Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Agriculture and Forestry
Issue 22 - Evidence - Meeting of October 4, 2012
OTTAWA, Thursday, October 4, 2012
The Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, to which was referred 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, met this day at 8:04 a.m. to give clause-by-clause consideration to the bill.
Senator Percy Mockler (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Welcome, honourable senators, to this meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry. This morning we have with us officials who will be introduced in a few minutes. I thank the officials for being here this morning.
My name is Percy Mockler. I am a senator from New Brunswick, chair of the committee, and at this time I would like for all senators to introduce themselves for the record.
Senator Peterson: Senator Bob Peterson, Saskatchewan.
[Translation]
Senator Robichaud: Fernand Robichaud, Saint-Louis-de-Kent, New Brunswick.
[English]
Senator Merchant: Pana Merchant, Saskatchewan.
Senator Mahovlich: Frank Mahovlich, Ontario.
[Translation]
Senator Nolin: Pierre Claude Nolin from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Plett: My name is Don Plett. I am from Manitoba, and I am proud to be the sponsor of Bill S-11, the safe food for Canadians act.
Senator Eaton: Nicky Eaton, Toronto, Ontario.
Senator Buth: JoAnne Buth, Manitoba.
[Translation]
Senator Fortin-Duplessis: Suzanne Fortin-Duplessis from Quebec.
Senator Rivard: Michel Rivard from Quebec.
[English]
The Chair: Honourable senators, the committee will now begin the clause-by-clause review of Bill S-11, the safe food for Canadians act.
[Translation]
If we have any technical questions to ask on Bill S-11, the following people are here to answer them: Neil Bouwer, Vice-President, Policy and Programs, Canadian Food Inspection Agency.
[English]
We also have with us Ms. Colleen Barnes, Executive Director, Program, Regulatory and Trade Policy at the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. Also joining us is Julie Adair, Legal Counsel, Agriculture and Food Inspection Legal Services, for Justice Canada. Thank you for being here this morning to assist our committee with Bill S-11.
We will now consider, honourable senators, whether to go clause by clause or by groups. I would ask the clerk to inform the committee on what the procedure will be so that we senators can make a decision.
Mr. Pittman, would you please inform the committee?
Kevin Pittman, Clerk of the Committee: Good morning, senators. If you give leave, we can move directly to doing section by section and move along by the sections of the bill when we do the clause-by-clause consideration, or if we do not have leave, we will do the clauses individually. If you do have amendments in a section, we can stop and do the amendment at that time. It is for you to decide.
Senator Plett: I suggest that we move forward section by section.
The Chair: Any other comments from senators? Objections? Therefore, we have agreement that we will proceed by grouping the clauses of Bill S-11.
It is agreed that the committee will now proceed to consideration of Bill S-11, An Act respecting food commodities, including their inspection, safety, 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.
With leave, is it agreed that the committee be allowed to group clauses by the headings identified in the bill when appropriate? I need to ask for the record. Agreed or not?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
[Translation]
Senator Robichaud: Mr. Chair, if you will, when you bundle them, do you also group them by clause numbers?
The Chair: These are clause numbers grouped together.
[English]
Honourable senators, shall the title stand postponed? Agreed or not?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 1, which contains the short title, stand postponed? Agreed or not?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 2 under the heading ``Interpretation'' carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
[Translation]
Shall clause 3 under the heading ``Her Majesty'' carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
[English]
The Chair: Shall clauses 4 to 19 under the heading ``Prohibitions'' carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clauses 20 to 22 under the heading ``Registrations and Licences'' carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
[Translation]
The Chair: Shall clause 23 under the heading ``Certificate'' carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clauses 24 to 27 under the heading ``Inspection'' carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Senator Robichaud: When we were hearing witnesses, some of them pointed out that in the English version of clause 24 of the bill, the word ``they'' might lead to confusion, and they would have preferred to see that word replaced by the CFIA. Perhaps the witnesses could explain why that change was not proposed.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Robichaud. I see that Senator Plett has just asked for the floor.
[English]
Senator Plett: Thank you, chair. I will give a short explanation, and if Senator Robichaud still would like the officials to comment, they could certainly confirm, disagree or give their own interpretation. If it would be all right, chair, I would like to address the issue.
The Chair: Please do.
Senator Plett: I have some notes here on that. In this case, ``they'' refers clearly to the inspector, not CFIA. The word ``inspector'' is used in the clause. The word ``they'' refers clearly to the inspector at the beginning of the sentence. This is clear in the French version.
The use of ``they'' is a drafting technique to avoid using ``he'' or ``she'' or to avoid repetition. This technique is in fact used throughout the bill. In section 17, as an example, there are ten other uses of the singular ``they,'' and I know Senator Robichaud is more concerned about adding CFIA in there as well. This language is also used in the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act, the Canadian Environmental Protection Act and the Navigable Waters Protection Act, where there are similar provisions relating to inspection. The singular ``they'' is used in countless other statutes.
Replacing the word ``they'' with ``CFIA'' would not allow an inspector to adequately perform their duties and would be detrimental to the inspection role of the CFIA. The purpose of clause 24 is to give the inspector the authority to enter a place and, upon entry, the tools or authorities they need to verify compliance and prevent non-compliance.
The safeguard on the exercise of these authorities is the same individual has reasonable grounds to believe — therefore, something more than mere suspicion but less than the standard of balance of probabilities — that an activity regulated under this act is conducted or an item to which this act applies is located.
If we put ``CFIA'' in there, the inspector would have to, in every instance of attempting to enter a place, confirm with the CFIA that they have reasonable grounds to believe that a place contained an item to which the act applies or was a place where an activity was permitted.
The CFIA is a body corporate established by section 3 of the CFIA Act and therefore cannot form reasonable grounds to believe something. The term ``CFIA'' or ``agency'' is only utilized in very specific clauses such as the definitions of ``analyst'' or ``inspector,'' and at no time in the proposed bill is the agency given any authority that it could exercise.
In the proposed bill, the authorities are purposefully provided to the minister or an inspector, and there is a reference to the analyst. Therefore, we believe that there need not be any change made in this regard.
The Chair: As requested by Senator Robichaud, could the officials comment?
[Translation]
Neil Bouwer, Vice-President, Policy and Programs, Canadian Food Inspection Agency: We agree with what the senator said.
[English]
It is a drafting convention that is used throughout the bill, and we believe that the use of the term accurately puts the power in the hands of the inspector, that that is the right drafting and reflects the intent of the provision.
The Chair: Are there any other questions?
[Translation]
Senator Robichaud: To conclude, I understand that in the French version, it says: ``s'il y a des motifs et s'il y a. . .'' The word ``il'' refers to the inspector, does it not? Because in the English version, it says: ``An inspector may. . .'', and then the text uses the plural ``they''. I am raising this because two witnesses referred to this difference and told us that this could lead to confusion.
However, if you assure me that the words ``they'' and ``inspector'' could not be used to read other intentions into this clause, I will accept that.
The Chair: So that is agreed, following Mr. Bouwer's comments. Let us get back to our clauses.
[English]
Shall clauses 24 to 27, under the heading ``Inspection,'' carry, following the comments made by the sponsor, Senator Plett, and by Mr. Bouwer from CFIA? Are they carried or defeated?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Shall clauses 28 to 31, under the heading ``Dealing with Seized Things,'' carry?
They are clauses 28 to 31, Senator Plett.
Senator Plett: Yes.
The Chair: They are under the heading ``Dealing with Seized Things.'' Are they carried or defeated?
Senator Nolin: Which clause?
The Chair: Clauses 28 to 31.
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Shall clauses 32 to 33, under the heading ``Other Measures,'' carry? Shall they be carried or defeated?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clauses 34 to 37, under the heading ``Forfeiture,'' carry?
Hon. Senators: Carried.
[Translation]
The Chair: Shall clause 38 under the heading ``Analysis'' carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clauses 39 to 45 under the heading ``Offences'' carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
[English]
The Chair: Shall clauses 46 to 47, under the heading ``Disclosure of Information,'' carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 48, under the heading ``Export Certificates,'' carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 49, under the heading ``Samples,'' carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
[Translation]
The Chair: Shall clause 50 under the heading ``Intellectual Property'' carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 51 under the heading ``Regulations'' carry?
[English]
Senator Plett: I presented an amendment to the committee a week ago, and I think members opposite have it as well. I would like to read an amendment on clause 51, and it is:
That Bill S-11, in clause 51, be amended by replacing line 34, on page 21, with the following:
names in respect of any food commodity and
That would replace the word ``company'' as it is presently in the bill, and I think this would then remain consistent with the French. I think in the French the word ``commodity'' is there.
Senator Nolin: Are you moving to amend the English version?
Senator Plett: I am moving to amend only the English version.
Senator Nolin: Maybe that word should be added in the English version.
The Chair: The chair will recognize an amendment put forward by Senator Plett, the sponsor of the bill.
Are there any amendments that a senator had planned to move earlier in this clause? If so, we should deal with them before taking up this amendment.
If not, we recognize that there is an amendment, and I will read the amendment as put forward by Senator Plett, which replaces line 34, on page 21, with the following: ``names in respect of any food commodity and.''
This will also coincide with the French version of the bill. The amendment will correct the English version in respect of the French version of the bill.
Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, that the motion in amendment carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Thank you, honourable senators.
As far as the legal procedures, honourable senators, we are now voting on the clause as amended.
Resuming debate on clause 51, as amended, if there are any other amendments a senator would like to propose to this clause, this is the appropriate time to bring them forward. If not, shall clause 51, as amended, carry officially?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Thank you, honourable senators. I see we do have senators with legal backgrounds, and I appreciate their presence with us this morning.
Shall clauses 52 to 55, under the heading ``Incorporation by Reference,'' carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 56, honourable senators, under the heading ``Interim Orders,'' carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 57, under the heading ``Costs,'' carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
[Translation]
The Chair: Shall clauses 58 to 59 under the heading ``Limitation on Liability'' carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clauses 60 to 67 under the heading ``Board of Arbitration'' carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
[English]
The Chair: Shall clause 68, under the heading ``Review,'' carry? I see that the sponsor, Honourable Senator Plett, would like to comment on clause 68.
Senator Plett: Thank you, chair. Again, we have an amendment for clause 68, presented to the committee a few days ago. The amendment reads:
That Bill S-11, in clause 68, be amended by replacing lines 22 to 25, on page 30, with the following:
68. (1) Five years after the coming into force of this section, and every five years after that, the Minister must undertake a review of the provisions and operation of this Act, including an assessment of the resources allocated to its administration and enforcement.
[Translation]
Senator Nolin: Would you like me to read you the French version of this amendment?
The Chair: Go ahead, senator.
Senator Nolin: Senator Plett moves that Bill S-1, in clause 68, be amended by replacing lines 22 to 25 on page 30, with the following:
68. (1) Five years after the coming into the coming into force of this section, and every five years after that, the Minister must undertake a review of the provisions and operation of this Act including an assessment of the resources allocated to its administration and enforcement.
The Chair: Are there any other questions concerning the amendment moved by Senator Plett and the French version read by Senator Nolin? If not, I must ask you:
[English]
Are there any amendments to the legality of procedures that a senator had planned to move earlier in this clause? If so, we should deal with them before taking this amendment put forward by Senator Plett.
Senator Peterson: I have a question. We are dealing with our amendment to clause 103 on page 43. Are we going to deal with that later? Does this one supersede that? What is the ruling of the chair on that?
The Chair: That is a very good comment. When we do come to clause 103, I will recognize your amendment.
Senator Peterson: It is contrary to the one that we are looking at right here, so what kind of a situation are we getting into?
The Chair: Please permit me to verify with the clerk.
Honourable senators, instructions from our clerk are the following: I will now ask Senator Peterson if he wants to inform the committee now, or I will recognize him, when we do clause 103, to inform the committee of his proposed amendment before we move on the amendment for clause 68 proposed by Senator Plett. Do you choose, Senator Peterson, to wait until clarification of clause 103?
Senator Peterson: I am trying to understand how the procedure would go here. We have submitted an amendment that is slightly different than the one you have here, and it seems to me the two should be dealt with at the same time. Otherwise, how will you undo it? We approve something and five minutes later we want to undo it.
Senator Nolin: Let us open the debate on it.
The Chair: I will recognize Senator Plett, and then I see that Senator Nolin would like to comment.
Senator Plett: Senator Nolin can maybe clarify, right after me, the legal consequences of this, but we certainly have no problem with going to clause 103, dealing with an amendment and then reverting back to clause 68 or 69 or wherever we are at that point. If that would be proper, we do not have a problem doing that.
[Translation]
Senator Nolin: Mr. Chair, though I did not take the time to read the amendment proposed to clause 68 in detail, it seems obvious that there could be a coexistence or contradiction, and for that reason, it is important that we clear this up immediately.
Senator Peterson should put his arguments forward immediately before clause 68 carries, and it will be up to the members of the committee to decide whether they want to amend clause 68 in light of what Senator Peterson has to say.
[English]
The Chair: Senator Peterson, do you have any comments?
Senator Peterson: If that is the procedure we are going to follow, sure. The amendment has been submitted. I think everyone has a copy. Essentially, what we are saying is that in view of the structure —
The Chair: The amendment of clause 103 will be distributed to you. You should have the information that has been distributed by the clerk.
Senator Peterson: Right from the outset we have said that we are supportive of this bill but that we have one concern, namely that there are adequate resources and front-line personnel to actually ensure that the bill is working effectively. Events of the last few days have certainly indicated that that could be the case. There is no question that the agency will be doing all the background work, but the Minister of Agriculture has a dual purpose. CFIA reports to him, and he is also responsible for ensuring that the products are sold worldwide. He has a dual responsibility. One could say that there possibly could be a small conflict of interest.
Quite frankly, we are saying: Why not take that portion out to a third party for the evaluation? The agency would still be doing all the work, preparing all the reports. When it is completed, the Auditor General would go in and verify, saying, ``Yes, we have gone through and checked it and what you have said is correct,'' and all those matters. We think that that would hopefully give more confidence to the Canadian people that it is being adequately covered by a third party. That is essentially what we are saying.
As for the timeline, we are agreed on that. Every five years is satisfactory. The only one suggestion that we would like to make there — and it was borne out by the majority of the witnesses who came forward — is that an audit should be done immediately after the passage of this bill so that we have a baseline to move forward from, rather than waiting five years to see then what the problems may or may not be. This, then, would give a starting point, and we would go from there.
That is, essentially, where we are at. I think the objectives are the same. We are trying to make sure that the resources are there. We just think it should be a third party. That is where we are at.
The Chair: Senator Peterson, do you have any other comments?
Senator Peterson: Not now, but maybe later.
Senator Plett: The amendment I put forward, which I just read, we believe includes the examination or assessment of resources allocated to the CFIA for the administration and enforcement of this act. It could, in fact, include an assessment of the resources needed to carry out the inspection mandate. As such, we feel that the government's amendment — the amendment that I put forward — covers the substance of the amendment put forward by Senator Peterson.
In addition, there is only one other example, outside of the financial administration legislation of an act, that compels the Auditor General, as Senator Peterson is suggesting, to conduct an audit. That is Human Resources Skills Development Canada. The Auditor General shall conduct an audit of the Canadian Employment Insurance Commission every year. Normally, the Auditor General will select targets for audit independently and is not and should not be compelled by Parliament to audit certain targets.
The Auditor General already has a broad mandate and authority from Parliament to do whatever audits of departments or agencies that he or she sees fit. Parliament is already free to request audits from the Auditor General. Parliament recently removed the Auditor General's oversight function of the CFIA in Bill C-38, the Budget Implementation Act of 2012.
Setting a precedent in legislation requiring the Auditor General to conduct a resource review every five years could be seen as being too prescriptive on the Auditor General's already broad mandate, thereby requiring the Auditor General to distort from what he or she sees as the appropriate risk oversight on the government at large.
The Office of the Auditor General focuses on performance audits. They may not be best suited to undertake a resource audit of this nature, especially as it relates to future resources needed. Management has a significant role to play in ensuring that a review is conducted. Resource reviews relate directly to policy decisions and the OAG never questions policy decisions. The OAG may comment on policy implementation in an audit, but it does not comment on the merits of the policy itself. Therefore, we believe that no further amendment is necessary on this issue and that the amendment I put forward to clause 68 is sufficient.
[Translation]
Senator Robichaud: The amendment proposed by Senator Plett in fact broadens the scope of clause 68, as it adds an assessment of resources, in order to determine whether the resources allocated are sufficient for the administration and enforcement of the act.
The situation we are currently experiencing is very serious for the food industry and particularly for the beef industry. During the debate, you heard that many questions are being raised concerning effectiveness, and people also wonder whose responsibility it is to ensure that food is safe and that the population can trust that what they are consuming is safe.
Here, we are going to be asking the minister to assess decisions that have been made concerning the resources needed to do the work required by this new act. This assessment will have a direct impact on the decisions that have been made. In this debate, on the one hand some say that the number of inspectors has been reduced; on the other hand, the minister tells us that that number has been increased. However, some witnesses have said to us that if inspectors have been added, they would like to know where they are.
You will understand, that said, that what we are doing is very important, and I would not like to see a conflict arise between the responsibilities the minister must shoulder as the person responsible for this agency, and the fact that at a given point, we will simply be asking him to assess himself. That would be a conflict of duties.
Some witnesses have in fact pointed out quite clearly that when we are talking about verification by a third party, that third party has to be completely independent. That party must have nothing to gain and nothing to lose. And that is why I am thinking that if we ask the minister to assess whether the resources are sufficient, that is the same thing as asking him to assess all of the decisions made regarding adding or eliminating resources.
That is why I endorse my colleague Senator Peterson's amendment, whereby the assessment should be done by a completely independent third party. We have been trying to move this bill forward for a long time. We agree with the bill, as we have said several times. We want it to move forward, but we would simply like that to be done properly.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Robichaud.
[English]
Senator Peterson: The audits that were repealed in Bill C-38 were by agreement between the Auditor General and the department as they were deemed to be unnecessary. I think the Auditor General does have some concern about doing audits that are really not required. However, I think in this case it is the opposite.
We are not asking the Auditor General to do all the groundwork. That will be done by the agency, which is responsible to prepare all the reports and data. The agency will present to the Auditor General what it is has done and what it is doing, its staff contingent and its available funds, and it will make some recommendation. The Auditor General will only verify what the agency has said.
If I were the Minister of Agriculture, I would welcome this amendment. I would think it would be great, because although he oversees the agency, the agency does all the work and gives it to the Auditor General. I would think a minister would welcome this. I think the Canadian people would be more comforted by this type of an approach.
[Translation]
Senator Nolin: I listened to Senator Robichaud's arguments with great interest. When we look at the proposed amendment, regarding clause 68, we see that the department will table a report to Parliament every five years. So I assume that a committee will be struck. One of the two houses — perhaps both of them — could give a committee the mandate to study that report. I think it would be more appropriate, at that time, for the committee or committees reviewing the report to decide to use independent assessors, to determine whether the report submitted by the department reflects the reality and helps ensure that the department is fulfilling its responsibilities under the bill.
As Senator Plett pointed out, it is fairly uncommon to instruct the Auditor General to conduct an audit; he enjoys a fair bit of freedom in the decisions he makes as part of his mandate.
That is why I think we should not accept clause 103 as proposed by Senator Peterson and should go with Senator Plett's amendments to clause 68.
[English]
Senator Peterson: We have sat here many times. We have an Auditor General; that is why we have one. He is an officer of Parliament, is objective, and I think has the confidence of the people. I understand what Senator Nolin is saying, but I can see this getting to a committee in the other place and right away they will be looking at it and say, ``Well, we do not think we need that, so we will vote it down.'' We know how majorities work. It is pretty straightforward. Majorities are successful. We have had practice in the past, Senator Plett.
Why would we just move this along to let someone else solve the problem for us? I think it is here; it is done; the Auditor General does it. I think there is confidence in that. I would not be leaving it to a committee on the other side. It could get lost quite easily and then nothing would be done.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Peterson. The chair will also continue to recognize senators on the fact that we will give it due diligence.
[Translation]
Senator Robichaud: I understand what Senator Nolin is saying, to the effect that the report will be prepared. It will be tabled before the two houses, I hope — the Senate is often forgotten when it comes to those reports.
We have ensured over the past few years that bills are drafted so as to require any reports to be tabled before both houses. However, the parliamentary process does not move at the speed of light and usually takes a long time. In this case, Senator Nolin is suggesting that this be done more or less in two stages. First, the reports would be tabled before the two houses and, if we have any reasons for concern, we could at that stage ask for a report from a third party.
When it comes to food safety, which could have fairly serious consequences on a daily basis, I think that proceeding in two steps is not the best option. We must make sure that, first of all, a totally independent person or entity tables the report. If I was the minister, I would prefer to proceed in that way because I would not have to comment on my actions related to the responsibility for the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. Canadians would have so much more confidence in the food inspection system. I would like that assessment to be carried out only once, but by a third party.
[English]
The Chair: The chair will now recognize Senator Plett, the sponsor of the bill, to be followed by Senator Nolin.
Senator Plett: I know that we are starting to repeat ourselves, and I will also repeat myself. However, I think it needs to be clearly noted that the Auditor General has the mandate and the authority to do whatever audits he or she feels necessary and to audit whatever departments he or she sees fit.
Further to that, Parliament is free to request audits from the Auditor General. Requiring the Auditor General to do audits, in my opinion, is being too prescriptive on the broad mandate that the Auditor General already has, requiring the Auditor General to distort from what he or she sees as the appropriate risk. As Senator Robichaud said, we are all equally — there is no question in my mind — concerned about the safety of our citizens. I think that goes without saying. If the Auditor General sees it as being an important issue that requires doing an immediate audit; and if speeding up an audit is deemed to help food safety, I have every confidence in the Auditor General that that will be done. For Parliament to decide what the Auditor General does, and to dictate to the Auditor General what he or she should or should not audit, I think takes away from the independence of the auditor. We are saying that the Auditor General should be an independent third body, and by our passing legislation here requiring him or her to do these audits I think takes away from that.
My colleague Senator Nolin, who obviously has far more legal experience than I do, will comment again, but I believe strongly that we need to move forward. I have put an amendment forward. I think the amendment covers what we need to have here. For us to start dictating to the Auditor General I think muddies the waters, and we should not be doing that.
The Chair: If other senators wish to add to the subject matter following Senator Nolin, the chair will ask senators to look at clause 103 first. At this point in time, I will recognize Senator Nolin.
[Translation]
Senator Nolin: I am also interested in a study by a third party when it comes to a report. Senator Robichaud is absolutely right — safety should not be taken lightly.
We should remember that, since 2006, the Library of Parliament has had an officer whose responsibility it is to study budgets. The Parliamentary Budget Officer can be asked by a parliamentarian or a group of parliamentarians to conduct a thorough, or even pre-emptive, assessment of the resources used by the agency to enforce the bill currently before the committee. In my opinion, parliamentarians have enough tools to meet the objectives of clause 68 within five years, or even less.
I do not think it would be useful to make the Auditor General conduct a study every five years in order to carry out an audit. That study would be established in a piece of legislation through a statutory requirement. The Auditor General also has limited resources, and I think proceeding in this way would constitute a failure to recognize his independence. The Parliamentary Budget Officer is fully equipped to do that work.
The Chair: Senator Peterson would like to take the floor, and he will be followed by Senator Robichaud.
[English]
Senator Peterson: I refer the members of the committee to the first meeting we had here when Minister Ritz was before us, and I posed this question about the concern. He said, ``Fine, I would be pleased to look at an option of a third-party audit.'' He himself recognized it at the time. We are not ploughing new ground there.
On this thing that we would be dictating to the Auditor General, I find that almost offensive. The Auditor General is an officer of Parliament. That is what he does. We are not dictating to him to do this or that. He is an officer of Parliament for heaven's sakes.
That is what people require and that is what they request. The Auditor General is not doing the audit. The Auditor General is doing the oversight of the audit that will be done by the department, so let us be clear on that. The Auditor General does not have to staff up and have 50 people go out and do things that they have not done before. The agency will do that. The Auditor General will do the oversight only.
I cannot understand why, when we have an officer of Parliament, we would not utilize him in a matter as serious as this. I really do not understand why we would leave it with the department and say, ``You sort it out, audit yourself and do your self-assessment,'' and let things move along as they will. It seems absurd to me.
[Translation]
The Chair: I will now recognize Senator Robichaud for the debate on clause 103 with amendment.
Senator Robichaud: Mr. Chair, I have something to say about the argument put forward by the Honourable Senator Plett, a few moments ago, to the effect that we could not make the Auditor General conduct the audit. He also said that, if things do not work out, we will ask him to do it. We cannot say that, on the one hand, we do not have the right to ask him or impose anything on him, and on the other hand, if it does not work, we will ask him to conduct the audit. I cannot follow that reasoning at all, and I do not accept it.
[English]
The Chair: On debate, I recognize Senator Plett, and then, with leave, the chair will bring forward comments.
Senator Plett: I was going to suggest that we call the question here momentarily, but I think it would be wise for us to hear from our officials. They are here, so I would suggest that they give us their opinion on this and then after that we call the question.
The Chair: Would the officials have any comments to add to the debate?
Mr. Bouwer: I would just offer that our read of the proposed amendment to clause 103 does appear to us to have the Auditor General conducting a resource audit on the resources that CFIA needs. Our read is that this is a role that the Auditor General does not normally carry out. Our read as well is that the specificity in law of the scope of the audit is also unusual and, as has been pointed out by the honourable senator, is not ordinary for the Auditor General.
Finally, Mr. Chair, I just wanted to point out that the government's proposed amendment, that is to say Senator Plett's proposed amendment, that calls for an assessment of resources could indeed be a third-party review, and in practice the agency has gone to third parties for resource reviews of this type.
[Translation]
Senator Robichaud: I would like the witnesses to clarify something for me. You say that, in the past, the agency has used a totally independent third party. So what is being suggested is not new.
[English]
Mr. Bouwer: Just to clarify, in response to the senator's question, yes, we did go to a third-party firm to conduct a resource audit in response to the recommendations of the Weatherill commission on the meat program. Those were done under the authority of the minister, but the agency did go to a third party to assist in the preparation of that resource review.
Senator Plett: Call for the question.
The Chair: Honourable senators, the chair wants to reassure all senators and Canadians that due diligence has been given for consideration of Bill S-11 and that we have had sufficient debate. I will recognize Senator Peterson, and then the chair will ask for instructions.
Senator Peterson: First, I do not think the Auditor General sees it the same way as the officials have just described. Second, the third-party review was not a resource audit at all. All it did was a methodology study. They did not go in and look at what was going on; they did not count things. It was just methodology: ``Here is how we do things. Does that look good?'' The auditor said, ``That does not look too bad at all.'' They did not go in depth to determine if it actually worked. All they did was look at the procedure. To say that it was a resource audit is absolutely ridiculous. That was not done, and that is why it has to be done.
[Translation]
Senator Robichaud: Mr. Chair, I appreciate you giving me this floor time. This is not a comment on the witnesses here today, but if we ask them whether the piece of legislation before of us is good, as they helped prepare that document, they will certainly not say that they did a bad job and that those elements should not be in the bill. I trust that the people before us do their job to the best of their ability. These are the people who prepared the document. That is why we should consider another approach at some point.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you, honourable senators. On this matter, I believe sincerely that we have had due diligence. I believe that we have had a very positive debate by the senators and we have also had comments by officials. On the basis that sufficient debate has been accepted by the chair, I will now ask senators for guidance in consideration of Senator Plett's amendment for clause 68.
It was brought to the attention of the chair by Senator Peterson that his amendment to clause 103 should be considered, notwithstanding the fact that the point was stated that it could be in conflict to the amendment of Senator Plett.
Knowing that senators do support Bill S-11, and after hearing what honourable senators have debated, would honourable senators now like to continue on with clause 68 and then deal with clause 103 when we reach that point or with leave shall the committee take up consideration of clause 103 now?
Senator Plett: Chair, I would like for us to vote on the amendment I put forward and then vote on the amended clause. My suggestion is that we then vote on the amendment on 103 and vote on clause 103 when we get to it.
Senator Peterson: You said at the outset it is contradictory. Why should we deal with this one first? If we are to deal with 68 — I assume it will pass — then let us be realistic. How do we deal with this? I am just trying to get the cart before the horse. It seemed to me it would be reasonable to do 103 first and then do 68.
The Chair: I see that leave is not given to deal with 103 now.
Honourable senators, I will read this again. With leave, honourable senators, shall the committee take up consideration of clause 103 now?
I will recognize comments made by Senator Plett that we deal with 103 when we come to 103. Therefore, I do not have leave. As I do not have leave, and I recognize that due diligence has been given, we will proceed with clause 68 and put forward the amendment by Senator Plett.
We now return to the debate on the amendment. In amendment to the motion that clause 68 carry, the Honourable Senator Plett moves:
[Translation]
In English and in French:
The Bill S-11, in clause 68, be amended by replacing lines 22 to 25 on page 30 with the following:
five years after the coming into force of this section, and every five years after that, the minister must undertake a review of the provisions and operation of this act, including an assessment of the resources allocated to its administration and enforcement.
[English]
Honourable senators, it is moved by Senator Plett:
That Bill S-11, in clause 68, be amended by replacing lines 22 to 25, on page 30, with the following:
68. (1) Five years after the coming into force of this section, and every five years after that, the Minister must undertake a review of the provisions and operation of this Act, including an assessment of the resources allocated to its administration and enforcement.
Bear with the chair, please, honourable senators.
Honourable senators, we are now voting on the amendment.
[Translation]
Senator Fortin-Duplessis: I want to say something about the second paragraph of the French version. In English, it says ``The Minister must cause''. In the French version, it says ``Il fait déposer un rapport''. We could perhaps repeat ``Le ministre'' instead of ``Il fait''.
Senator Nolin: I understand Senator Fortin-Duplessis's question. However, I think that that objective is attained perfectly the way the amendment is drafted in French. That is the beauty of the French language — we do not have to repeat, as the pronouns do that for us.
The Chair: Madam Senator, are you satisfied with the explanations?
Senator Fortin-Duplessis: Yes, my colleague's explanation is satisfactory.
Senator Robichaud: You can always propose an amendment.
[English]
The Chair: Honourable senators, we are now voting on the amendment of the Honourable Senator Plett. Shall the amendment carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Some Hon. Senators: No.
An Hon. Senator: On division.
The Chair: On division.
Resuming debate, honourable senators, on clause 68, as amended. If there are other amendments a senator would like to propose to this clause, this is the appropriate time to do so.
Shall clause 68, as amended, carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Some Hon. Senators: No.
The Chair: On division.
Honourable senators, shall clauses 69 to 75, under the heading ``Transitional Provisions,'' carry?
Senator Plett: Clause 79 is a new section, is it not?
The Chair: We are looking at 69 to 75.
Senator Plett: I apologize; I thought you said 79. Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clauses 67 to 78, under the heading ``Repeals,'' carry?
Senator Nolin: Seventy-six.
The Chair: I apologize, shall 76 to 78, under the heading ``Repeals,'' carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clauses 79 to 108, under the heading ``Related and Consequential Amendments,'' carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
[Translation]
Senator Robichaud: You will recall that, on Tuesday, the last witnesses brought clause 81 to our attention. Their concerns were about subclause 81.3(3), ``this act does not apply to any food commodity as defined in section 2 of the Safe Food for Canadians Act'', and especially the labelling issue. They did not propose any amendments, but they would suggest to us or to the authorities that this issue be mentioned in the regulations.
My question is for the witnesses. Have you had time to think about that witness's comments?
The Chair: The chair will recognize it if the witnesses, the officials, have any clarifications for Senator Robichaud.
[English]
Mr. Bouwer: First, just to clarify that the provisions of the Consumer Packaging and Labelling Act that relate to food have been moved to the new safe food for Canadians act. The specific elements of the regulations will be moved into the new regulations, where appropriate, under the safe food for Canadians act. We are beginning the work to articulate the regulatory framework that would follow under the new act, if passed. The details will be developed over time, through the normal process.
[Translation]
The Chair: Is this clarification satisfactory, Senator Robichaud?
Senator Robichaud: I have understood a little bit of it. If my understanding is correct, they have assured us that regulations will be implemented to alleviate the witness's concerns.
[English]
The Chair: Therefore, honourable senators, shall clauses 79 to 108, under the heading ``Related and Consequential Amendments,'' carry?
Senator Peterson: What about the amendment to 103?
The Chair: Senator Peterson would like to bring in the amendment to 103.
The chair will recognize the following, and please, honourable senators, I will need your attention.
Therefore, first, shall clauses 79 to 102 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Shall clause 103 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: The chair will now recognize Senator Peterson with his amendment to 103.
Senator Peterson: The amendment has been submitted and everyone has a copy. We have all debated it.
Would you like me to read the amendment? I do not think so. Everyone has a copy. We have had the discussion. All the points have been made. We should move the adoption of the amendment to clause 103.
[Translation]
Senator Robichaud: I would like the chair to read the amendment currently proposed to clause 103 so that we are all on the same page.
[English]
The Chair: It is requested by Senator Robichaud that the chair read the amendment that is before us. On the basis of the request, please permit me to read the amendment on clause 103 put forward by Senator Peterson.
[Translation]
It was moved by Senator Peterson:
That Bill S-11 be amended in clause 103, on page 43, by adding after line 14 the following:
(2) To assist the agency in carrying out its responsibilities under subsection (1) in respect of the Safe Food for Canadians Act, the Auditor General of Canada shall, at least once every five years, conduct a resources audit to examine the resources the agency has and the resources it needs to carry out its food inspection obligations.
[English]
(2.1) The Agency may determine the scope of the resources audit, but the resulting report must include
(a) a review of the compliance verification system, including its design and implementation;
(b) an analysis and assessment of the number, capacity and training of inspectors, including how many plants an inspector should be responsible for and the appropriateness of rotation of inspectors;
(c) an analysis and assessment of the financial resources available to inspectors;
(d) an analysis and assessment of the materials, equipment and support services available to inspectors; and
(e) recommendations regarding required changes and implementation strategies.
[Translation]
(2.2) The agency and its auditor shall provide the Auditor General of Canada with any records, accounts, statements or other information that, in the opinion of the Auditor General of Canada, are necessary to conduct the resources audit.
[English]
(2.3) Immediately after the Agency receives a resources audit report, the President must submit a copy of it to the Minister and to the Minister of Health, and the Minister must cause a copy of the report to be tabled in each House of Parliament on any of the first fifteen days on which that House is sitting after the Minister receives the report.
Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, that the motion in amendment carry?
Some Hon. Senators: No.
Some Hon. Senators: Yes.
Senator Peterson: A recorded vote, please.
The Chair: A recorded vote will take place.
The chair will now recognize that there will be a recorded vote, and I would like to bring to your attention the following: Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, that the motion in amendment carry?
Senator Plett: The amendment, right? Not the motion, the amendment.
The Chair: That the motion in amendment carry, the motion in amendment.
Honourable senators, we will now be proceeding to a roll call. The clerk of the committee will call members' names, beginning with the chair and then going in alphabetical order. Senators should verbally indicate whether they vote for, against or abstain. The clerk will then announce the result of the vote. It is my duty as chair to declare whether the motion is carried or defeated.
The chair will vote no, if that is what you are asking. This is why, honourable senators and officials, this is teamwork. On this, I will now pass and ask the clerk to proceed.
Mr. Pittman: The Honourable Senator Mockler.
The Chair: No.
Mr. Pittman: The Honourable Senator Buth.
Senator Buth: No.
Mr. Pittman: The Honourable Senator Eaton.
Senator Eaton: No.
[Translation]
Mr. Pittman: The Honourable Senator Fortin-Duplessis.
Senator Fortin-Duplessis: No.
[English]
Mr. Pittman: The Honourable Senator Mahovlich.
Senator Mahovlich: Yes.
Mr. Pittman: The Honourable Senator Merchant.
Senator Merchant: Yes.
[Translation]
Mr. Pittman: The Honourable Senator Nolin.
Senator Nolin: No.
[English]
Mr. Pittman: The Honourable Senator Peterson.
Senator Peterson: Yes.
Mr. Pittman: The Honourable Senator Plett.
Senator Plett: No.
[Translation]
Mr. Pittman: The Honourable Senator Rivard.
Senator Rivard: No.
Mr. Pittman: The Honourable Senator Robichaud, P.C.
Senator Robichaud: I agree with the proposed motion, the motion in amendment.
[English]
Mr. Pittman: Yeas, four; nays, seven.
The Chair: Does Senator Robichaud have a comment?
[Translation]
Senator Robichaud: I did not understand, as you went a bit too fast.
[English]
The Chair: I will ask the clerk to please announce the results of the vote.
Mr. Pittman: Yeas, four; nays, seven.
[Translation]
Senator Robichaud: I want it to be clear that I really did not understand; I did not just want to prolong the meeting.
[English]
The Chair: Honourable senators, resuming debate on clause 103.
[Translation]
Senator Nolin: Mr. Chair, I assume that you are declaring the motion in amendment defeated, correct?
[English]
The Chair: Honourable senators, before we move on to clause 103 — one minute.
Honourable senators, I will take full responsibility. The motion on the amendment was defeated.
Resuming debate on clause 103, if there are other amendments a senator would like to propose to this clause, this is the appropriate time to bring them forward. No. Shall clause 103 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Some Hon. Senators: No.
The Chair: On division?
Senator Peterson: Yes.
The Chair: Honourable senators, shall clauses 104 to 108, under the heading ``Related and Consequential Amendments,'' carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Honourable senators, shall clauses 109 to 110, under the heading ``Coordinating Amendments,'' carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 111, under the heading ``Coming into Force,'' carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Some Hon. Senators: On division.
The Chair: On division.
Honourable senators, shall clause 1, which contains the short title, carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Some Hon. Senators: On division.
The Chair: Shall the title carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Some Hon. Senators: On division.
The Chair: On division.
Honourable senators, shall the bill, as amended, carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Some Hon. Senators: On division.
The Chair: On division.
I want to thank all senators who have participated in the debate. I believe that we have given it due diligence, and we have had a remarkable debate on Bill S-11.
Honourable senators, is it agreed that I report this bill, as amended, to the Senate?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Senator Peterson: When do you plan on doing that?
The Chair: The chair will inform the committee now that it will be reported this afternoon.
Senator Eaton: I would just like to congratulate Senator Peterson. We will not have the opportunity to see him much longer, and he led a vigorous fight to support this bill.
Some Hon. Senators: Hear, hear.
The Chair: Senator Eaton, thank you very much.
Before I declare the meeting adjourned, does Senator Peterson have any comments?
Senator Peterson: Well, sure. I am disappointed, obviously. I think Canadians would have expected more. I think that, the way things are now, the amendment would have given far more comfort. It was not an unreasonable amendment that we were trying to put into the bill. However, that is the way it goes. We will see how it unfolds from here.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Peterson.
I will now recognize the sponsor of the bill, Senator Plett.
Senator Plett: Chair, first, I would also like to echo my colleague's comments congratulating Senator Peterson. I know that he will not be in the Senate much longer, but I look forward to still seeing him the week after next, when we do our closing speeches.
I would like to concur with Senator Peterson that I do not believe that anything he has done here has been unreasonable. I think we have a good bill here. I am proud that we have that, and I am happy that, in principle, members opposite have supported this bill. I want to extend my appreciation to you for doing that. We cannot, obviously, always agree on every issue, and that is why we have the democratic process.
I appreciate, Senator Peterson, your coming in here. You did that on the Wheat Board bill. You did a good job there, and you did a good job here. Thank you very much.
The Chair: Honourable senators, before I adjourn the meeting, I would like to bring to the attention of senators, the officials and Canadians that there is no doubt in my mind that we have had due diligence on Bill S-11. There is no doubt in my mind that we have had sufficient debate on Bill S-11. For the record, let it be known that on Bill S-11, sponsored by Senator Plett, we have had five meetings. We have heard 22 witnesses for a total of 9 hours and 55 minutes.
I will now say to the honourable senators and officials, thank you very much for your cooperation and engagement in the debate.
(The committee adjourned.)