Evidence of meeting #55 for Agriculture and Agri-Food in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was chair.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Neil Bouwer  Vice-President, Policy and Programs, Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Julie Adair  Legal Counsel, Agriculture and Food Inspection Legal Services, Department of Justice
Colleen Barnes  Executive Director, Domestic Policy Directorate, Canadian Food Inspection Agency

8:50 a.m.

Conservative

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)

8:50 a.m.

NDP

Malcolm Allen NDP Welland, ON

Thank you, Chair.

We don't get many opportunities to do legislation at the agriculture committee, as most of my colleagues who are on the committee know. It's a bit different for us, in a way, but it's always a wonderful experience.

Is it the preference, Chair, for us to read the whole amendment into the record? They're submitted, obviously. I look for your guidance on that issue, whether you would like us to read word for word or just sort of paraphrase the amendment. Certainly we are ready to speak to the amendment as far as why we think it should happen.

I look to you as to what you would like us to do.

8:50 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed

It’s your choice. I think everybody has the amendment in front of them, so if you want to defend your position, we will go from there.

8:50 a.m.

NDP

Malcolm Allen NDP Welland, ON

Chair, the amendment to clause 2 is to be more explicit, to give some examples.

In clause 2 on line 2, page 3 of the English, we would add the following:

covering, such as pails, totes and barrels, used or to be used in connection with a

The same thing will happen further down. What we are suggesting is to define it more specifically by giving some examples.

Part of it is that when the reference to containers comes up later on...it's actually a cargo container, which might add confusion, because when you talk about containers, such as...that's why we're using totes, pails etc. When people look at containers and see cargo container, they think a container always means a cargo container. It's more a descriptor of what a container might entail. That's the whole intent of that piece, Mr. Chair.

8:50 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed

Any comments? Mr. Hoback, go ahead.

8:50 a.m.

Conservative

Randy Hoback Conservative Prince Albert, SK

Thank you, Chair.

I would like to go to our witnesses here and get some clarification from them on what this amendment would do and whether it is necessary.

8:50 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed

Mr. Bouwer, do you have any comments?

8:50 a.m.

Neil Bouwer Vice-President, Policy and Programs, Canadian Food Inspection Agency

Thank you, Chair.

We've looked at this and we think the term “receptacle”, which is currently in the definition, does capture all types of containers, including pails, totes, and barrels. The definition has been drafted to encompass the various terms used in the current statutes. The proposed wording suggests examples of packages and receptacles, and in our view it is not needed to correctly interpret the definition.

8:50 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed

Does anyone else have further comments?

(Amendment negatived)

We will now move to new clause 2.1.

I'll go to Mr. Allen again for NDP-2.

8:50 a.m.

NDP

Malcolm Allen NDP Welland, ON

Thank you, Chair.

Rather than read this, because it’s rather lengthy—again its intent is to bring more clarity. It's a rather lengthy piece that talks about who would be regulated, who would be identified.

Maybe I should read it, because it's brand new.

2.1 The purpose of this Act is to ensure safe and high-quality food commodities by any means, including

(a) by promoting and providing for the safety and security of the public;

(b) by recognizing the responsibility of persons regulated under this Act for the safety and security of their products; and

(c) by encouraging the co-operation and participation of persons regulated under this Act and other interested persons in the development and implementation of modern, flexible and efficient policies, programs and laws for the continuing enhancement of the safety and security of food production.

We believe it brings more clarity to the bill, laying that out in a separate piece as 2.1, as you have indicated, Chair. We believe it will enhance the act and make it a better process.

I await comment from the other side.

8:50 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed

Are there comments?

Mr. Lemieux.

8:50 a.m.

Conservative

Pierre Lemieux Conservative Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON

Chair, we just want to be careful that we don't limit the scope of the act. The act is quite comprehensive in its nature. Sometimes when you add clauses and you are trying to define the purpose, the purpose can sometimes run counter to some of the actual clauses within the act.

My concern here is that by defining the purpose specifically like that, it may limit the act itself.

8:55 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed

Mr. Valeriote.

8:55 a.m.

Liberal

Frank Valeriote Liberal Guelph, ON

Can I ask the witnesses whether new clause 2.1 conflicts in any way with the drafted legislation and whether it adequately sets out the purpose of the legislation?

8:55 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed

Mr. Bouwer.

8:55 a.m.

Vice-President, Policy and Programs, Canadian Food Inspection Agency

Neil Bouwer

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

First of all, I would say the fact that there is no “purpose” clause in the Safe Food for Canadians Act in this bill is consistent with the existing food commodities statutes. As the member points out, there is a risk that it might potentially limit the scope.

In particular, the proposed wording in this amendment does not address some of the core functions of the legislation governing labelling, fraud, consumer protection, import and export, and interprovincial trade. In our view, the carefully chosen long title for the bill does provide an indication of the scope and interpretation to be given to the overall legislation.

8:55 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed

Mr. Valeriote.

8:55 a.m.

Liberal

Frank Valeriote Liberal Guelph, ON

The word in the third line of new clause 2.1 is “including”. From my understanding of legislative interpretation, “including“ means “including without limitation”. What is prescribed in (a), (b), and (c) is not intended to limit in any way the purpose of the legislation and therefore wouldn't be in contradiction of any other parts of the legislation that might not actually be recited in (a), (b), and (c).

8:55 a.m.

Julie Adair Legal Counsel, Agriculture and Food Inspection Legal Services, Department of Justice

I can answer, Mr. Chair. Thank you.

Although it says “including”, it will colour the interpretation that is given to the first part of new clause 2.1. It can have a limiting effect.

8:55 a.m.

Liberal

Frank Valeriote Liberal Guelph, ON

Okay.

8:55 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed

Are there any further comments? I will call the question.

(Amendment negatived)

For the sake of expediency, I am going to ask that the committee approve clauses 3 through 9, simply because there are no amendments.

(Clauses 3 to 9 inclusive agreed to)

(On clause 10—Sending, conveying, importing or exporting in accordance with regulations)

We have two amendments here. I'll advise that if Liberal-1 passes, then the NDP-3 fails, and vice versa. We're competing on the same lines for the amendments.

I will open the floor. It's the Liberal amendment.

8:55 a.m.

Liberal

Frank Valeriote Liberal Guelph, ON

Given what is happening, Mr. Chair, there is not much chance of either of those events occurring.

8:55 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed

I never predetermine the outcomes.

8:55 a.m.

Liberal

Frank Valeriote Liberal Guelph, ON

You never know.

8:55 a.m.

An hon. member

We're working so nicely together.