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 monies 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?