing food that meets our stringent food safety guidelines but is also cognizant of the workers and cattle ranchers in this country who depend on that plant to get their product to market.

I want to emphasize that, first and foremost, we need to make sure the food is safe. Our agents and inspectors who are there right now are working with the company to make sure that the stringent food safety standards that we all expect are in place before the plant reopens. I want to make sure, for my constituents and those across the country, that everyone realizes that this is something that everyone in this House, including our government, is committed to. We certainly hope it takes place as soon as possible.

To conclude, this is why the passage in this House of Bill S-11, the bill we were talking about earlier, is so important. The amalgamation and streamlining of food safety regulations, which are currently set up under separate umbrellas, is accounted for in the bill. It is something that needs to happen quickly. I certainly hope my colleagues opposite will take the opportunity to expedite the passage of this bill.

As my colleague before me did, I would like to ask for unanimous consent in the House for the following motion:

That notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House, 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 deemed read a second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Calgary Centre-North.

I am thankful for the opportunity to speak to this motion, as it will permit me to update the House on the government's actions, roles and responsibilities with respect to food safety from a public health perspective primarily. The health and safety of Canadians has always been, and will continue to be, our top priority.

I will talk about the role that the health portfolio plays in food-borne safety. Before I do that, I will focus my remarks on the role of the health portfolio in responding to this incident and, in particular, the progress made over the past few years to enable federal departments and agencies to better anticipate and respond to food safety incidents.

The Public Health Agency has been working with the provinces and territories from the very beginning of this process on a daily basis. It has been dealing with the public as well as the provinces and territories in providing support on this very important matter.

In Canada, the number of cases of E. coli infection reported annually has been declining over the past several years. Our national laboratory surveillance systems are detecting linked cases faster than ever before and enabling quicker action to identify the source of the outbreak and limit the spread.

From a health perspective, we are of course concerned by any food-borne illness that arises.

The following protocols are in place to address food safety incidents. Here I believe it is important for members to understand the roles and responsibilities of the federal, provincial and territorial governments when an outbreak such as this one occurs.

It should be noted that whenever there is any question of food safety posing a risk to Canadians, the health and agriculture departments and agencies at all levels of government work together to address the outbreak. When an outbreak takes place in a single province or territory, that particular province or territory conducts its own investigation.

The Public Health Agency maintains databases that allow provinces to compare the fingerprints of the strain that is causing infection with those that have been seen in other Canadian provinces or the United States. This allows more rapid detection of clusters of food-borne illnesses.

In certain cases, a province or territory will call upon the federal government for support. When a food-borne illness outbreak spreads beyond a single jurisdiction, the Public Health Agency of Canada works closely with Health Canada and the CFIA to address outbreak investigation and response issues. In this particular situation, provincial public health authorities in the affected provinces are leading the investigations into the E. coli illnesses in their jurisdictions in consultation with their local and regional medical officers of health.

However, given that the situation involves a food-borne illness in more than one province, the Public Health Agency of Canada is leading the multi-jurisdictional public health investigation. This involves consultation, content expertise, coordination and leadership at the national level with the goal of preventing additional illness and sharing and integrating their communication practices. In fact, from the start PHAC has been speaking daily with the provinces and territories to exchange information. Since then the 15 affected cases have all recovered or are recovering.

When the agency undertakes an investigation of a food-borne outbreak, it first tries to develop a full picture from the public health perspective. This can be trying for the agency as not all people who suffer from food-borne illness will actually visit their doctor.

Samples are taken from those who do seek treatment and are sent for testing by the agency and/or other public health laboratories to identify the pathogen causing the illness. These tests provide detailed information about a pathogen very similar to that of a fingerprint. The results of the tests are entered into PulseNet Canada, a network of federal, provincial and territorial public health and food laboratories coordinated by the agency, for comparison across the country. This helps identify matching patterns and clusters of illness that may indicate outbreaks.

Every case of food-borne illness is examined. To be in a position to identify an outbreak, public health officials need to identify unusual rates of illness and a cluster of cases, each with a string of the same DNA fingerprint. When more illnesses than normal are identified, the agency assesses whether an outbreak is occurring. This requires a comprehensive epidemiological investigation and response.

If illnesses are occurring in more than one province, territory or country, the Public Health Agency of Canada establishes and manages an outbreak investigation coordinating committee. The committee's role is to coordinate a multi-agency response to a multi-jurisdictional food-borne illness outbreak, with the goal of protecting the health of Canadians. All provinces and territories are invited to participate, along with the agency, Health Canada and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency.

The main purpose of the committee is to allow partners to share information, coordinate the outbreak investigation, identify the source of illness and contain the effects of the outbreak. It is worth noting that in some cases the committee can be struck even when an outbreak is restricted to one province or territory, such as in the current situation where Alberta requested committee investigation when illnesses were limited to that province.

These efforts are guided by the food-borne illness outbreak response protocol, also known as the FIORP, a protocol that was collectively developed by the Public Health Agency of Canada, Health Canada and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, in consultation with provincial and territorial stakeholders.

The protocol is put together for the collaboration and the overall effectiveness of the response during multi-jurisdictional food-borne illness outbreaks. The protocol provides guidance that enables governments to work together and to communicate quickly when managing national or international food-borne illness outbreaks.

Once the food source is identified, a health risk assessment is required to determine the level of risk associated with the food and informed risk management decisions. These health risk assessments are conducted by Health Canada and help determine appropriate interventions and mitigation strategies, such as recalls and/or public advisories. Health Canada works closely with federal partners to ensure a coordinated approach to addressing the risks and communicating with Canadians.

When there are illnesses, the Public Health Agency takes the lead in communicating to Canadians about the risks, the response and how they can protect themselves. This requires close collaboration among a number of parties. It also includes strong national public health surveillance tools, solid laboratory diagnostic and networking capacity and excellent communication.

I am pleased to say that the coordination of the investigation with provincial health authorities has been going well. That is thanks in large part to the protocols in place, which were modernized as part of actions taken over the past several years.

Following the 2008 listeriosis outbreak, the government immediately took a number of actions to prevent and reduce risks to our health, guided by the Weatherill report. Moreover, working in collaboration with our federal and provincial partners, the health portfolio continues to strengthen its capacity to prevent and respond to food-borne illness, building on the significant progress made in addressing the Weatherill recommendations.

I would like to take a few moments to outline that progress.

As we have said before, our response to the XL Foods recall exemplifies the improvements that our government has made to strengthen the food safety system. We are better at detecting and responding to outbreaks of food-borne illness through a number of improvements, such as strengthening our national surveillance systems.

During a potential outbreak of any kind, early detection and fast response is absolutely crucial. I am proud to say that Canada's ability to do so is truly world-class and has been greatly improved in recent years. We are now able to use innovative, state-of-the-art laboratory technologies to identify outbreaks more quickly and with more scientific certainty. For example, because this particular E. coli strain has a common DNA fingerprint, a lab method requiring more detailed analysis is needed to accurately confirm suspected E. coli cases and link them to recalled products.

The National Microbiology Laboratory is the only lab in Canada certified to perform this more detailed analysis and is playing a leadership role in confirming all suspected cases of E. coli linked to this outbreak. Federal agencies are continuously developing faster and more accurate methods for detection of food-borne pathogens.

In addition, Health Canada has taken measures so that it can sustain its immediate response to outbreak situations on a 24/7 basis. The department has increased its health risk assessment expertise and capacity to assess the risks posed by products and processes to the Canadian public, and to provide expert advice on the effectiveness of proposed corrective actions. It is also crucial to ensure that all who are involved in addressing food-borne illness outbreaks have a clear understanding of the protocols.

That is why our government strengthened measures under the food-borne illness outbreak response protocol with provincial and territorial authorities.

The recent update of protocols to include strong communication mechanisms allows public health and food safety authorities across Canada to respond faster, more efficiently and more effectively to specific food-borne illness outbreaks.

Over and above the need to communicate with authorities, it is important to communicate with Canadians. The health portfolio and CFIA have provided regular updates to Canadians on the situation and on how to protect themselves from food-borne illness. Public health notices are issued when new cases are confirmed.

Each of these initiatives highlights the important contribution of the health portfolio during an outbreak and the importance of coordination and collaboration with a large network of partners. The public health response to the XL Foods incident exemplifies many of the improvements our government has made to the food safety system.

Given that the opposition House leader said that he would like to see speedy passage of Bill S-11, I would ask for unanimous consent for the following motion, that notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House, 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 deemed read a second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food.

Business of the House

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, just to clarify, I would have been quite happy to have consented to the motion had the member not included in it a provision for an additional opposition day. Had the member decided to conclude that NDP was prepared, since its subject for today was food safety, to make the balance of the day the debate on Bill S-11 and then have it proceed to committee, we would have been quite delighted to consent.

In terms of his suggestions on the budget bill, I am looking forward to meeting with him and discussing with him what opportunities might exist there further.

Earlier today, the Minister of Finance introduced Bill C-45, the Jobs and Growth Act, 2012.

This important piece of legislation will bolster Canada’s economy and help improve communities with initiatives that build a strong economy and create jobs, support families and communities, promote clean energy and enhance neutrality of the tax system, and respect taxpayers’ dollars.

We will start second reading debate of Bill C-45 on Wednesday—once honourable members have had a chance to review the bill and discuss it at next week’s caucus meetings. The debate will continue on Thursday and Friday.

I genuinely hope all members will take advantage of the budget bill study week that is available to review the valuable measures that are set out as the second half of our legislative arm of our comprehensive economic action plan 2012. One highlight of the study week will be a briefing arranged by the minister for all hon. members on Monday evening. I hope many MPs can attend, and certainly more than the paltry attendance of opposition members that appeared this spring for the briefing on Bill C-38.

I look forward to a vigorous policy debate on the economy and not on procedural games.

I turn now to the business of the House leading up to Wednesday.

This afternoon we will see the conclusion of the NDP's opposition day. Regrettably, I was personally disappointed that the official opposition did not answer my call last week to lay out the details of its $21.5 billion carbon tax and how it would raise the price of gas, groceries and electricity. Though, I was encouraged that this week in question period the New Democrats actually did acknowledge the subject and raised it.

Tomorrow and Monday will see us resume second reading of Bill S-7, the combating terrorism act. I understand we should finish that debate sometime on Monday, at which that time we will then turn to Bill C-15, the strengthening military justice in the defence of Canada act; Bill S-2, the family homes on reserves and matrimonial interests or rights act; and Bill S-8, the safe drinking water for first nations act.

On Tuesday, we will debate the second reading of Bill S-11, the safe food for Canadians act, unless we find some other approach that would allow us to move on a more urgent basis. Since we did not get unanimous consent to move it forward quickly, we are hopeful there will be some other approach that can be agreed upon to move quickly with it. We hope that if we do debate it that day, we will be able to deal with it quickly and then spend the balance of that day debating Bill C-15 and Bill C-12, the safeguarding Canadians' personal information act.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, what a great idea.

It is an honour for me to rise to ask the government, on behalf of the opposition, what it has in store for the House for the rest of this week and for next week.

This government clearly did not understand the message that thousands of Canadians sent it last spring regarding the omnibus Bill C-38 on the budget. Canadians said that the bill was an attack on the democratic process and on the integrity of the House, and a violation of the right of all Canadians to hold their government to account.

Today we have received Bill C-45, another monstrous bill from a government that simply does not seem to understand. The bill is 450 pages long and combines measures such as cutting funding for research and development and watering down environmental assessment rules with actual budgetary measures.

Clearly this government has not learned its lesson. Canadians expect more transparency and accountability from the Conservatives.

Eighteen years ago, the member for Calgary Southwest, the Prime Minister, said, and I want to quote him to set the context for what I am about to approach:

Mr. Speaker, I would argue that the subject matter of the bill is so diverse that a single vote on the content would put members in conflict with their own principles.

We now know that same member, as the Prime Minister, does not believe that applies to him any longer. At the very least, as we need to understand this bill and fully analyze, I will ask the government three questions about what follows.

Will the government split this bill into its component parts to allow for proper study?

If not, will it allow for multiple standing committees to study the divisions of this bill that fit into those committee mandates?

At the very least, will it allow for full debate on this bill without slamming the door with further closure or time allocations, as we saw last spring?

Last, New Democrats welcomed this morning's long overdue arrival of Bill S-11 from the Senate, which has been waiting for passage there for more than 120 days, and was killed by prorogation by the government previously. We are interested in passing this bill quickly to committee.

We are also interested in the integrity of the legislative process. I am somewhat surprised that the government is not so much. It has had to amend a number of its hastily written bills and has asked Canadians to simply trust it on this one and move it all stages. It cannot work with a Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food who has failed us repeatedly and seriously in his role.

With Bill S-11 in mind, I believe that if you seek it, you will find unanimous consent for the following motion: That notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House, this House move immediately to debate at second reading of S-11, that today's order for supply be deemed not to have been called, and that the order for the putting of the question on the supply motion and the deferral of that vote be deemed to have been withdrawn.

Food Safety

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

Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what CFIA does. We continue to build a robust food safety system. Of course, the NDP continues to vote against it. We saw a shameless display again this morning. New Democrats had the chance to expedite Bill S-11 to give the CFIA more powers, but they chose to sit on it rather than move it through expeditiously. That is shameful.

Opposition Motion--Food Safety

[Jean Rousseau, NDP, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Mr. Speaker, since this morning, the members opposite, including the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, have been demanding that we debate Bill S-11, from the Senate, which is an unelected chamber. This is sad. Once again, the Conservatives are trying to discredit our work. The House of Commons is made up of elected members. We were elected by the Canadian people from coast to coast to coast, and the government is preventing us from doing our job.

Today's topic has to do with an industry hit particularly hard by a number of problems in the past decade. From the mad cow crisis to listeriosis and the current E. coli concerns, the agriculture industry has been harshly singled out, especially in how it is treated by the current government.

This sector is very important to our economy. In fact, one out of eight jobs in Canada is in the agriculture and food processing industry. We have to give the industry the attention it deserves because it is such an important part of our daily lives.

When I think of all of the farmers in my riding who are trying to make a living, I feel compelled to stand up for these Canadians across the country by supporting the action plan proposed in the motion we are debating today.

Years ago, we never would have thought that our cupboards would be filled with foods from around the world. I am not talking about unusual and exotic meats and fruits. The range of foods available on supermarket shelves has changed dramatically.

Farmers face challenges every day, and they are now facing a serious crisis of confidence in their products, which could jeopardize the survival of many family farms weakened by the Conservatives' inaction for far too long now.

I would like to start my speech by reading the last part of this excellent motion:

(c) directing the Auditor General to conduct an immediate assessment of food safety procedures and resources and report his findings to the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food.

And to think I believed that our system was one of the best in the world. At the beginning of this crisis, I was convinced that the contaminated beef was American. I thought the government was taking its usual approach, which means taking a long time to react to an order from the American authorities. I must have been really naive to think that the Conservatives were really governing the country.

After visiting slaughter facilities, food processing and manufacturing plants, and training facilities for young farmers in my riding and in many regions of Quebec, I found that all stakeholders on the ground agreed that our standards are among the highest and that our system is one of the most effective in the industrial world.

So what happened on the front lines? Where were the CFIA inspectors? Why did the chain of command between the CFIA and the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food break down? This minister is responsible for this. Why was nothing done to ensure the safety of Canadians and to maintain confidence in an industry that was already suffering from the folly of this government's ideology?

An investigation is absolutely necessary in order to finally shed some light on the current crisis facing this very crucial industry. An investigation is crucial in order to restore consumer confidence.

Today the House is calling on the government to adopt this motion in order to restore Canadians' confidence in our food safety system.

Here is how this can be achieved, as indicated in the second part of the motion:

(b) reversing budget cuts [of over $100 million] and halting the de-regulation of Canada’s food safety system;

How can Canadians trust a system when the government claims to be investing in that area, but is actually gradually withdrawing from it? Self-regulation does not always work, especially when it comes to a beef processing plant of that size.

A number of stakeholders in the agriculture sector had warned us that sooner or later someone would make mistakes at this company. What did the cuts affect? Training of front-line officers, the number of officers working in real time, the modernization of regulations and their harmonization with those of our neighbours south of the border.

Instead of paying attention to the people who devote themselves to these activities that are so important to our country and thus restoring consumers' confidence by providing them with access to local products, the government is investing in advertising and photo ops. There is no accountability and no sense of ministerial responsibility.

While the minister spends more time with certain male colleagues in tanning salons, an industry is being hard hit by the lack of action or involvement in an area that demands credibility, collaboration, co-operation and, above all, communication. By firing the current minister and handing over the food safety portfolio to a minister capable of restoring public trust, we will ensure that new impetus is given to investigating this situation.

I realize that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture would love to be the next agriculture minister, but does he have the right stuff? Listening to him, we can be sure of one thing: like a number of other Conservative cabinet members, he is either living in a parallel universe or he is just following orders that come directly from the Prime Minister's Office. Come to think of it, we should perhaps also include the ministers of industry and transport. We can talk about this another time; it is an entirely different matter.

In closing, I wish to pledge my complete and utter support for the fantastic motion we are currently debating in the House, and I assure my colleagues on the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food of my unwavering support for their demands. What is happening is truly unfortunate, but the Conservatives have pushed for more self-regulation, and inspectors are now inspecting paperwork instead of meat.

Today's motion is the direct result of the Conservatives' incompetence, and Canadians are paying the price, especially our hard-working western farmers who do their work with integrity and often devote their lives to it. Thank you and bon appétit.

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach, NDP, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to note that I will be sharing my speaking time with the member for Compton—Stanstead.

The situation we are in today is far from brilliant. Yesterday, we learned that the Food Safety and Inspection Service, the U.S. equivalent of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, had warned Canada several times about shortcomings in its food safety system.

Between 2003 and 2008, not just one report, but a whole series of reports were sent to the Canadian government concerning problems in several slaughterhouses, including the XL Foods plant, and the Brooks plant in Alberta was temporarily removed from the list of authorized meat exporters by the U.S. authorities. The reports mentioned equipment with meat left on it for hours, as well as traces of blood and fat from the previous day. The reports also mentioned a shortage of qualified staff and inadequate inspection of the carcasses. This is rather alarming, is it not?

The problems at XL Foods are nothing new. Despite repeated warnings from the American inspectors and Canadian experts, the Canadian government took no action. This is completely irresponsible. There is nothing really surprising about the fact that we find ourselves today facing a new crisis that has lasted more than 40 days.

Do we really need to be reminded that this is the largest beef recall in our country’s history? It is reported that 1,800 products have been recalled, in all the Canadian provinces, 40 U.S. states and 20 other countries. Canada's reputation has been tarnished, and this government, including the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, continues to claim that it did what had to be done. This is very arrogant and demonstrates incredible incompetence. It is truly a fiasco.

Is this government, which is so fond of deregulation that it prefers to protect the interests of multinationals rather than the health of Canadians, aware of the economic consequences of its inaction, at a time when it is boasting about its economic progress?

I will give some examples of these fiascos. Albertan businesses and the food sector have now lost billions of dollars because of this crisis. Our beef exports have significantly declined. The company has had to pay out more than $3 million in compensation to its employees. Despite this, many workers are currently jobless.

Martin Shields, the mayor of Brooks, is worried. The small town of 13,000 is suffering because of this crisis. The municipality is trying to help all the workers complete employment insurance forms and to assist them in their search for a temporary job or direct them to food banks. For a government that boasts of being the champion of the economy, this is a total disaster.

From now on, XL Foods will be operated by JBS, and it may even be purchased by this Brazilian multinational. JBS is the largest beef processing company in the world, with sales of $30 billion per year. The Brooks plant will continue to slaughter more than 4,000 animals per day. Let us hope that the government will now and henceforth ensure that health criteria are met and even exceeded. But that would surprise us given that it has not yet learned anything from the last crisis, the one involving listeriosis.

Rather than strengthening our oversight system, the Conservative government deregulated it. It prefers to allow the industry to self-regulate. But who will monitor our food safety? We need to keep in mind that E. coli contamination can kill.

In 2008, 22 people died in the listeriosis crisis. Do we want that kind of tragedy to happen again? What lesson did this government learn from the last tragedy? None, apparently. We have teetered on the brink of disaster once again: 15 people became seriously ill. For anyone who is not aware, the effects of E. coli contamination last from five to seven days. A person may have a fever and suffer prolonged vomiting and also have cramps and diarrhea. It is not a pleasant thing. Fortunately, those people did not die. It could have happened. What is the government waiting for before it does something?

The motion by my colleague from Welland is very clear. It is calling for three things that are essential for reforming the food inspection system and protecting our health.

First, the present minister, who has not lived up to his responsibilities, has to be removed, and the essential job of protecting the Canadian public has to be assigned to a competent minister. Second, the budget cuts that have brought us to this untenable situation have to be cancelled. And third, the Auditor General has to be directed to evaluate food inspection procedures.

On September 3, E. coli bacteria were found in a shipment of ground beef from XL Foods. But it was not until September 16 that the Canadian Food Inspection Agency ordered the first recall. A few days earlier, on September 12, meat exports to the United States had been halted. The meat was judged to be unfit for consumption for Americans, but not for Canadians. Something is not working. What did the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-food do? He chose the strategy of deny, deny, deny.

On September 26, the minister said there was no contaminated meat on store shelves, at the same time as there were Canadians getting sick. Either the minister was not aware of what was going on, which would be bizarre since he is supposed to be responsible for the agency, or he was continuing to underestimate the crisis. In both cases, there was a flagrant absence of ministerial accountability. He no longer has the confidence of Canadians and he must be replaced.

Now let us talk about our food inspection system. The experts have been calling for reform for some years now. In 2009, after the listeriosis crisis that resulted in 22 deaths, Sheila Weatherill, a leading expert in this area, was directed by the Prime Minister to investigate the crisis.

In her report, she recommended that the compliance verification system be reviewed since there were significant flaws in it. She also recommended that the Canadian Food Inspection Agency take proactive measures to ensure food safety. All of these elements are essential to the modernization of our monitoring system.

Some important parts of Ms. Weatherill’s report have not been implemented. As well, the agency has suffered cuts of $46 million, the equivalent of losing 308 positions, including a number of inspector positions. Today, in fact, we have heard the Conservatives refer repeatedly to the many inspectors they have added, but we must not allow ourselves to be fooled by this disinformation, since 170 inspectors were added in the wake of the listeriosis crisis, and 200 inspectors out of the 700 announced with great fanfare are associated simply with processing, and not with inspection.

When we look at all this information, we realize that the crisis was not an accident at all, but rather the result of the Conservative government's negligence. It was also a result of the ideology of the Conservatives, who do not believe that the government should play a role in protecting people and public health.

During the 2008 listeriosis crisis, we realized that Maple Leaf did not have any obligation to report the discovery of contaminated meat to the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. The industry is being asked to regulate itself. Is this a joke? Is the minister giving the industry the responsibility to protect the public health of Canadians? Really?

This deplorable policy makes me think of the generic drug shortage that occurred only a few months ago. In that case too, the federal government said that it had not been informed by the company and that there had been a break in the production line. It is because the industry was not being closely monitored. The government is relying on self-regulation. It sees that there are problems but does not react. This is a serious problem. Once again, Canadians are the ones who are paying the price. Let us remember that surgeries had to be postponed and patients had to take alternative drugs.

This crisis shows that there are major flaws in our food surveillance system. What guarantee do we have that the meat we buy at the grocery store is safe? Too many doubts remain. We are asking the Auditor General to assess the compliance verification system.

Bill S-11 does not address all the issues. It also does not fix the flaws in the current system. This bill includes a mandatory audit of the CFIA every five years. We cannot wait five years. That is too long. Canadians' health is at stake here. I do not know whether the Conservatives understand that.

Many people are aware of the amount of meat that plants process, so I will move on.

The government must play a role in the public health of Canadians. The Conservatives need to understand that. They need to demonstrate leadership, be accountable to Canadians and make the right decisions.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that the Conservatives continue, even the member for Medicine Hat, this ruse, this malarkey that Bill S-11 is the panacea to food safety. The member knows that the Meat Inspection Act, section 13, gives the CFIA all the power it needs to do what it needs to do. That is why Cargill got it right. That is why all the other abattoirs in the country are getting it right, because CFIA has that power. Therefore, that ruse can stop now.

However, I want to know if the member, who is deflecting all responsibility to everyone else, is prepared to take some responsibility for this himself. What he failed to say was that, on page 261 of its budget, after giving some money, the government took $56 million away. Two weeks ago the Parliamentary Budget Officer confirmed that $16 million of that was already gone.

Why will you not take responsibility?

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to start by saying that consumer confidence is critical to Canada's beef industry, and that is why we will not compromise when it comes to the safety of Canadians' food.

As the member of Parliament for Medicine Hat and more specifically as the MP for the people of Brooks, Alberta, I think it is rather shameful that, at this hard time for my constituents, the NDP is playing politics with this issue. As the MP for Brooks, I say that the opposition has been spreading a lot of myths and innuendo today. If members want the facts about what happened, they should simply go to the CFIA website, www.inspection.gc.ca, and read for themselves. However, perhaps in the interim I will enlighten them on the facts.

Our food safety system is the best in the world, as stated by the OECD. Canada is one of the best performing countries in the 2010 food safety performance world ranking study. Its overall grade was superior, earning it a place among the top-tier countries. We also know that the Canadian Food Inspection Agency's first priority is to maintain the safety of the food supply and that the agency acts on science-based evidence to protect public health. The Canadian Food Inspection Agency acted to contain contaminated products beginning on September 4, and it has been acting ever since. By the way, I am going to refer to E. coli strain 0157:H7 simply as E. coli.

In order to understand what happened at the XL plant, CFIA launched an in-depth investigation, which ultimately uncovered deficiencies in the establishment. In its in-depth review of plant operations, it pointed to a combination of several deficiencies that caused the problem. Regulated establishments are expected to be able to monitor higher than normal detection rates and modify their control programs accordingly. However, at this facility, this did not happen. The CFIA found that the company had an approved plan to deal with E. coli, but the plan was not followed and was not being updated. The company was unable to demonstrate that it was consistently and effectively implementing its agreed control program.

The CFIA also noted deviations from the company's documented control systems for E. coli and its sampling and testing procedures. This was serious and likely to contribute to E. coli contamination going undetected. The CFIA also identified a number of other general maintenance and sanitation issues that may have been found in a high-volume plant, particularly in an older plant. These would not typically contribute to E. coli contamination but had to be fixed. The company made a series of commitments to correct the deficiencies identified by the CFIA. However, based on information from the company and from CFIA staff in the plant, the agency determined these deficiencies had not been fully corrected.

As a result, the CFIA suspended XL Foods' licence to operate the Brooks plant on September 27. Prior to this, on September 16, XL Foods had already begun recalling affected products and the agency alerted the public. The CFIA administers a highly effective recall system to protect and inform the public by tracing, identifying and working with retailers to remove product from the marketplace should problems occur. The CFIA continues to work with XL Foods to collect information from suppliers, distributors and retailers to identify where affected products have been distributed.

As a result, additional products have been and may still be recalled, in which case CFIA will immediately alert the public. These recall expansions are common because some of the affected products went for further processing or to other distributors before going to retailers. This means affected products could be repackaged and relabelled after leaving the XL facility. When dealing with public alerts, the CFIA needs to be sure it has identified all the right products. CFIA inspectors contacted and visited retailers across Canada to make sure all identified products are removed from stores.

This can be a time-consuming process. As the recall proceeded, CFIA also conducted a rigorous review of the XL Foods plant in Brooks, Alberta. The agency sent an expert review team of specialists to conduct a thorough review of the plant and the company's progress toward fixing problems.

The review conducted on October 9 and 10 determined that the plant and equipment had been cleaned and sanitized to meet requirements of Canada's meat inspection regulations. The team also verified that the specific maintenance and sanitation problems identified by CFIA had been corrected. In addition, the CFIA evaluated the company's written corrective action plan for enhanced E. coli control.

On October 11, the agency announced that it would allow the facility to proceed to the next stage in the review process. This means, effective October 11, the plant was allowed to process, not ship, carcasses that were in the plant when it closed on September 27.

The CFIA sampling and testing of the carcasses in the facility found that more than 99% tested negative for E. coli. The remainder will be destroyed and will not enter the food supply. Carcasses that tested negative for E. coli are being allowed to proceed to processing, so the CFIA can observe the plant's food safety controls in action. No products will leave the plant until the CFIA has confirmed, in writing, to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food that plant controls are effectively and consistently managing E. coli risks and all the products are safe.

Let me say that even though the process has been hard on Brooks, the people of that great city know that if CFIA does not take every step possible to assure consumers that meat coming from XL in the future is safe, then the future of the plant is in even more doubt.

CFIA plans to do even more. As I have outlined, the CFIA's current focus is to verify that the plant has put measures in place, and follows these measures, to effectively control possible E. coli contamination at all stages of production.

Once the agency is confident in the food safety controls at XL Foods, the CFIA will review this incident to determine if improvements to Canada's food safety system can be made. The CFIA's first priority continues to be the health and safety of Canadians. The CFIA's decisions have been and continue to be based on science, evidence and a precautionary approach to protect consumers.

Industry has a major responsibility when it comes to safe food. It is required by law to produce it. Many food-producing companies have instituted state-of-the-art food systems in their operations, as well they should. They need to leverage new technologies and new techniques to meet their requirements to government regulators, such as CFIA, and the people of Canada to produce safe food.

That precautionary approach simply means the agency will err on the side of caution if there is a risk that some action or policy is harmful to consumers.

From the beginning, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency's actions throughout the XL Foods investigation and recall have been guided by science and by the evidence. Nevertheless, there has been some criticism of how this event has been handled.

At first the focus was on how the agency responded. Now we see the complexity of the problem that had to be assessed and acted on. The question remains as to why problems at the plant were not found during routine inspections.

I know the president of XL Foods' union has said that in fact there were many problems at the plant, and he certainly suggested that these were safety issues, and yet neither the union nor any of its employees actually went to a CFIA inspector to see if these corrections needed to be made. There is absolutely no record of a union member going to CFIA to question the food safety.

Routine day-to-day inspections focus on what are called critical control points, where food risks are greatest. Less critical aspects of production and facility maintenance are assessed, but less frequently. It makes sense to focus resources where they are most effective, where there is the most risk.

Normally, many of the issues identified by the in-depth review have been dealt with directly with plant management. Since they were picked up during an in-depth review, the agency was required to issue corrective action requests immediately.

Remember that the investigation determined that a combination of several deficiencies could have contributed to the problem. There was not one major issue but a few smaller ones. By themselves, each of these deficiencies would not typically be cause for immediate concern during routine inspection procedures.

New procedures at the plant will continue to provide the CFIA with more frequent trend analyses and more stringent bracketing procedures. These involve removing products from the assembly line if they are near any lot that contains a sample of meat that tested positive for E. coli.

The CFIA's current focus is to verify the plant has put the measures in place and to follow those measures to effectively control possible E. coli contamination at all stages of production. Once the CFIA is fully confident in the food safety controls at Establishment 38 of XL Foods Inc., it will review this incident to determine if improvements to Canada's food safety system can be made.

As I have said, the process has been hard on the people in Brooks and the plant workers have been temporarily laid off, pending resumption of normal activities. I have had discussions with the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development on this very issue. That is why Service Canada has proactively contacted the company and assigned a reference number to track claims.

Furthermore, Service Canada staff is in town to assist employees in filing their claims and information sessions are being arranged to help those affected, along with my staff from the Brooks office. I encourage all employees to submit EI claims. I know over 800 applicants have already begun the process.

I will speak to the claims made that the government has somehow undermined food safety by underfunding the CFIA.

When we look at the government's actions on food safety, we do not see underfunding.

In response to the 2009 Weatherill recommendations, the government initiated a review of Canada's food inspection system and made an initial investment of $75 million over three years to improve the system's ability to prevent, detect and respond to food-borne illness. That was a direct infusion coming between annual budgets.

Six months later, budget 2010 provided the CFIA with an additional $13 million for two years to increase its capacity to inspect meat processing facilities.

Budget 2011 provided an additional $100 million over five years for the CFIA to modernize its food inspection system. This enabled the government to complete its response to all the recommendations in the Weatherill report through target investments in inspector training, additional science capacity and electronic tools to support the work of front line inspectors.

Budget 2012 underscored the government's continued commitment to keeping our food safe. It included another $51.2 million over the next two years for the CFIA, the Public Health Agency of Canada and Health Canada to continue to improve food safety.

Since 2006, the CFIA has received funding to hire more than 700 net new inspectors, including 170 meat inspectors. It is food safety and public health investments like these that have driven down the incidents of E. coli illness in Canada by 50% over the last six years.

The government is also pursuing complementary activities to strengthen Canada's food safety system, including proposed new legislation. The safe food for Canada act would strengthen food safety legislation and regulations to support the CFIA's core mandate of food safety and consumer protection.

It is unfortunate that some of the proposed changes to Canada's food safety system have already drawn some fire through a misguided association with the XL Foods recall.

There have also been claims that the CFIA is reducing front line food safety inspection staff. That is simply not true. No staffing reductions have been made by the CFIA that will affect food safety in Canada. In fact, from March 2006 to March 2012, our government has increased inspectors by a net number of over 700, or a 20% increase. This staff increase demonstrates the agency's commitment to continue to direct available resources to specific priority areas, such as food safety and front line inspection.

As for the XL Foods plant at the heart of the recall, the CFIA has 46 full-time staff at the Brooks, Alberta plant comprised of 40 inspectors and 6 veterinarians. These inspectors are working in two shifts to ensure full coverage at all times when the plant is operating, providing systematic inspection and oversight. There have been no changes to CFIA staffing levels in the plant in the last 12 months.

The CFIA will continue to maintain a strong presence at the XL Foods plants and all other federally-registered plants to verify that the industry processes and practices are minimizing risks to food safety.

Our government is fully committed to protecting the health and safety of Canadians by ensuring that Canada's food safety system remains among the best in the world.

It is true that ranchers and farmers in my riding and the industry need a strong processing sector, but everyone understands that food safety is the cornerstone of the industry's growth success, That is why the XL Foods plant will resume full operation only when the president of the CFIA confirms to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food that the health of Canadians is not at risk.

I ask that the NDP agriculture critic, the member for Welland, who I sit with on the agriculture committee, to end his political games and, for once, do something constructive and support our government's investments in food safety and support our legislation, the safe food for Canadians act.

I strongly urge all those concerned about improving the food safety in Canada to support the safe food for Canadians acts when it comes to the House. The bill would strengthen food safety legislation and regulations to support CFIA's core mandate of food safety and consumer protection.

I would ask for unanimous consent for the following motion: That notwithstanding any order or unusual practice of the House, 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 deemed read a second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I entirely agree with what the member for Guelph said.

The only audit that was done was a financial audit, which has nothing to do with food safety or food security. Many other parts of the Weatherill report have not been acted upon. Among other things, most employees at XL Foods had not yet been trained in the new compliance verification system. That was not the case for all employees, but it was for most. The process was being introduced. My colleague from Guelph is therefore entirely right to say that the government has not implemented all the recommendations of the Weatherill report.

I would also like to go back briefly to Bill S-11, which the parliamentary secretary and others are constantly harping on and which will be studied in the House.

Bill S-11 would have done nothing to prevent the contamination that occurred. And if it was so important for the government to protect food safety by means of this bill, it should have tabled it immediately after the 2011 election. This bill had already been introduced and it died on the order paper when Parliament was prorogued. If the bill was really important to the government, why did it not table it immediately after the election? Instead, it played political games as it is doing today by trying to impose the bill on us and to blame us for not passing it immediately without proper study.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will address some of the facts, or some of the myths again propagated by my colleague. When it comes to meat inspectors, of the 700 net new inspectors for food safety, 170 of them are meat inspectors.

The member says that he supports Bill S-11 but it is before the House and his party is slowing the passage down so it can enter into debate on the bill.

We are proposing to send the bill right to committee. The member sits on the committee. He could have an intensive review of that bill. He could propose modifications or amendments at committee if he wants. I do not know why he wants to delay the bill in the House before sending it to committee when it is such important legislation.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I need to clear up some myths that the member and other members of his party keep perpetuating because they think we and Canadians are gullible. We are not.

The first myth is that Bill S-11 is the panacea to food safety, the bill that is coming before the House, which we will support. However, we need to clear up the myth. Currently, section 13 of the Meat Inspection Act gives all the authority the CFIA needs to compel compliance with the intent of the legislation. That means safe food. The CFIA can compel the production of documents, the production of testing, and not only that, but in February of this year the government issued guidelines saying, “You are required to provide the information set out in section 13”. We must not be fooled by that myth.

The second myth is that we have more inspectors. What we know from our investigation at Food Safety First is that 200 inspectors were added to the invasive alien species program, food coming in, not to meat inspection. We lost 308 inspectors to meat inspection.

The final myth is that there has been more money for the CFIA. On page 168 of the Conservatives' own budget gives the CFIA only $8 million per year. Other agencies got money. Then go to page--

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to speak to the motion, as misguided as it is. I reiterate what the hon. Minister of Agriculture said earlier today, that our government does not support the motion and fully rejects its premise.

I will speak first about the XL Foods situation and correct some of the many misconceptions the opposition has been communicating.

First, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency acted to contain contaminated products beginning on September 4 and has been acting ever since in the case of XL Foods. It continues to take comprehensive action in response to the E. coli issue. CFIA continues to rely on science-based evidence and a commitment to protect consumers.

These decisions are made on the basis of precise and compelling scientific evidence, and a prudent approach, in order to protect consumers. However, scientific evidence is not obtained instantaneously. The agency takes action as soon as it is notified of a problem in order to provide people with timely and precise information as the situation evolves, information that helps consumers decide what to do.

When the CFIA discovered the presence of E. coli bacteria on September 4 at the Alberta packing plant, it immediately took action to protect consumers. The agency immediately initiated an in-depth review, which led to the discovery of certain deficiencies at the XL Foods plant.

The in-depth review of plant operations led CFIA to conclude that a combination of several deficiencies played a role. As soon as these issues were detected, the company began recalling products and we alerted the public. We fully recognize that when it comes to food, consumers expect that the products on grocery store shelves are safe.

The CFIA tries to meet this expectation at all times. When a problem occurs, the agency seeks to identify the affected products and inform consumers. It conducts a transparent investigation and publishes the information on its website as soon as it becomes available. People can also sign up to be notified by email or Twitter about recalls and food safety issues.

In an investigation of this kind the facts emerge through rigorous investigation, sampling, testing and interviewing. The agency cannot act in the absence of clear evidence, but once the facts become known they are shared with Canadians.

All of this information is available on CFIA's website at www.inspection.gc.ca, which I encourage all members of the House, the media and the public to visit to look at the timeline and the commonly asked questions section. It will certainly correct the misconceptions and the myths the opposition is communicating.

This leads me to another myth the NDP is spreading about so-called budget reductions to food safety. This is simply false. There have been no reductions made at the CFIA that would impact food safety in Canada. In fact, since March 2006 our government has added over 700 net new inspectors, an increase of over 20%. Inspectors will continue to inspect food products to ensure they meet the regulatory requirements of Canada.

To outline some of the investments we have made in food safety since forming government, in 2007, we provided $223 million over five years for the food safety and consumer action plan. In 2009, we provided $75 million over three years to address the report of the independent investigator. Budget 2010 provided $13 million over two years to hire more inspectors. Budget 2011 provided $100 million over five years for inspection modernization. In this year's budget, we are providing $52 million over two years for food safety, which the opposition unfortunately voted against.

When we add up all of these investments, we see that the funding for the CFIA has gone up some 20% since we formed government in 2006. Only the NDP can call a 20% increase a budget cut. Of course, it is the same party that puts a $20 billion carbon tax in its election platform and then adamantly denies that it wants to tax Canadians.

With all of this in mind, I want to take this opportunity to highlight our government's action in addressing the need for updated food safety legislation in Canada. This has become especially urgent in light of the large recall of beef products that is currently under way.

I want to take a few minutes to inform the House about some aspects of the new proposed food safety bill, the safe food for Canadians act.

First, let me stress that the objective of the bill is to enhance food safety oversight and to modernize.

This bill strengthens Canada's capacity to recall foods that pose a health risk and gives the CFIA the authority to have food producers adopt a traceability system.

A traceability system would allow the CFIA to more quickly trace products that pose a health risk and get them all off store shelves.

In addition, there are regulatory powers that would permit the CFIA to establish a record-keeping framework for food producers, which would force the producers to submit records by a given date.

As we can imagine, some producers keep more detailed records, while others do not. Some prefer to use paper systems, others computer programs. The upshot is that there are many record-keeping practices. If the CFIA could know in advance the format of the records and what standard information they should contain, investigations could be carried out much more quickly and more smoothly.

This bill would allow the government to make the industry submit records in a specific format in order to allow the CFIA to intervene more quickly in the event of outbreaks of food-borne illnesses.

This proposed legislation will provide a single and consistent inspection regime for Canada. Such a streamlined regime would make inspectors more efficient and effective. It would ease the burden on producers and industry. It would also allow businesses to better understand what the government expects from them, while providing Canadians with assurance that all foods are subject to the same safety standards, regardless of the commodity.

Food safety in Canada started with a sound regulatory framework. Food inspection was harmonized when the CFIA was created in 1997. Now is the time to harmonize the legislative framework under which it operates. Now is the time to enhance our legislative framework to provide an even more effective, responsive, streamlined, transparent and accountable food safety system to Canadians.

This bill would permit smarter, more efficient regulation. It would strengthen, modernize and consolidate current inspection and enforcement authorities around food. It is time for the opposition to step up to the plate.

New legislative provisions are also needed to position Canada to deal with new technologies and the realities of food production in the 21st century. The food safety environment is more complex today than it was just 10 years ago. The right tools are needed to properly manage today’s risks and to better protect Canadians from unsafe food.

Consumer lifestyles are changing and the world is changing due to advancing science and technology—technology that is changing food manufacturing processes.

International best practices, new scientific tools and advances in developing food safety systems have guided Canada’s move to strengthen its risk-based inspection system. This bill continues this and supports this direction.

Consumers are seeking updated food safety legislation, and we have long recognized the need for modernization.

Consumer groups, producers and industry representatives have gone down this path with government before. Several attempts have been made over the past decade to get this work done.

In the Speech from the Throne, our government committed to reintroducing legislation to protect Canadian families from unsafe food. Our government respects the wishes of Canadians with this proposed legislation.

Our government is also committed to ensuring families have the information they need to make informed choices and to hold those who produce, import and sell goods in Canada accountable for the safety of Canadians.

The proposed legislation is very thorough and balanced. It addresses the desire of Canadians for better, more consistent protection of the food supply. The consolidation of the various food commodity-based statutes will mean that all foods will be governed by one consistent, rigorous set of rules.

Here is what people are saying about the safe foods for Canadians bill.

Nancy Croitoru, president and CEO, Food and Consumer Products of Canada, said, “We strongly support and applaud the federal government’s strong action to modernize Canada’s food safety laws”.

Albert Chambers, executive director, Canadian Supply Chain Food Safety Coalition, said that it will, “position Canada’s food safety regime well in the rapidly changing global regulatory environment”.

Consumers and food safety experts are saying this. What has the NDP members been saying, until they had an 11th hour conversion a couple of weeks ago? The member for Welland was on the record in the Western Producer newspaper opposing this legislation.

This is another knee-jerk reaction of the NDP to oppose everything, before doing their homework and actually reading the bill. It was that member who claimed the CFIA would allow roadkill into the Canadian food chain. He has no credibility when it comes to food safety.

Canada is not the only country that is modernizing its food laws. In the United States, the Food Safety Modernization Act was signed into law by President Obama on January 4, 2011. This U.S. law sets out the requirements that American and foreign food facilities must meet, and the role that the Food and Drug Administration will play with regard to the frequency of inspections, tainted food assessments, and giving the U.S. government and local administrations more power.

The new U.S. law also gives additional powers to the FDA in order to prevent food-borne illnesses.

Canada already has a robust food safety system, but we have an unparalleled opportunity here to make it even better. This proposed modernized legislation provides for increased authority to prevent food-borne illnesses in our country.

The safe food for Canadians bill is needed so we can fulfill the recommendations of the report of the independent investigator in 2008 listeriosis outbreak. The independent investigator's report made it clear that legislative renewal was necessary for the government to fully meet its mandate and the expectations of Canadians. Our government committed to addressing all 57 of the independent investigator's recommendations. This is the last piece needed in order for us to follow on that commitment.

The Canadian industry has long been requesting a provision prohibiting a person from tampering with, threatening to tamper with or falsely claiming to tamper with products.

Our government also needs the authority to directly address those who perpetrate hoaxes on the public. Hoaxes generate unnecessary public fear around certain products and can be economically devastating for the producer of the product that is targeted by the hoax. With this bill, we would have the force to deal in a more immediate way with hoaxes and report them to the public.

Previous efforts in legislative renewal tried to cover statutes related to animal health and plant protection, as well as food. This bill is only about food. That is because food safety is one of our government's highest priorities.

With respect to the XL plant, this is why our government has been very clear. The plant will not reopen until the CFIA has deemed that it is safe. Consumer confidence is critical for Canada's beef industry. That is why we will not compromise when it comes to the safety of Canadians' food.

In fact, because our government is so focused on getting our safe food for Canadians bill passed, this morning the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food requested consent to immediately send our bill to the committee. The opposition said “no” to this positive initiative. It is delaying the bill in the House, rather than sending it to committee.

As far as the inspectors are concerned, there is absolutely nothing to prove that there were not enough inspectors at the plant as a result of the budget cuts. That claim is absolutely false.

The CFIA has confirmed that the plant has 46 full-time staff, 40 inspection staff and 6 veterinarians. As I mentioned a few moments ago, far from reductions, the number of CFIA staff at the XL Foods plant has increased by six during the last several years. These inspectors provide systematic inspection and oversight and work to ensure full coverage at all times when the plant operates.

At the same time, we administer a highly effective recall system to protect and inform the public by tracing, identifying and working with retailers to remove product from the marketplace should problems occur. In fact, a recent University of Regina study of OECD countries found Canada's recall system to be among the best.

That is not to say there is nothing to learn from this event, and I am sure the CFIA, the meat-packing industry, and all our food safety partners will adopt any lessons they have learned.

Throughout the food safety investigation, the CFIA continued to maintain a very strong presence at this plant as it has with all other federally registered plants to verify that industry processes and practices are minimizing risks to food safety.

The CFIA is prepared to continue to work closely with XL Foods and complete its assessment of Establishment 38. The speed at which XL Foods can resume normal operations is solely dependent on its ability to demonstrate that it can produce safe food, as this government's top priority is the safety of the food supply. While the CFIA recognizes that the company would like to resume normal operations as soon as possible, its sole responsibility to consumers in this matter is to ensure that XL Foods can produce safe food.

I hope the Safe Food for Canadians Act will move swiftly through this House and come into effect as soon as possible in order to provide Canadians with an even more effective food safety system.

I support the proposed legislation because it will enhance food safety in Canada. It is time to modernize and for Canadians to have comprehensive protection from unsafe food under one legislation. I ask opposition members to support this important bill rather than playing partisan politics, like they are with the motion today.

I would like to ask for unanimous consent for the following motion: That notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House, 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 deemed read a second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food.

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

Mr. Speaker, I too enjoyed working with my hon. colleague in the agriculture committee. He has also raised, and continues to raise, very tough questions in this Parliament.

As for the whole idea of whether there is money, the bill has gone through because whatever the government decides, it does. The money goes through. At the same time, when more money should be going to important areas, we find that there are cuts. Yet funding is going to support, for example, celebrating the War of 1812 or getting more fighter jets without proper consultation.

Speaking of consultations, Bill S-11 stayed in the Senate for 120 days. The government says it has consulted the public on the bill. That is not true. The government has botched too many bills for us to help it skip over the legislative process. That is why the bill is coming to the House, to get due diligence.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed listening to the member for British Columbia Southern Interior. I really enjoyed working on the agriculture committee with the member because he was conscientious on all the issues and was never afraid to raise the tough questions.

On the last exchange, which we consistently get from the government, of “Well, you voted against it”, perhaps the member could clarify this a little further. Is it not an absolute farce that the government is saying that the opposition voted against something?

The money still went through. It did not make a difference. The government is trying to leave the impression that because opposition parties voted against it, for whatever reason, that the money did not happen. In fact, it did happen and the government got the money. Still, it has not been able to handle this file.

The second question I have for the member is because of his experience on the agriculture committee. Bill S-11 is more of the same in terms of messaging and propaganda from the government. The CFIA already has the authority under the Meat Inspection Act. Mr. Kingston, the labour union representative, when they were talking about S-11 in the Senate, said clearly that CFIA already has the powers to do its job.

I ask the member, is that not in fact true? This deals with some other issues. The government should not try to cover it up and say that the CFIA does not have the authority to do what it needs to do. It has that now.

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

Mr. Speaker, there are two points there. One is the idea of the opposition voting against government bills. This is the unfortunate result of omnibus legislation. When one bill contains all sorts of different provisions, like what I guess we will see today, the opposition is forced to make a decision. Does it support the bill because it has some money in the budget for farmers, or does it not support it because it guts environmental policies and all sorts of other programs for Canadians.

I have been here for over six years and my party does not support that kind of all-encompassing legislation. We, and the other parties in the opposition, have been asking for a breakdown of the bills so that we could look at each one on its merits and either vote for it or against it, but to not have it all encompassed under one bill.

The second part is that we will look at Bill S-11. It will go through due process in the House and we will make a decision, taking the lead of our critic for agriculture, on whether or not we will support the bill.

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture]

Mr. Speaker, I think it is rather unfortunate that the NDP only likes to talk about food safety instead of acting to improve it. I raised previous budgets where we increased funding for CFIA. I also raised the 700 net new inspectors that our government hired. These were all opposed by the NDP.

My question deals with Bill S-11, which arrived in the House today. Despite what the opposition is saying, the bill was in the Senate for 22 sitting days. It is an important bill. It has arrived here in the House. We asked for unanimous consent this morning to have Bill S-11 sent to committee for a thorough study by committee, as happens with all bills. The member and his party denied that consent. I would like to know, does he support Bill S-11 and why will he not give his consent to send it to committee right away so that the bill can move forward legislatively?

[Gerry Ritz, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Mr. Speaker, we have been doing exactly that since day one. The timeline is well defined. It is on CFIA's website. It clearly shows that the original product that was tainted was contained that day. There was no need for a recall or for searching store shelves because it never got there.

When it comes to the member talking about priorities and planning, of course I signed the letter. We are looking for efficiencies across government, but none of the trimming of CFIA's budget affects food safety. I would challenge the member to point to any particular instance where he can actually show that fact. He is making that up. He is scaring Canadians. I know Halloween is coming, but he might want to save that for when he puts on his mask for Halloween, because it is not true. I am not trivializing. I am very intent on this. The member is scaring Canadians when it is not necessary. There are no cuts to front line food safety proposed or even thought about. None of that is on.

The member also talks about Bill S-11 and the preparation and presentation of documents. Yes, we have rights under the existing legislation, but they do not include demanding those documents and having them delivered in a timely way. Rather than waiting days for an industry such as XL or others to go back through their files and find documentation, we need it much quicker than that. We need it at the speed of commerce, and that is what we are demanding with Bill S-11. We hope he is serious about his support of it and does not drag his heels, as some of his Senate colleagues tried to do.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to express dismay and frustration, not only on behalf of the opposition, but on behalf of all Canadians who are frustrated with the fact that the Conservative government simply does not want Canadians to know the truth. How can the minister stand and say there were no cuts when his own senior management in the spring, following the presentation of the budget implementation bill, said that there could not be a 10% cut without there being cuts at the front line? The minister continually stands and denies the cuts.

My question is about Bill S-11, which we support. The Meat Inspection Act, section 13, allows the CFIA to demand production of whatever it needs to ensure that the intent of the act is honoured. The owner and operator has the obligation to facilitate and produce those documents. Other abattoirs in the country are getting along just fine with the current legislation. Why are they not finding themselves in difficulty? Why was it possible for CFIA to finally step in and shut the plant down if it did not have the requisite authority to do what it needed to do? Yet the minister continues with this ruse saying that Bill S-11 is the panacea to food safety, that it will solve all the problems. He is hiding behind that bill. We need to know the truth. When will he tell us the truth about what happened?

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I was amused and somewhat befuddled by some of the comments by the minister. He said that the government's number one priority was Canadians' food safety, yet his first act when it came to XL Foods was to close the exportation of beef to Americans, not to us. If the minister knew that we should not send the product to Americans, why would we continue to send it to Canadians if indeed the government's first priority is Canadians' safety?

Talking about facts, I would ask the minister if it is indeed his signature on the Canadian Food Inspection Agency's report on plans and priorities that says that the government will reduce it by $46.6 million and 314 full-time equivalents. Is that the case?

When the minister stood in this House and said, “None of it made it to store shelves”, he was indicating that the government kind of did not know then. Why not? When we did know that it got out, why did we continue to produce?

As for Bill S-11, to be clear, what I said during the emergency debate in this House was that the government should bring forward Bill S-11 as fast as possible and that we would help the government get it to committee, because we have some great ideas to make it a better piece of legislation. We indeed would support it to get it to committee.

However, you left it in the Senate for 120 days. We cannot help you move it faster if you actually start over there rather than here and then drag your feet over there and do not bring it here.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to address the House on the important issue of food safety. While this issue should not be construed as political, we are in fact here today to debate a highly charged political motion brought forward by the NDP.

That said, I welcome any opportunity to bring light to the positive record of this government in supporting food safety. I welcome the opportunity to remind Canadians of the abysmal record of the NDP when it comes to providing funding that keeps our food safe.

The motion gives me the opportunity to correct much of the fear-mongering by the opposition on an issue so important to Canadian families.

As always, Canadian consumers remain this government's number one priority when it comes to food safety. Canadians and customers around the world have come to rely on the high quality and safety standards of Canadian foods. Food safety is critically important to Canadian consumers.

That is why our government works to ensure that both the CFIA, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, and industry itself deliver on these expectations. We remain committed to making food as safe as possible for our consumers. Canadians know that industry, government agencies and consumers themselves must play a part right from the farm gate to their plate to ensure that food safety.

Overall, the results of our food safety system are largely positive. Since our government took office the number of cases of E. coli 0157 illnesses among Canadians has been cut in half. That is a great start. We will work to reduce that number even further.

Since March 2006 we have increased CFIA field inspection staff by more than 700 personnel. That includes 170 personnel dedicated to meat inspection.

We have also provided significant funding, including over $50 million in budget 2012. That builds on the investment of $100 million in budget 2011 to improve our overall food safety system.

While the NDP claims to support food safety, its track record says otherwise. The NDP opposed both of these budgets outright, and while doing so opposed our important investments in the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. Just because the party did not support them, does not mean they are not there. How can the NDP members claim that our government is not doing enough when, if they had it their way, the CFIA would not have received a single penny of these funds?

The NDP, in particular the member for Welland, have a track record of misleading Canadians. Just last spring that very member accused our farmers of trying to put roadkill on the plates of Canadian families, and since then has been forced to back down, as he should.

While the opposition grandstands, our government continues to provide the CFIA with the resources it needs to protect Canadian foodstuffs. In addition, we have addressed all 57 recommendations of the Weatherill report to strengthen the food safety system for Canadians. We have made good progress but as we saw with the XL Foods situation, we must continue to make sure our system is more robust.

That is why last spring, based on extensive consultations with Canadians, industry and others, our government introduced Bill S-11, the safe food for Canadians act, to strengthen our food safety system even further. The bill passed the Senate last night and I look forward to debating it here in the House. I urge all members to give this legislation careful attention and to move it forward expeditiously, as they say they will. The safety of Canadians is not a matter of scoring political points; it is of vital importance to Canadians and our overseas consumers as well.

This is why I find it puzzling that the member for Welland will not confirm his support for this important piece of legislation. He had a chance this morning and came up short. I urge him to stand in the House today and confirm for Canadian families that he will, once and for all, vote to improve food safety.

The safe food for Canadians act would strengthen and modernize our food safety system to make sure that it continues to provide safe food for Canadians. It is not an exercise in deregulation. Indeed, the bill would provide additional food safety oversight, investigation and enforcement, not less. The bill would give the CFIA the ability to compel industry to produce timely and usable information when requested. That is a major point.

Bill S-11 would also allow for the creation of traceability systems, which would help speed up investigations and recalls in situations like the recent one at XL Foods. The proposed safe food for Canadians act would also improve food safety oversight by instituting a more consistent inspection regime across all food commodities, providing better controls over imports and strengthening overall food traceability. We can see how important it is to trace products from the farm gate to Canadians' plates, and in the event of an incident like this, to do it efficiently and effectively. This proposed regulation-making authority would help the agency in its efforts to quickly remove recalled products from our marketplace.

The bill would also implement tougher fines of up to $5 million for intentional activities putting the health and safety of Canadians at risk. Food producers are legally responsible for producing safe food. It is their job to do what is right and it is the CFIA's job to make sure that the processors follow through.

As I mentioned previously, the regulations under the bill would also ensure that a company provides documentation in a form that can be easily understood, thus reducing time lost in seeking clarifications.

While strengthening food safety for Canadians, the safe food for Canadians bill will also help Canada's agricultural industry, which drives Canada's economy with over $44 billion in exports and one in eight jobs for Canadians. It would further align Canada's food safety systems with our key trading partners' and increase importing countries' confidence in Canadian food commodities through expanded export certificates.

Finally, to help ensure that imported food commodities meet our high standards, this same bill would strengthen controls over imported food commodities and introduce powers to be able to license all food importers. This bill is good for Canadian families. It would strengthen and modernize our food safety system and help our agriculture and food industry to continue to drive Canada's economy.

In regard to the hon. member's motion, the CFIA continues working to verify that the plant in question has put corrective measures in place and is following those measures to effectively control possible E. coli contamination at all stages of production. Once the agency is confident in the food safety controls at establishment 38, they will thoroughly review the situation to determine what improvements to Canada's food safety system can be made.

While the NDP and the Liberals would like to dictate what the Auditor General does, on this side of the House we respect the Auditor General's independence. In fact, the Auditor General already has the authority to audit any federal agency he sees fit, including the CFIA. That is very important.

Some of the comments I have been hearing from hon. members would lead us to believe that they have no idea what happens during a food recall. Although the members opposite do not like to hear it, when a food recall happens or is continued, it shows that our robust system is working. When a food recall gets under way, the CFIA literally works around the clock to get the products off the shelf as fast and as comprehensively as it can.

The agency is committed to providing accurate, useful information as quickly as possible to inform the public about products that may also be in their fridges or freezers at home.

We must help the hon. members across the aisle separate fact from fiction. The opposition will stand today and try to scare Canadians with talk about cuts to food safety. Canadians need to be assured that no such cuts exist or are contemplated. In fact our government has increased the budget of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency by some 20% since taking office.

The opposition will also claim that we are reducing the number of inspectors. As I stated earlier, we have hired over 700 net new inspectors. At the XL facility in Brooks, we have increased the number of inspectors by 20% in recent years. We have done all of this without one ounce of support from the opposition. That is sad.

Canadian families need to know the truth when it comes to food safety. Going back to the beginning to when the problems were first revealed, the CFIA discovered E. coli in a beef product on September 4. This product, discovered in a secondary processing facility, had originated from XL in Brooks. The agency acted to contain the specific affected product on that date and has been acting ever since.

At that time there was no evidence that any additional product had been affected. On that very same day, the CFIA was also informed that the USDA Food Safety and Inspection Service had discovered E. coli in a sample of beef trimmings that had also originated from that same plant. Those particular meat products were destroyed.

To repeat, at that time there was no evidence that any additional product had been affected or had been placed on store shelves. That is the famous quote they keep misquoting. Thus, no recall was needed. We had it all.

The CFIA immediately launched a full investigation into the causes of the problem on September 4 and has been acting ever since. With the onset of the CFIA investigation, inspectors stepped up their oversight of operations within the plant. At that point, there was still no definitive evidence that any other product was affected or in the marketplace. The Public Health Agency of Canada had been called and begun an assessment with its provincial colleagues. There were no confirmed illnesses before our recalls were initiated. Risk factors were, however, being investigated and evidence was being gathered by both the CFIA and the Public Health Agency of Canada.

The CFIA acted swiftly to address the problem once it was discovered. It was discovered by our own inspectors during routine testing. As my hon. colleagues are well aware, XL Foods has taken full responsibility and shown a renewed commitment to working with the CFIA through this situation.

The speed at which XL Foods begins normal operations is solely dependent on its ability to demonstrate to the CFIA that it can produce safe food. We recognize that the company wants to return to normal operations as soon as possible, but the CFIA has a responsibility to ensure that the plant will produce safe food going forward under any management team. Canadian consumers have the right to that assurance, and it is CFIA's responsibility to provide it.

To correct another piece of fiction spread by the opposition, it has been said that budget 2012 cut CFIA's inspection capacity, which led to this facility being under-resourced. That is absolutely, categorically false. In the case of this particular XL Foods facility, CFIA inspection staffing levels have actually gone up by some 20%, not down.

In fact, our government's budget last year, as I said, committed $100 million over five years for the CFIA to modernize its overall food inspection system. That included new resources to improve inspection delivery, increased training for inspection staff, scientific capacity in food laboratories and information management and new technology.

All the while our government continues to invest in food safety. To cite just a few examples of the kinds of strategic investments we are making in food safety from the farm gate to the plate, we have allocated $6.6 million for the Canadian Pork Council to develop the national swine traceability system, over $950,000 to help the Canadian Pork Council strengthen the national on-farm food safety system for its industry, and over $4.5 million to help the Canadian Cattlemen Identification Agency to strengthen overall livestock traceability.

I would also add that these strategic investments are a great example of more things to come.

As members know, last month in the Yukon the ministers of agriculture agreed to invest $3 billion over the next five years in proactive programs in the areas of innovation, competitiveness and market development. This will include continued support for the development and strengthening of food safety systems and the overall traceability of foodstuffs.

The bottom line is that Canadian consumers and their families have always been and will continue to be the Government of Canada's first priority when it comes to food safety. Whether through Bill S-11, Safe Food for Canadians Act, or our investments that I have outlined here, our government will continue to build a world-class food safety system that safeguards Canadian consumers.

The motion today does nothing to support food safety. It is purely politically driven. I encourage the member for Welland and his colleagues to cease this partisanship and finally do something constructive to support food safety and the industry. He can do that by supporting Bill S-11 as a start.

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

Mr. Speaker, we are talking about Bill S-11 and we are losing track of the motion. I suggest that the hon. member read it:

That, in light of the current contaminated meat scandal at XL Foods, and considering that the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food has not learned the lesson from the 2008 listeriosis scandal that cost twenty-two Canadians their lives...

I think we should focus on this. We are looking for answers, and the minister has not been responsible. He needs to step up or step down.

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

I hear my colleague across the way helping me.

The reality is that they have a majority in the Senate. If they actually wanted to move it by unanimous consent, why did they not do it over there if that was the urgency?

Clearly, what we saw in this crisis was that the ability of the CFIA to close the plant to exports to the U.S. was there and carried out, and that the closure of the plant 14 days later to the Canadian public was executed as well. That authority was always there.

What happened was that the minister did not order his officials to do it. What was done on the September 13 was that he made sure Americans did not receive any more tainted beef, but we were still allowing that beef to head to Canadian store shelves. When the minister stood in the House and said that there was none on the retail shelves and that no one had to worry, he was wrong because that plant was still putting beef out. We know as of just about 30 hours ago that the CFIA put out another recall from plant 38 to pull another product back. Clearly, that ability has always been there.

We will deal with Bill S-11 appropriately when it comes, but it is not a panacea that would give the CFIA more powers than it has today. It simply codifies its powers a bit better.

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Guelph is absolutely right about Bill S-11. If there was such a real need to push this through, then why did it languish in the Senate for 120 days? Why did the Conservatives not shove it through?

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, earlier this morning the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food tried to present a motion before the House fast-tracking Bill S-11, the safe food for Canadians act, claiming it to be a panacea for food safety. Yet the current Meat Inspection Act, section 13, gives the CFIA full authority to demand production of whatever documents may be necessary, including documents related to testing, and compels the manager or owner of the plant to produce those products and facilitate any investigation. We have seen with the closure of the plant that clearly the CFIA has the authority to enforce its rules.

I am wondering if the member could comment on this trick, this ruse, that is being played by the government over Bill S-11.

Criminal Code

[Gerry Ritz, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Mr. Speaker, there has been consultation with all of the parties regarding the second reading of Bill S-11, the safe foods for Canadians act, and I would ask for unanimous consent for the following motion. I move that notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House, 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 deemed read a second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food.

Safe Foods for Canadians Act

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

moved 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 first time.

(Motion agreed to and bill read the first time)

Message from the Senate

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Before resuming debate, I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed BillS-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, to which the concurrence of the House is desired.

Combating Terrorism Act

[Christine Moore, NDP, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I find it exceedingly odd that the Senate was used. This bill should have come from the government, from the House of Commons.

Besides which, Bill S-11, Safe Food for Canadians Act, is on the way. I happen to think that we have discussed food safety enough. Here again, the bill comes from the Senate.

I find it altogether incomprehensible that these bills are not coming from the government. I do not know what planet the Conservatives are living on, but it strikes me that it should have come from the House of Commons.

Food Safety

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

Mr. Speaker, the one thing this government has in common with the cattle sector, whether we talk about the cow-calf operators, feedlot operators or the processors themselves, is that we all agree that consumer confidence is based in food safety. To that end, we continue to build the robust food safety system that is required. We have some more tools coming to the House, hopefully the latter part of this week or early next week, Bill S-11, the safe food for Canadians act. We hope the New Democrats will help us move that expeditiously.

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

Mr. Speaker, this is a government that takes food safety very seriously. We continue to build the capacity of both the CFIA and the Public Health Agency of Canada. Of course, it takes voters on all sides of the House to make those types of initiatives move forward.

Bill S-11 is coming across from the Senate this week, we understand. I am hopeful that the Liberals here will pass that expeditiously.

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

Mr. Speaker, my job as minister is to ensure that the Canadian Food Inspection Agency has the capacity and the regulatory powers that it needs to move forward when situations like this occur.

We are going to have, later this week, as I understand, coming from the other place, Bill S-11, the safe food for Canadians act. I certainly hope the NDP will support that and move that through in an expeditious way.

Agriculture and Agri-Food

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

Mr. Speaker, we will never apologize for the size of the recall. This is based on science and on protocols that are developed well in advance of these types of situations.

We take this very seriously, which is why we continue to build a robust food safety system. We have Bill S-11 coming to us from the Senate and I am hoping the Liberals will support it when it gets here.

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, every day, the minister goes on and on about Bill S-11, which puts off the review of CFIA activities until 2017. The current crisis proves that the agency's activities absolutely must be reviewed immediately. The NDP is calling for it; meat consumers are calling for it; and Canadian families are calling for it. Yet the minister still refuses and continues to delay it.

To respond to the concerns of Canadian families, will the minister promise to review the agency's activities now, and not five years from now?

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

Mr. Speaker, we continue to do just the opposite. We bring in legislation that gives the Public Health Agency and CFIA more powers. We are doing that now with Bill S-11. I hope that the member opposite will rise in support of that bill at every stage as it moves through.

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

Mr. Speaker, the CFIA continues to act on science-based reasoning. One illness is too much. Everybody agrees with that.

We continue to build a robust food safety system. We also have Bill S-11, the safe food for Canadians act, coming to us from the Senate. I invite the members opposite to help us expedite that, to give the CFIA more powers of recall.

Food Safety

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Mr. Speaker, our government takes the safety of Canadians seriously and we are fully committed to ensuring that Canada's food safety system remains one of the best in the world. Yes, it is true, Canada's beef is among the safest in the world. Our government has brought in the safe food for Canadians act, which would further strengthen the beef sector.

Bill S-11 would introduce mandatory traceability for all farm animals, including cattle, and traceability for all food when it is processed. These provisions would give the Canadian Food Inspection Agency the tools it needs to respond even faster and more effectively to ensure beef is safe.

However, what do the New Democrats do? They have opposed the safe food for Canadians act every step of the way until their eleventh-hour conversion earlier this week under intense pressure from Canadians. Why did it take the NDP so long to support this legislation and to support our beef sector?

Business of the House

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I will begin by addressing Bill S-11, the food safety bill. It was introduced by this government in the Senate to bring about changes that would strengthen our food safety system further following the implementation of the 57 recommendations of the Weatherill report, which further strengthened our system.

I believe the comments, to which the member referred, by the Conservative caucus were not about the NDP obstructing the bill in the Senate but rather about statements that had been made by NDP members previously following the introduction of the bill that the NDP would oppose the bill. Of course, the issue we are looking forward to is having it pass successfully in the Senate. We hope that people will see the urgency more clearly, that we will get the support of the Liberals and that we will see its rapid passage here in the House. We would be delighted if we had support to do that very quickly from the NDP and other parties.

Now for the business ahead of us.

This afternoon, we will continue our safe streets and communities week with second reading debate on Bill C-43, Faster Removal of Foreign Criminals Act.

In last year's election, the Conservative Party promised to put a stop to foreign criminals relying on endless appeals in order to delay their removal. This bill follows through on our commitment to Canadians.

We will resume debate tomorrow, when I am optimistic, based on discussions, that debate will end—and, then, we will have concluded the first three weeks of our hard-working, productive and orderly fall sitting.

On our constituency week, I hope all members of Parliament and staff in this place will have an opportunity relax. Many of our pages will have their first opportunity to go home since they started the year here. I hope on our return we will all be ready to be productive and work hard because we have much to do.

On Monday, October 15, before question period, the House will start the second reading of Bill S-7, the combating terrorism act. We will also debate this bill on Wednesday and Friday of that week. This, of course, is designed to continue to make Canada and, in fact, the whole world, a safer place.

After question period on October 15, we will kick-off debate on Bill S-9, the nuclear terrorism act, which shares the same objectives. It would implement Canada's international obligations under the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material and the International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism.

Tuesday, October 16, shall be the fifth allotted day, which will see the House debate a Liberal motion. We eagerly await the content of that motion.

Thursday, October 18, shall be the sixth allotted day when we will consider the New Democratic proposal.

It is my personal hope that having given the NDP three chances already this fall to articulate to the House and to all Canadians how it will implement its $21.5 billion job killing carbon tax that it will finally choose this as its subject for debate. I hope the NDP members will seize that opportunity and let Canadians know once and for all the fine details of their scheme to raise the price of gas, groceries, electricity and winter heat.

Should we have additional time that week upon our return, or even this week if we move quickly, the House will also consider second reading of Bill C-37, the increasing offenders' accountability for victims act; Bill C-15, the strengthening military justice in the defence of Canada act; Bill S-2, the family homes on reserves and matrimonial interests or rights act; and Bill S-8, the safe drinking water for first nations act.

Of course, I am always open to suggestions from the opposition. If they are willing to accelerate any of those bills for quick passage, I will call them.

Finally, I wish everyone here a happy Thanksgiving. I hope that everyone has a productive and hard-working week working with their constituents.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise on behalf of the opposition to ask what the government has in store for the House for the remainder of this week and the days following the Thanksgiving constituency week.

Last week, we heard from the government House leader that he used his very valuable time to continue to point out Conservative misinformation. Canadians deserve a lot better.

The government has added to its impressive and growing record of disseminating these machinations and falsehoods by recently suggesting that the New Democrats are somehow responsible for the recent failures of the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food because we are holding up a Senate bill on food safety. To suggest that the official opposition has any impact on the progress of a bill in the other place is embarrassing to the government. The bill in question, Bill S-11, has been over in the Senate with the government's partisan fundraisers and ex-spin doctors for 119 days and the House of Commons has yet to see it. If the government wants to get Bill S-11 moving, perhaps it should phone some of its friends and ask that they actually do their jobs and move the bill forward.

The problem is that Canadians expect something a lot better from the government than spreading misinformation.

I would ask my friend across the way to set aside his typically partisan and somewhat embarrassing remarks and just stick to the facts of what the upcoming business would be for the House. It would be refreshing for a change and welcomed by all Canadians.

With that, Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the opposition, particularly the official opposition, the New Democrats, I would like to wish you and your family, and, indeed, all Canadians from coast to coast to coast, a happy and peaceful Thanksgiving holiday.

Agriculture and Agri-Food

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

Mr. Speaker, the system we have is robust. It has been adjudicated by a number of bodies around the world, third parties, that say we have a good system in our country.

We continue to enhance that system. Bill S-11 will give us more powers, in a more proactive and quicker way, to bring the information that we need to bear as we face situations like this.

We continue to build the capacity of the CFIA to do its work. I am hopeful the NDP, with its new epiphany, will join us in that endeavour.

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

Mr. Speaker, too little, too late. Bill S-11 is not enough.

Refusing to take responsibility for this crisis is not reassuring for consumers and producers, who are worried about the industry's future. For three long days, Canadian Food Inspection Agency inspectors did not know what they were looking for. The Conservatives are to blame for keeping Canadians in the dark and endangering public safety, but no one on the other side is accepting responsibility for this fiasco.

Why did the minister not warn consumers as soon as this crisis began?

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

Mr. Speaker, the United States notified Canada on September 4, the very same day we found product in another plant in Calgary. It turned out to be from the same batch. We contained that batch. That batch has been destroyed. Then we began to trace down where we needed to go from there.

In that next day time frame, CFIA staff members were in the plant looking for a cause of E. coli. They have to work on scientific evidence. They start to amass the information as it becomes available to them. They asked for documentation from the plant on the 6th to highlight certain issues that they thought might be a problem, and it took the plant some days to get it to them.

Bill S-11 will get us beyond that timeline and shorten it down. We need that bill—

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

Mr. Speaker, we absolutely agree a five-day lag is unacceptable. That is why we tabled Bill S-11, the safe food for Canadians act, last spring. It gives us more robust powers, a more timely way to assess the paperwork, and we will continue to move forward in that vein. I know that bill will be here very soon. The Senate went through clause by clause this morning. That bill will be before them very soon. Let us get it passed.

Food Safety

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, a lot has been said about Bill S-11 tonight, and I want to provide a little history on it.

Bill S-11 encompasses some of what was in Bill C-27 in 2005. It was opposed by members who are sitting over there, now in the government. I will tell members who led the fight to oppose the government in implementing those new safety measures for the CFIA. It was the current Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food. That is who led the fight, the agriculture critic for the official opposition of the day. Let us get that on the record.

The Minister of State for Finance talks about rhetoric on this side. If he wants to assure people and do away with the rhetoric, then the two ministers responsible, the Minister of Health and the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, should show up and answer questions. They should call a press conference and assure Canadians—

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I do not think they should pass those notes around.

On a more serious note, Bill S-11 talks about giving inspectors more power than they supposedly do not have now. Section 13 actually gives them the very powers that this new bill supposedly gives them, so they actually have it. That is one fact.

I have two questions for the Minister of State for Finance.

On September 13, the CFIA, not the Americans, lifted the licence from the plant to export to the U.S. Why did it not stop it for Canadians?

As the Minister of State for Finance, he would know how the system works. In fact, the report on plans and priorities signed and tabled by the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food on May 8 of this year says that approximately $46.6 million and 314 full-time equivalencies will be removed or will decline in the present budget year. Does the Minister of State for Finance agree with me that is actually going down and not up when that is signed by the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food? In other words, the money is coming out and the equivalencies are being lost.

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

Mr. Speaker, let me use some computer jargon: revision 6.0.

As the agriculture critic for the New Democratic Party, I have repeatedly said in the House that we are saying yes to Bill S-11. Amazingly enough, it seems as though the other side cannot take yes for an answer. The Conservatives keep saying that we are not in support and we keep telling them that we are. However, we have some very good suggestions.

I am glad you have finally understood. It only took four hours for you to finally understand that yes means yes. Maybe you should not keep passing the same notes around.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Guelph is quite right.

In fact, not all of the Weatherill report's recommendations have been implemented, and the comprehensive audit recommended in the report has not been conducted. He is quite right about that, and the Conservative government is denying it.

As for the second question, it is unfortunate that Bill S-11 is being introduced in the Senate first. A number of my colleagues mentioned that we would support it, but that we would also recommend, among other things, an in-depth study of the situation we are presently facing and an assessment of the current status of the audit.

Bill S-11 will not be a panacea. We are currently dealing with a situation caused by a problem: the cuts to the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, which have made it impossible for on-site inspections to keep up with the growth of such businesses as slaughterhouses. In that sense, Bill S-11 will not work miracles.

The Conservatives must first re-examine the cuts and their commitments to the Canadian Food Inspection Agency.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member spoke of the half-truths from the government. I am wondering if he could address two of these half-truths. The first is that they have completely implemented the recommendations of the Weatherill report, when we know, based on statements by Carole Swan, the former president of the CFIA, that the CFIA had not conducted a full or comprehensive audit of all of its resources, including human resources. In fact, she tells us that what did occur was only a detailed review conducted by PriceWaterhouseCoopers, which is not a full audit.

The second is that apparently Bill S-11 will be the panacea for food safety, when in fact we know already that the current Meat Inspection Act provides all the authority needed for inspectors to demand the production of documents so they can look at them in inspections, and that it compels the processor to provide the information and assist in the provision of that information, as noted to them in a government-announced guideline in February 2012.

Can the hon. member talk about these repeated fallacies that Bill S-11 is the panacea for food safety and that the government has implemented all of the Weatherill recommendations?

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to correct some facts, and I want to ask the hon. member if she agrees with me.

The member for Simcoe—Grey said in her speech that the government had undertaken the execution of all the recommendations of the Weatherill report, when in fact we know the opposite to be true.

One of the recommendations, among the others that were not fulfilled, was the requirement for a comprehensive audit of all CFIA resources, including human resources. We know now, based on a comment from the former president of the CFIA, Carole Swan, that what in fact occurred was only a review and, in her own words, “They didn't conduct it as an audit. An audit is a very specific process. It was a detailed review”. That is my first point.

My second comment is with respect to her proposition that the Bill S-11 is the panacea for food safety, when in fact we know that right now under the Meat Inspection Act, the CFIA has the authority to demand shipping bills, bills of lading and documents on record. This was announced again in February of this year in a government announcement reminding inspectors that it had the authority to demand any record, sample or document whatsoever and reminding the industry that it was required to provide this information.

Does the member agree with me that the member from Simcoe—Grey is in fact in error, that Bill S-11 is not a panacea for food safety and that all the recommendations of the Weatherill report have not been completed?

[Kellie Leitch, Conservative, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure how many times I need to say this because I have now said it three times this evening. We have increased the number of inspectors to over 700 individuals. I am happy to say that.

The most important thing to say with respect to this issue is this. We recognize that Canadian food safety is the number one priority for this government because it is so important to Canadians. I encourage the opposition to support Bill S-11, very important legislation, with no caveats. Please help us move this legislation forward so we can ensure Canadians are protected.

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I know the parliamentary secretary understands things like reports of the plans and priorities committee because she is a parliamentary secretary.

Therefore, I draw her attention to a fact. Signed and tabled on May 8 by the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, the plan was to spend $46.6 million less and take 314 full-time equivalences out of CFIA. Does that fact mean things are going down, or does the parliamentary secretary think that was an increase?

To help the parliamentary secretary with her speaking points, she should write out the line that we oppose Bill S-11. I have said for the third time, and others have said as well, that we will support it, in principle, at second reading. However, we have great suggestions and we are hopeful. The member opposite has said that we should all tone down the rhetoric and take a breath. We are all taking a breath. We want to help her make good legislation to ensure the food safety system is safe for all Canadians. I hope the Conservatives actually hear that.

Could she speak to the decline of $46 million and 314 positions, which is a fact because her minister signed it? Does that mean it is declining or does it mean something that I do not understand?

[Kellie Leitch, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development and to the Minister of Labour]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to extend my heartfelt concerns to the patients and families impacted. I know that all members of the House hope for their speedy recovery.

As someone who has spent her career in the health care field, I am honoured to rise and speak to this critically important issue today.

As the hon. Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and the president of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency said in Calgary earlier today, Canadian consumers and their families have always been and will continue to be our government's first priority when it comes to food safety. Our government and all Canadians expect a strong food safety system and that is why our government is doing its part.

It is important that we refrain from hyperbole and rhetoric. We must stay focused and we must keep our discussions firmly rooted in science and those things that focus on Canadian families. That is why I want to provide some facts.

The Canadian Food Inspection Agency acted to contain contaminated products beginning on September 4 and has been acting ever since. The XL Foods plant will not be allowed to reopen until the Canadian Food Inspection Agency has certified that it is safe. Our government has hired over 700 food inspectors since 2006, including 170 meat inspectors. Our government has implemented all 57 recommendations from the Weatherill report.

If the opposition believes that the powers of the agency are not sufficient, it should support the government's legislation, Bill S-11, the safe food for Canadians act, to ensure that the CFIA has greater authority.

We increased the CFIA's budget by $156 million, $744 million total budget, for a 20% increase.

I would also like to add as a health care professional that I am happy to see that our economic action plan 2012 facilitates Health Canada to respond faster to new scientific and safety information. Previously, a 36-month delay existed in the implementing of approved food additives to stop the growth of harmful bacteria. Now it is six months, a huge improvement that benefits Canadian patients and the Canadian consumer.

Those are facts. What the opposition is doing is resorting to hearsay and fear-mongering, which does a grave disservice to Canadians who rely on us for the sound, factual information they need to protect themselves and their families.

E. coli refers to a large group of bacteria that is commonly found in the intestines of humans and animals. Most strains of E. coli do not cause acute illness in humans. However, some strains, such as E. coli 0157:H7, can make people sick. Serious complications of an E. coli 0157:H7 infection can cause kidney failure and other challenges for patients. E. coli infections are generally caused by eating contaminated foods, drinking contaminated water or coming into direct contact with someone who is sick or with an animal that carries the bacteria.

The Public Health Agency of Canada closely tracks E. coli cases across the country. Over the past decade, we have seen a marked decline in the incidence of E. coli 0157:H7 as reported by the Public Health Agency of Canada's national enteric surveillance program. In 2001, the number of cases of E. coli 0157:H7 was half that reported in 2006. The data reported in 2012 is undergoing validation currently. It continues to show a downward trend. This is a positive trend based on fact not fiction. However, we must remain vigilant.

The Public Health Agency of Canada works closely with the provinces and territories to track the number of certain E. coli cases across the country. When people get sick they go to the doctor. The doctors, in many cases, take samples from the patients and send them to local, provincial, territorial or federal labs for testing. That is the normal practice. These labs test the samples to identify the organism causing illness and may conduct further testing to identify the genetic footprint of the bacteria.

It is important to note that the provinces are the lead when it comes to these health issues. Provincial and territorial labs report weekly to the national enteric surveillance program the number of E. coli cases identified in their province or territory. The laboratories may also then post the results of the tests of the genetic fingerprint on the PulseNet Canada system, a national network that allows microbiologists to track and share genetic fingerprints for comparison across the country.

All labs then compare their results with those posted on PulseNet to find matches and identify outbreaks. PulseNet Canada is coordinated by the Public Health Agency of Canada's National Microbiology Laboratory in Winnipeg.

The Canadian notifiable disease surveillance system also tracks the total number of E. coli infections each year, as well as the age and sex of the cases. This system is best for understanding if there is an increase or decrease in illness over time.

Outbreaks may occur in a community, a single province, or multiple provinces, and not all outbreaks are reported at the national level.

We are taking every means possible to ensure that consumers have the information they need to protect themselves and their families. We know that E. coli infections can be caused by many things, whether it is improper cooking of beef; raw fruits and uncooked vegetables; untreated drinking water; unpasteurized raw milk products, including raw milk cheese; unpasteurized apple cider or juice; or direct contact with animals at petting zoos or farms. We are acting to make sure that Canadians know of these potential causes of E. coli infection.

Food can also be contaminated when it is handled by a person who is infected with E. coli or by cross-contamination because of unsanitary food handling processes. Raw fruits and vegetables can become contaminated with E. coli in the field from improperly composted manure, contaminated water, wildlife, or poor hygiene by farm workers. As well, E. coli infections can spread easily from person to person, as we see often in hospital settings.

Proper hygiene and safe food handling and preparation practices are key to preventing the spread of E. coli. Handwashing is one of the best ways to prevent the spread of food-borne illnesses.

I am hearing a fair amount from my colleagues in the Liberal Party. I think it is extremely important that every Canadian understand that handwashing is the best way to prevent the spread of food-borne illnesses.

Contaminated foods may look and smell normal, and it is important to ensure that consumers thoroughly cook foods to destroy bacteria.

As the Right Hon. Prime Minister noted in this House earlier today, Canada's food safety record is among the best in the world. In fact, the Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development has said:

Canada is one of the best-performing countries in the 2010 Food Safety Performance World Ranking study. Its overall grade was superior—earning it a place among the top-tier countries.

However, we are not complacent. Our government will continue to improve the food inspection system through the safe food for Canadians act, which we introduced this spring.

Bill S-11 would consolidate food safety authorities from several existing acts, allowing all foods to be inspected in a uniform way. More consistent inspection will provide Canadian consumers with even stronger food safety outcomes.

Furthermore, the safe food for Canadians act would enable the CFIA to better address certain food safety concerns, such as tampering. It would also enhance our capacity to trace food from farm to fork and introduce greater controls for imported foods. Canadians can be assured that we are confident in our ability to implement these improvements once the legislation is passed.

The member for Welland, on the one hand, I must say, likes to talk about increased food safety, but he then says that he opposes this important legislation. This is the same member who claimed that the CFIA would allow roadkill into the Canadian food chain. This is quite outrageous. The member has zero credibility when it comes to food safety.

The proposed legislation is only one part of our ongoing efforts to enhance the food safety system. We are building a stronger foundation for the delivery of CFIA's programs through an update of regulations.

Our existing regulations continue to serve Canadians well, but we want to take advantage of opportunities to reduce overlap, address gaps and provide regulated parties with clarity and flexibility.

Although renewing our legislative and regulatory base is important, it is the work of inspectors that is central to a modern and effective food safety system. This is why the CFIA has hired more than 700 inspectors since 2006, including 170 meat inspectors. It is also the reason budget 2011 provided the CFIA with $100 million over five years to modernize food safety inspection in Canada.

We are improving inspection delivery, training and tools for inspection staff, scientific capacity in food laboratories and information management and technology.

This funding and additional investments in food safety clearly underscore the CFIA's pledge to deliver to Canadians the protection they deserve and expect.

Budget 2012 reaffirmed our government's strong commitment to food safety with more than $51 million over two years to strengthen the food safety system.

Our government immediately accepted all 57 recommendations of the Weatherill report. We have acted on all of them and have invested significantly in acting on them. We have improved our ability to prevent, detect and respond to future food-borne illness outbreaks. We have increased our efforts to make information available to Canadians about the steps they can take to protect themselves. We introduced a new food safety bill to simplify and modernize legislation. All of this work is part of our effort to better protect Canadians from unsafe food.

When food recalls happen, all levels of government and industry must be able to respond quickly and effectively. Our government has engaged industry leaders in open and frank conversations about food safety policy, standards and best practices. We are working with experts across the country to continue to strengthen our food safety system. We are continually improving Canada's food safety system, ensuring that the provincial and territorial governments, industry, health and consumer groups, and international food experts are all working together on behalf of Canadians.

Over the last two years, the agencies have improved our ability to share information so that all Canadians can react more quickly and effectively in responding to food safety problems.

Our efforts will not stop here. Our government remains committed to taking the action necessary to ensure that our food safety system remains one of the best in the world. We take the trust Canadians have put in us to protect the safety of Canada's food supply extremely seriously.

Canadian consumers are always our government's first priority when it comes to food safety. We will continue to make sure that the Canadian Food Inspection Agency has the resources it needs to do its important job of protecting Canadians and their families. Canadian consumers are, and will continue to be, our first priority.

I greatly appreciate the opportunity to speak with respect to this issue. It is one that has been extremely important to those members and my constituents in Simcoe—Grey.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I do not think the Conservatives will answer that question because they are around and they will not get to that. The Conservatives keep getting up and talking about Bill S-11 in the Senate.

We are in 2012. Does the member really believe that we need a new law for the government to take the responsibility that it should have taken before? Does that mean that in our country we did not have the law to ensure the safety of Canadian men, women and children? Is that what the government is saying right now?

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

Mr. Speaker, I do have the bill and I think it is a good piece of legislation. This is a step in the right direction, but it needs more meat on its bones. This is not enough.

We actually have some quotes if I could find them in time.

With regard to Bill S-11, Bob Kingston said that, unless the government committed to providing the necessary resources, Canadians could not expect to see improvements to food safety as a result of this one bill.

This is not enough. We have other statements saying this is not enough.

I will vote for it, but we will have many amendments and I hope the members opposite are open to them.

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture]

Mr. Speaker, the member spoke about food safety and the NDP's commitment to food safety. She also spoke about Bill S-11, which is in the Senate. We have just been informed today that in fact the NDP may not be voting against it. I would like to know what the member likes in that bill and what she does not like in that bill, because the bill will be coming to the House and I would like an assurance as to whether or not she will be voting for it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Burnaby—New Westminster.

I congratulate my colleague on his speech. I want to point out that the Canadian Food Inspection Agency has a role to play. As elected representatives, we also have a role to play. Where does the responsibility of the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food lie in this issue? We do not see it, and that is worrisome.

This is the largest recall of meat in history. It is worrisome and really incredible in 2012. How can a country like Canada find itself in this situation?

On September 4, tests revealed a risk of E. coli contamination. The United States found out about the contamination on September 3. Last week, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency announced the suspension of the operating licence of the XL Foods processing plant in Brooks, Alberta. This means that the plant remained in operation for over three weeks after the first suspicions, until September 27. This is unacceptable. Thousands of Canadians were exposed to E. coli because of this delay.

Why wait 24 days to close a plant where such a problem had been detected? That is the question. It seems to me that, faced with such a situation, it is better to proceed with caution and to take action as soon as there is a risk that food safety for Canadians may be compromised.

It took several days of investigation and tests for the CFIA to come to the conclusion that it was necessary to shut down the plant in Alberta. That is what we condemn. It is not only the safety of Canadians that is at stake, but also our trade relations and our credibility with the public.

Since September 16, the CFIA has issued at least eight alerts for recalled beef products from the XL Foods plant, because it fears E. coli contamination. This recall affects thousands of products. The recall of meat is growing every day. In Quebec, the recall of beef products that may have been contaminated with E. coli is getting larger.

In addition to the ground beef already identified elsewhere in the country, there are now other meat cuts sold all over Quebec. Even more worrisome is the fact that the recall also includes unlabelled and no-name beef products sold in retail stores, local meat markets and butcher shops. People are worried, and understandably so.

I would like to read some comments I received from the people of Berthier—Maskinongé. Before the E. coli crisis, I asked the people of my riding what some of their concerns were. Here is part of a letter from a woman from Saint-Alexis-des-Monts:

The reinstatement of Canadian Food Inspection Agency inspectors is urgent and crucial. Canadians should be able to buy any of the food offered for sale in Canada with full confidence.

This comment was sent to me before the crisis. Does anyone here believe that Canadians can trust the food inspection system? A system that took 24 days to close a plant that was producing contaminated meat? A system that took 12 days to even warn Canadians? A system that allowed tainted meat to make its way to our store shelves? I do not think so.

Another woman wrote, “We have 18-month-old twins and when we read labels, it is very worrisome.”

Parents should not have to worry about what they are feeding their children. In Canada, it seems they do need to worry. We should be able to trust our food safety system. As a mother, my thoughts are with Christina Lees, whose son Elijah got sick. She said she felt powerless and was angry that her son got sick and that it could happen to other people.

As parents and elected officials, we have a job to do. The minister has a responsibility. This is the second time this has happened in five years. If it were one of our children or one of our family members who became sick because of E. coli, would that make a difference?

Would changes at the Canadian Food Inspection Agency happen more quickly? Perhaps.

Why did it take so long to act, and more specifically, why did the government not learn its lesson from the listeriosis crisis? I get the impression that the recent cuts to CFIA are setting us back five years.

Food inspection is less regulated. It seems obvious that the government took a long time to act because of a lack of resources. The Conservative government's draconian cuts and the limited resources at CFIA increase the risk of this happening again.

This spring, the Conservatives tabled their Trojan Horse budget. I do not think anyone has forgotten that massive bill. How could we forget a 425-page bill?

In that budget, the Conservatives decided to take an axe to public services, and Canadians are paying the price. Food inspection is extremely important. That is not the place for budget cuts.

According to the Canadian Food Inspection Agency's reports on plans and priorities for 2012-13 and 2014-15, planned spending is declining by approximately $46.6 million, and the number of full-time employees is going down by 314.

On April 25, 2012, I asked what effects the cuts would have on food safety, and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture responded, “...what I said was that no cost-cutting measure will compromise food safety.” Look at where we are now.

Look at the situation we are in now. We have the largest beef recall in Canadian history. That is a big deal. When a government makes cuts to food inspection, there are consequences. The work that inspectors and veterinarians do is essential to Canadians' safety.

The Conservatives love to talk about their food safety bill, Bill S-11. They also love to say that the New Democrats will vote against this bill. First, I never said that I would vote against it. We need more measures to protect food safety in Canada.

The truth is that this bill was introduced in the Senate instead of the House of Commons. Why? This means that we have not had the chance to debate this bill, because it is currently being debated by non-elected officials. Why would they introduce it in the Senate? Are the Conservatives afraid?

If they are proud of their bill, why not introduce it in the House of Commons? Why not let my colleagues debate it in the House? That is what we are waiting for.

In the summer of 2008, the listeriosis crisis resulted in the recall of Maple Leaf deli meats. This crisis shook consumers' confidence and revealed obvious flaws in the food inspection system.

Some of the findings of the independent investigation that the federal government asked Sheila Weatherill to conduct following the 2008 listeriosis outbreak included a lack of focus on food safety among senior management in both private and public domains, a lack of planning and preparation, and a lack of communication with the public and among the various organizations.

At the time, the first case of food poisoning related to the consumption of a product made at the Maple Leaf processing plant was reported the week of June 1, 2008. The first recall was issued on August 17. In the meantime, products that were potentially contaminated with listeria continued to be sold across the country. The current situation bears a striking resemblance to that incident.

Many recommendations were made. Ms. Weatherill urged the Canadian Food Inspection Agency to establish product control requirements following positive test results for listeria on food contact surfaces. This measure would make it possible to ensure that contaminated food was withdrawn before it was distributed to consumers.

As a result, the government took steps to prevent such a situation from happening again. However, the government now wants to do more with less. We all know we cannot do more with less.

Wishful thinking will get us nowhere, and food safety for Canadian families must be paramount.

We cannot put a price tag on food safety.

When will the Conservatives demonstrate transparency to the Canadian public? When will the government take action to ensure the safety of Canadians? When will the government admit that it is responsible for this situation?

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

Mr. Speaker, let me first indicate what I said when I first started my speech about Bill S-11 in the Senate. Perhaps the member did not hear what I said, which was that we would support Bill S-11 in principle and that we had some very good ideas to help make it a better bill. Hopefully the government will hear those better ideas. The parliamentary secretary said to me that we did not support it. That is not true. At this point in time, we support it in principle.

Regarding budgets, the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food said on May 8 in the planned spending and priorities for the CFIA, “Planned Spending is declining by approximately $46.6 million and 314 FTE's from 2012–13 to 2014–15”. That is in the Canadian Food Inspection Agency's report on plans and priorities, which was signed and tabled by the minister.

Does the member not agree with me that he is actually taking resources away from CFIA?

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Welland for his thoughtful comments and insight. I have spent some time with him on this issue and I want to thank him for clearing the air on Bill S-11. It is not the panacea for food safety.

As members know, the CFIA already has the authority to demand whatever documents it requires. Frankly, in February of this year, the industry was reminded of that, that anything requested by the CFIA was to be produced and they were legally required to provide that information.

However, my question, more pointedly, is about the comprehensive audit that my party and I have been asking for. Every single time I have asked the parliamentary secretary when the audit would be provided, he has said, “Go to the website. It is there.”

Interestingly, I learned that in November 2010, Carole Swan, the former president of the CFIA, was asked about that very audit and if it had been completed. Do members know what she said? She said that the firm that had been hired, PricewaterhouseCoopers, had not conducted a traditional audit. It did not conduct it as an audit. An audit is a specific process. Instead, it was a detailed review.

I wonder if the member for Welland agrees with me that either the Auditor General or a third party should conduct a comprehensive audit of all of the CFIA resources and the adequacy of those resources, including human resources, to deal with this issue of food safety.

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues for joining in this emergency debate on Canadian food safety. It is an extremely troubling issue that has come back to haunt us once again.

Let me first say that we feel for those who are ill, especially the young one in Alberta who suffered kidney failure and is drastically ill, and whose mom's pleas for help because there was something wrong went unanswered for, in her words, far too long. We on this side of the House would like to extend our best wishes for a speedy recovery to all of those folks who have fallen ill because of E. coli. Hopefully, they will have a speedy recovery with no ill effects in the future.

I would say unequivocally to the ranchers out there that we on this side of the House understand the dilemma they face. The ranchers across the country have done nothing wrong. They have worked hard to produce the best quality beef they can and they have been let down by a processor. Unfortunately, all of the links must work well in the value chain we have. The primary producers are doing the remarkable job they need to do and have done for decades, indeed eons if we go back to the early days of the pioneers on the Prairies.

What has happened in the processing part of the equation is the beef producers have been let down by a single processor which has now tarnished their image unfairly. We need to make sure that Canadians understand that. Indeed, we stand with those ranchers and say to Canadians in general that it is not the fault of the ranchers. What we need to do is address the situation that has happened at the processing plant.

I want to refer to some of my friend's comments about facts, as the parliamentary secretary likes to call them, and deal with the 700 net new inspectors.

The problem with the net new inspectors is that the CFIA has this sense that everyone should be labelled as an inspector. There is this catch-all category of inspector in which everyone is placed. With most employers, inspectors are called inspectors, assemblers are called assemblers, and clerks are called clerks, but not at the CFIA. Everyone is called an inspector.

My friend from Malpeque will remember during the listeriosis crisis that we asked the vice-president of operations, the head counter, the bean counter, how many meat inspectors were on the front line. I could not have been any more specific when I asked that question. After giving five wrong answers because he had the numbers mixed up, he finally said that he did not know. He is still there, by the way.

To suggest that somehow there are 700 net new inspectors doing meat inspection is a fallacy. Of that number, there are 170 inspectors doing meat inspection, but they only do it in ready-to-eat meat plants. What is the distinction? XL is not a ready-to-eat meat plant. Maple Leaf Foods on Bartor Road in Weston, Ontario is a ready-to-eat meat plant. There is a huge distinction between the two.

There are 46 inspectors in a plant that actually slaughters and processes, on some days, 5,000 animals a day. We divide that number by 46 over two shifts. Technically, there are only 23 inspectors on the plant floor on one shift and 23 on the plant floor on the second shift. There are two shifts in that plant. Maybe they move a couple here and a couple there. Some may work day shift more than they work afternoon shift, but nonetheless, that is how we divvy it up. We are talking about 23 folks looking after 5,000 head of cattle and working in a facility that literally is city blocks large. This is not a butcher shop on the corner. It is an industrial plant. That is how one has to think about the scope of that facility.

Let me talk about facts. The Canadian Food Inspection Agency report on plans and priorities, signed and tabled by the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food himself on May 18, 2012, reads, “Planned spending is declining by approximately $46.6 million and 314 FTEs,” which means full-time equivalent. The member's minister signed the document just months ago saying that he intended to take out that amount of money and take out that number of people. That is a fact.

My hon. colleague across the way, the parliamentary secretary, should review the plans and priorities document that his minister signed.

He loves to talk about the $100 million that the Conservatives have put in. The truth is that they have not put it in at all yet. They have spent $18 million this year. It is a five-year phase-in program that talks about a specific program and then it ends. It does not go on forever. It ends, just like they sunset the listeria program. They stopped $26 million in that program. That will end too. They will also take that money out. If we want to deal in facts, then we really need to put all the facts on the table, not just some of them.

What do we look at in the Conservatives' budget document, that massive omnibus bill they presented to us earlier in the year, and now we can see what it was about. They want to try to hide things in this great big document. What do we find? In budget 2012, the next three year outlook for food safety indicates a projected cut of $56.1 million on an annual basis, not just for a project, but on an ongoing basis, a continual basis, every year, year after year. That is a fact in the Conservatives' budget document.

My friend across the way will always say to me that I vote against that. He is absolutely right. If the Conservatives intend to bring another piece of legislation forward that says that they will take money and resources out of the CFIA, I will probably vote against that as well. Perhaps they should bring in something that is positive.

My friend wanted to talk about how all of this unravelled and what the timeline looked like. The CFIA actually has a very good timeline on its website. Anyone can go visit and take a look at it. There is a debate on who saw it first, but the Americans actually caught the E. coli on September 3. They did not tell Canadians until September 4. Canadians saw it on September 4 too. That is accepted. That is true. The parliamentary secretary has said that and it is true.

However, the Americans started to do some other things. They started asking questions because they do things in a different way. They destroyed the shipment and then they started to do other testing. What did we do on September 5? We issued what is called “a corrective action request” of the company. We did not issue an order. We did not make a demand. We said, “Would you please”. That was on September 5. We got to September 6 and we were still going on, and they believed that August 24 and 28 were the days that perhaps were affected by E. coli on those particular slaughter days.

The parliamentary secretary wants us to believe it was just one incident but it was multiple pieces out of this one incident. Those were two different days. It was not one day, not one event. It was two different events. We cannot have one event on two different days. I guess we could when we think the facts are not real facts but might be facts.

What happened on September 7? The CFIA issued another corrective action request. It already issued one two days before. It had to do another one because the first one did not work. What was the company asked to do now? I am quoting now from the CFIA website. It reads:

XL Foods Inc. was formally requested to produce detailed information related to product details, distribution, sampling results, and information on the effectiveness of the plant's preventative controls as soon as possible but no later than September 10th.

It was also required to strengthen controls around sampling and testing of the products originating from the facility. It was a request on September 8 and 9. We are still waiting. Of course, it was a request, so we wait.

September 10 and 11, the CFIA requested that XL Foods, back on September 6 and 7, give the information to them. The CFIA finally gets stuff identified on August 24 to 28. Now, September 5, the third event. That becomes an interest of investigation, not anything more than that. September 12, the CFIA's investigation continued. FSIS, which is American, notified the CFIA that it had found two more contaminated shipments from E. coli in sample beef trimmings from XL Foods.

What did we do? We are still on September 12. The CFIA, based on its investigations and the new U.S. findings, not Canadian findings, which found the next two cases on September 12, sends in a team of experts. We knew back on September 4 that something was amiss. We gave them two corrective action requests. Now the CFIA says that maybe it should send in a team now that the Americans have said that there are two additional E. coli samples from a different batch. The CFIA thought maybe it should do something, so it sent in a team to do an in-depth review. It went through all of that on September 12.

On September 13, the CFIA removed XL Foods from the list of establishments eligible to export to the U.S. What happened to us? If the stuff was not good enough to send to the U.S., why was it good enough for Canadians?

In any case, it went through and articulated some more requests. Here is what it came up with. It said that although XL Foods Inc. had monitoring measurements in place, trend analysis of the data collected was not being properly conducted. The CFIA knew this on September 13 but it still allowed XL Foods to continue. The CFIA said that while the company's measures for dealing with meat that tested positive for E. coli were properly laid out, they were not always being followed correctly. The company knew how to do it but it just was not.

That is our food safety system? The company knows how to do it but it is not going to do it. That is basically what the CFIA found out on September 13. The CFIA also said that it knew the containers that were contaminated by E. coli were not bracketed, in other words, those were not taken out of the stream before or after they were allowed to go to the fresh meat line, which is totally contrary to the protocols involved in health and safety. It continued anyway.

In the CFIA's own words, it said that it found out that sampling protocols were not always followed by plant staff which could have resulted in inaccurate tests. So now we are hearing that maybe staff cannot do it properly.

Then we get to September 16. The CFIA and XL Foods begin to issue health hazards. The Americans had already stopped shipments at the border three days earlier. They did not want any more. The CFIA agreed that the Americans did not want anymore. Now, three days later, the CFIA and XL Foods think that maybe they should tell the public there is an issue, and they issue a hazard alert. They said that it was probably the shipments from August 24 to 28 and September 5 that were contaminated and that they would look at them even closer.

Then we get to September 17. The CFIA said that when dealing with potentially unsafe food it needs to be sure that the right products are identified, and so on. It said that it takes time. However, it did not take the Americans that much time or the CFIA. It is not about the Americans saying, “No, thank you”, which they actually said. It is about the Canadian Food Inspection Agency saying, “I am taking away XL Foods' licence to export to the U.S.”. It was not the other way around, as much as the Americans did not want the product.

On September 18, the CFIA issued five additional corrective action requests. We are now at number seven by my count. There are corrective action plans now, not on a specific incidents about the thing it was supposed to do, but new plans. Heaven knows why we would want to give people a new plan when they cannot do the old one, but this is the food inspection system.

It looks as if there are varying dates of corrective action. Depending on the risks, it moved around. Meanwhile, the U.S. has said, “No, thanks.” The Canadian Food Inspection Agency has said, “No, thanks. We will not send it to you.” They are still being sent to Canadians.

On September 21, the ongoing data review by the CFIA concluded that there were two additional production dates. There had already been three. My friend said that there was one. Now we are looking at August 27 and 29. Now we are August, 24, 27, 28, 29 and September 5. I am only a Glaswegian but I did learn my arithmetic and that is five events, five different days, five different things happening. Based on those conclusions, XL Foods began to notify customers in Canada on September 21 and recalled beef trimmings produced on August 27 to 29.

Then we jump to September 27. The CFIA announces that it has temporarily suspended the licence to operate establishment 38 XL Foods Inc. in Brooks, Alberta. The CFIA determined that inadequate controls for food safety were not fully implemented in the facility. The CFIA identified a number of deficiencies during an in-depth review of the facility. It went on to say that as of that date the company had not adequately implemented and agreed upon corrective actions and did not present acceptable plans to address longer term issues. What a marvellous conclusion. It only took seven corrective action requests but it only took two from the United States.

On September 3 and September 13, the CFIA said that no more products from the plant would go to the U.S. What about us? What happened to Canadians? Seven requests were made and none of them were followed through on.

At the end of all this, the CFIA finally said that the plant had to be closed. It t is still closed, and so it should stay closed until such time as it is ready to operate in a proper way. However, in my view, there can be no faith in a self-regulating plant that does not know how to do the things it is supposed to do, does not understand how to do them and, when it is given specific requests by the CFIA, it does not carry them out. This begs the question: Why does the CFIA not take over the entire plant and stop the self-regulating process in that specific plant until it comes back on stream and credibility is back in that facility? That is what really needs to happen.

Where are we with all of this? I watched the minister's news conference today. I thought it was wholly informative, mesmerizing and captivating. He said, and I am paraphrasing because I do not have the exact quote, “We want safe food”. We all do. Canadians are saying that they want safe food. The minister did not tell us anything else. However, as soon as the president of the CFIA stepped to the microphone and was about to answer a legitimate question and started to say that the agency did not have the authority under the present legislation to do anything else, which is inaccurate but maybe he misspoke, a political minder said that the news conference was over and asked Mr. Da Pont to move on. He is the president of the CFIA and a media staff person from the minister's office is telling him not to speak to Canadians in a public way and tell them exactly what happened. That is disgraceful. That is not transparent. That is not about telling Canadians how to build credibility back into a system that the government let fail them. That is not how credibility is built. Credibility is built by allowing the president of the CFIA to answer the questions and to tell Canadians exactly what happened.

Unfortunately, there is a bigger problem. The president of the CFIA does not understand that there is legislation in place today under section 13 of the Meat Inspection Act that allows inspectors to demand, not request, information they need to do their jobs now, not next week, not next month. The CFIA has a real problem when the top of the house does not know the legislation. That is what is wrong with that CFIA and that is what is wrong with ministerial accountability, because at the end of the day it is the minister who is responsible for ensuring that the system works, and the system is broken and it needs to be fixed.

To speak to Bill S-11, if my friend across the way had bothered to watch CBC today, he would have seen me say that we support Bill S-11 in principle, but we have some really good ideas and maybe for once the Conservatives ought to listen.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will explain for this member that our government takes the health and safety of Canadians very seriously, particularly when it comes to food safety. It is a top priority for our government. He is asking what standards we have brought to bear. In my comments I mentioned specific things that we have done in the House where we sought opposition support for increasing the number of food inspectors for the CFIA, for increasing funding for the CFIA and now we have a bill at the Senate to give the CFIA more authority to act.

Up to this point, the opposition members, particularly the New Democrats, have voted against all of these measures. Bill S-11 is not in this place yet but they have already stated their intention to oppose it. That is shameful and they need to answer to Canadians for that.

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to address the House on the ongoing matter of the beef recall that has been much in the news today. I welcome the opportunity to talk about this issue and to clarify the situation. Let me reiterate that the health and safety of Canadians, particularly when it comes to food safety, is the top priority for this government.

Please allow me to list some of the facts for the record. First, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency acted to contain contaminated products beginning on September 4 and it has been acting ever since. Second, the XL plant will not be allowed to reopen until the Canadian Food Inspection Agency has certified that it is safe. Third, our Conservative government has hired over 700 additional net new inspectors since 2006, including 170 meat inspectors and, I might add, with no help from the opposition, which has voted against this and other valuable initiatives to fortify our food safety system.

Fourth, our government has implemented all 57 recommendations from the Weatherill report. Fifth, we have increased CFIA's budget by $156 million, which is a 20% increase and once again, the opposition voted against this. Sixth, we have tabled legislation in the other place, Bill S-11, known as the safe food for Canadians act, to strengthen the authorities under which CFIA acts.

The bill will be coming to the House for debate and voting. If the opposition believes that the powers of the agency are not sufficient, then it should support our government's legislation to make sure that the CFIA has greater authorities. The opposition needs to change the way that it has been voting on food safety issues.

Now that we know the basic facts, let me put it into context. As many are already well aware, XL Foods, which operates an Alberta-based meat processing facility, is implicated in a very substantial recall of beef products. The recall is a result of E. coli 0157:H7 having been found present in products that originate from this facility.

E. coli cases in Canada have dropped 50% since 2006. There is a great deal of information about how to avoid food-borne illness. In the case of E. coli, washing hands, keeping food preparation services clean and cooking food to proper temperature is usually all that is ever needed to avoid getting sick. The fact that this particular producer provides a large amount of beef product to further processors and retailers across Canada and for export to the United States adds to the complexity of this particular situation.

That being said, despite the efforts of the CFIA to provide disclosure and transparency about the events surrounding this issue, there persists a perception, a narrative, if one will, that is at odds with the facts. Last Friday, CFIA experts in food safety and public health held a press conference where they delivered detailed information and informative statements and took many questions from the media. All questions were fully answered.

Furthermore, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency's website contains detailed information about what happened, where and when. The full chronology is there for all to see. People will also see information such as what the issue is, when it was first discovered, likely factors and actions taken. All of that is available to the media and to the general public.

I appreciate that much of the information being delivered leans to the technical side in terms of detail, so I will try to bring some clarity to the issue. For the record, allow me to share some of the misconceptions that still persist and must be set straight. There is the idea that American inspectors discovered the problem, while the CFIA did not, and that Canada was alerted to the problem solely due to American inspection efforts. This is not true. It was found in Calgary by the CFIA and the CFIA and Americans were communicating with each other about their test results on the same day.

It has been said that cuts to CFIA's inspection capacity, specifically the number of inspectors, has contributed to the XL problem and that this food safety issue is a direct result of the agency being under-resourced in this facility. This is false. Indeed, as I mentioned earlier, our government has hired more than 700 net new inspectors since 2006, and we have consistently increased funding for food safety multiple times since 2006, including by $52 million in our last budget alone.

It has been alluded to that our government is shying away from making any positive link between E. coli and beef and certain people who have become sick with E. coli. There has been no such evasion. Five cases have been connected by the Alberta public health authority. As a government, we feel for these people and understand how difficult this situation is.

Going back to the beginning when problems were first discovered, it needs to be understood that the CFIA discovered E. coli in a beef product on September 4. This product, discovered in one establishment, had originated from the XL Foods establishment in Alberta. On that very same day, the CFIA was informed that inspectors working for the USDA's Food Safety and Inspection Service, or the FSIS, had discovered E. coli in a sample of beef trimmings that had originated from the same XL Foods plant in Alberta.

The CFIA was alerted by the FSIS about the discovery on September 4 and the meat products were destroyed. The CFIA, through a trace out investigation, was able to determine that the meat products found to be positive in the U.S. were not distributed anywhere in Canada. The CFIA immediately launched an investigation into the causes of the problem on September 4. There was no delay.

Canadian and American inspectors had discovered the problem in parallel and that information was shared. The source of Canada's information was our own inspection service turning up positive samples for E. coli in Alberta and the American find served to confirm it. This information can be verified simply by looking at the statements made on both the CFIA and FSIS websites. The idea that had the Americans not found a positive sample, our own inspection service would have missed the E. coli is false, as the problem was uncovered by the CFIA through routine testing.

Throughout the course of the CFIA investigation, inspectors stepped up their oversight of operations within the plant. By September 18, the CFIA determined that there was no single cause that it could link to E. coli-positive meat at the plant. However, there were a number of issues uncovered having to do with some protocols not being strictly followed. These are the sorts of issues that the CFIA discovers from time to time.

XL Foods was informed of these deficiencies and was ordered to correct them before a firm deadline. Based on the in-depth investigation conducted by the CFIA from September 4 through to September 16, it was decided health hazard alerts should be issued to the public. During that time period there was not a single day that the CFIA was not actively investigating the issue on an urgent basis.

By September 16, XL Foods had begun recalling beef trimmings from three days of production from its clients. We must understand that beef trimmings coming out of one facility can go out to many different clients who further process these trimmings into other food products. Some of it might end up as ground beef. Some of it might be turned into fresh or frozen hamburger patties. Some of it could end up in sausages, frozen lasagna, meatballs or soup, and all under different brand names. The food supply system in this particular case is vast.

What we have is the CFIA actively tracing products into the supply chain based on a limited number of specific production dates. The agency tracked down the various companies, food processors, destinations and further processing points that the meat could have gone out to as quickly as possible and then food recalls for those food products were announced. As soon as a product was discovered to have had its origins in a high-risk run of production, it was recalled. As a result, what looked like recall after recall was really just one recall, with the group of affected products expanding as the different companies, processors, product lines and products were identified.

This is the tracing out process. It can take some time to go through various company records in multiple locations with information presented in vastly different formats. When a food recall gets under way the CFIA works literally around the clock to get the products off the shelf as fast and as comprehensively as it can. In fact it is considered to be the best in the world at food recalls.

Through further investigation it was decided, based on data that the CFIA collected, that production runs from two other days showed a higher than usual risk for E. coli and so products originating from these batches of trim were also added to the recall list. On September 27, the establishment's licence was suspended. The suspension resulted from the company being unable to fully implement the corrective actions requested by the CFIA. The suspension followed established agency protocol for when a food producer is unable or unwilling to comply with corrective actions requested by the agency.

Let me be clear. The XL plant will not reopen until the CFIA has certified that it is safe.

The CFIA acted swiftly to address the problem once it was discovered. It was discovered by CFIA inspectors during routine testing. Although it looked like a staggered recall to outsiders because the recall got wider and wider as more information on products became available, it really was a single recall of products produced on five production dates at the facility.

I will now address the budget issue. As we are all aware, our government, in its efforts to reduce the deficit, asked officials to make proposals that could find savings for budget 2012. Did budget 2012 expose Canadians to more food safety risk? Absolutely not, and for the opposition to say otherwise is just wrong. In budget 2012, as I mentioned earlier in my comments, we put forward more than an additional $50 million for food safety. That is what is in budget 2012. That is in addition to $100 million that was in budget 2011. Our government remains committed to ensuring that the food Canadians and their families eat is safe.

The Canadian Food Inspection Agency has not made any changes that would in any way risk the health and safety of Canadians. Contrary to what some have asserted, we have made significant investments in food safety. Recognizing the challenges and opportunities of the current environment, our government's budget last year committed over $100 million over five years for the CFIA to modernize its food inspection system. This included new resources on inspection delivery, training for inspection staff, scientific capacity on food laboratories, and information management and technology. Once again, the opposition voted against all of this.

In the case of this particular XL Foods facility, CFIA inspection staffing levels have actually gone up over the last six years, not down. There are 40 inspectors and six veterinarians assigned full time to the XL facility. That is six more inspectors and two more veterinarians than were assigned there in 2006. In this case in particular, and as a general rule across all of the agency's inspection services, there has been no cut in food safety service delivery. Budget 2012 is not relevant to this food recall and, as I mentioned, there have been additional resources allocated to CFIA through budget 2012.

I will now deal with the issue of illness. The agency has been very transparent about providing to the public all of the information it has around links to recalled food and human illness. At the press conference last Friday, a knowledgeable spokesman from the Public Health Agency of Canada addressed this issue. The PHAC website is being continually updated when information about cases of food-borne illnesses linked to the XL Food recalls becomes known. Further tests are required and it must be firmly established that people who actually ate products originating from this XL facility have been affected. This requires interviews about what people consumed in the recent past and the testing of any food that they may still have in their homes to establish a clear link. This work is done collaboratively by provincial public health agencies, the CFIA and the PHAC. It is a high scientific and evidentiary standard that must be adhered to. Anything less would be speculation and our government is not in the business of speculating on the health of Canadians. We need accurate information to make informed decisions.

We have a strong food safety regime here in Canada and we aim to make it even better with the proposed safe food for Canadians act. This government is committed to making these instances even rarer and to having a robust and efficient recall system when situations like this occur.

Oral Questions

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order arising out of question period today. At the end of my point of order, I will be seeking unanimous consent to table a critical document.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture repeatedly stated a lack of support for a bill from the official opposition New Democrats. That is, in fact, in the Senate and it is a bill that we support sending to committee and wish to strengthen.

It is critical that we use question period for what it is intended. The government has chosen consistently to back itself into a corner in a scandal of its own making and then, out of that corner, repeat mistruths in the House time and time again.

I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to present, in both official languages, the Senate Progress of Legislation document that clearly outlines that Bill S-11 is in the Senate, not before the House, and is supported by the official opposition, which we seek to strengthen for the protection of Canadian consumers.

Agriculture and Agri-Food

[Stephen Harper, Conservative, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I will address a gross inaccuracy in that question.

The House will be aware that today the president of the Food Inspection Agency specifically expressed concerns about the promptness with which the company had provided certain information to inspectors. Under Bill S-11, the CFIA would get increased power to get that kind of paperwork for the company. That is precisely why it is needed.

The Auditor General has powers to look at a whole range of government agencies, but we do not direct the work of the Auditor General.

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Wascana, SK]

Mr. Speaker, with E. coli trouble worsening, including a spike in cases in Saskatchewan and now a restaurant closed in Regina, the Prime Minister says that Bill S-11 is all that he needs. However, the Conservative senator sponsoring the bill says Bill S-11 has nothing to do with the current E. coli issues.

Will the government amend Bill S-11 to require a detailed audit of all food safety resources and procedures right now, not five years from now, and will that audit be done not by an impugned minister but by the Auditor General of Canada?

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

Mr. Speaker, that is absolutely not true.

We will continue to ensure that food safety officials respond efficiently based on sound science and internationally accepted protocols to ensure the safety of food for Canadian consumers.

We are introducing important legislation to help the CFIA respond to food safety situations more swiftly. If the opposition is as serious about safety as it claims to be, I hope the Liberals will support Bill S-11.