AGRI Committee Meeting

Notices of Meeting include information about the subject matter to be examined by the committee and date, time and place of the meeting, as well as a list of any witnesses scheduled to appear. The Evidence is the edited and revised transcript of what is said before a committee. The Minutes of Proceedings are the official record of the business conducted by the committee at a sitting.

For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.

If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at accessible@parl.gc.ca.

Previous day publication Next day publication

MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS

Meeting No. 43

Thursday, May 19, 2005

The Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food met at 3:40 p.m. this day, in Room 371 West Block, the Chair, Paul Steckle, presiding.

Members of the Committee present: David L. Anderson, Charlie Angus, James Bezan, Claude Drouin, Wayne Easter, Mark Eyking, Roger Gaudet, Larry Miller, Denise Poirier-Rivard, Gerry Ritz, Paul Steckle and Rose-Marie Ur.

In attendance: Library of Parliament: Jean-Denis Fréchette, Principal.

Witnesses: Canadian Food Inspection Agency: Mark McCombs, Head and General Counsel, Legal Services; Kristine Stolarik, Executive Director, Liaison, Preparedness and Policy Coordination.

The Committee proceeded to the consideration of matters related to Committee business.

By unanimous consent, it was agreed, — That in the event that the report required by the motion of February 1, 2005, is not made to the Committee during this Parliament, the documents are to be retained by the Clerk to be dealt with in such manner as may be directed by the successor Committee established by the 39th Parliament. If the Clerk receives no such direction within 30 days of the establishment of the successor Committee, the documents provided to the Clerk in accordance with the motions dated March 29 and April 21, 2004 and February 1, 2005 shall be destroyed.

Pursuant to the Order of Reference of Friday, December 10, 2004, the Committee resumed consideration of Bill C-27, An Act to regulate and prohibit certain activities related to food and other products to which the Acts under the administration of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency apply and to provide for the administration and enforcement of those Acts and to amend other Acts in consequence.

The Committee resumed its clause-by-clause study of the Bill.

The witnesses answered questions.

Clause 26 carried.

Clause 27 carried on division.

By unanimous consent, Clause 27 previously carried was reconsidered.

Clause 27 carried on division.

On Clause 28,

Charlie Angus moved, — That Bill C-27, in Clause 28, be amended by replacing line 11 on page 15 with the following:

“shall show his or her certificate of”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Charlie Angus and it was agreed to on division.

Clause 28, as amended, carried on division.

On Clause 29,

Wayne Easter moved, — That Bill C-27, in Clause 29, be amended by replacing, in the English version, line 21 on page 15 with the following:

“his or her powers and carry out his or her duties and”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Wayne Easter and it was agreed to on division.

By unanimous consent, Clause 29 was allowed to stand.

Clause 30 carried on division.

New Clause 30.1

Wayne Easter moved, — That Bill C-27 be amended by adding after line 17 on page 16 the following:

30.1 (1) An inspector who believes on reasonable grounds as a result of an inspection that a regulated product does not meet the requirements established by or under an Agency-related Act shall communicate that belief by notice sent to, or served on, the owner or person having the possession, care or control of the regulated product.

(2) The owner or person having the possession, care or control of the regulated product may, within the prescribed time, in writing to the President request a re-inspection of the product, except in the following circumstances:

(a) the product has been ordered to be removed from Canada under subsection 30(1);

(b) the product has been seized under section 31;

(c) the product has been ordered to be recalled, to be sent to a place or to be disposed of under subsection 19(1) or (1.1) of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency Act;

(d) the product is an animal, animal product, animal by-product, veterinary biologic or other thing in respect of which the Health of Animals Act applies; or

(e) the product is a plant or other thing in respect of which the Plant Protection Act applies.

(3) The President shall name an inspector, other than the inspector who carried out the initial inspection, to carry out the re-inspection.

(4) A regulated product that has been re-inspected under this section may not be the subject of a request for a further re-inspection.

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Wayne Easter and it was agreed to on division.

Clause 31 carried on division.

On Clause 32,

Charlie Angus moved, — That Bill C-27, in Clause 32, be amended by replacing lines 20 to 22 on page 17 with the following:

“a warrant exist but it would not be practical to obtain one because the delay necessary to obtain a warrant would result in danger to human life or safety or the loss or destruction of evidence.”

After debate, by unanimous consent, the amendment was allowed to stand.

Charlie Angus moved, — That Bill C-27, in Clause 32, be amended by adding after line 22 on page 17 the following:

“(5.1) For the purposes of subsection (5), exigent circumstances include circumstances in which the delay necessary to obtain a warrant would result in danger to human life or safety or the loss or destruction of evidence.”

After debate, by unanimous consent, the amendment was allowed to stand.

By unanimous consent, Clause 32 was allowed to stand.

Clause 33 carried on division.

On Clause 34,

Charlie Angus moved, — That Bill C-27, in Clause 34, be amended by adding after line 36 on page 18 the following:

“(6) Where the owner of a regulated product or the person having the possession, care or control of a regulated product has incurred any expense as a result of the exercise of the Agency’s powers under this section and the owner or person is not found to have committed an offence under this Act or an Agency-related Act, the owner or person may apply for compensation in the prescribed manner to the Review Tribunal continued by subsection 4.1(1) of the Canada Agricultural Products Act.”

Debate arose thereon.

At 5:00 p.m., the Committee adjourned to the call of the Chair.

Bibiane Ouellette
Clerk of the Committee

2005/05/25 9:19 a.m.