Bill S-11 · 41th Parliament · Stephen Harper
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
Government bill. Became law.
- IntroducedJune 6, 2012
- Debated in principleJune 19, 2012
- Studied by a committeeDone
- Passed its first chamberOct. 16, 2012
- Passed the second chamberNov. 20, 2012
- Became lawNov. 21, 2012
Leading supporters
Ranked by the part each played: who is responsible for the bill, who carried it, and who spoke for it most.
- Stephen HarperPrime Minister
- Donald Neil PlettSenate · Sponsor in the Senate
- Pierre LemieuxFirmly backs the bill and cites stakeholder support.
- Gerry RitzMoves the bill and praises its comprehensive merits for traceability and safety from farm to plate.
- Percy MocklerSenate · SenatorStates the bill is good and a positive step after committee review.
- Rick NorlockDefends increased inspectors and states the bill addresses compliance failures directly.
- Kellie LeitchStates the legislation enhances CFIA tools to meet exactly what Canadians and farmers require.
- Bev ShipleyBacks the bill as it implements needed recommendations.
Who carries this bill
Arrows run from the person responsible to those who answer to them on this bill. The critic leads the Senate’s scrutiny and answers to no one on it.
What it set out to do
On 7 June 2012, the Leader of the Government in the Senate introduced 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 (Safe Food for Canadians Act) in the Senate and it was given first reading. Bill S-11 modernizes the regulatory system for food commodities. The bill consolidates the Fish Inspection Act, the Canada Agricultural Products Act, the Meat Inspection Act, and the food provisions of the Consumer Packaging and Labeling Act. It also aligns inspection and enforcement powers across all food commodities.
Summary by the Library of Parliament.
Where members stand
That the Bill be now read a second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food. · 2012-10-23 · Passed
What the Senate tried to change
- adds review or sunsetSenator PlettAdds specificity to the five-year review in clause 68 to assess CFIA resources for administration and enforcement.Adopted · Oct. 16, 2012 · Senate record
- adds review or sunsetSenator PetersonMandates the Auditor General to conduct a resource audit of the CFIA instead of the minister.Voted down · Oct. 16, 2012 · Senate record
- technicalSenator committeeCorrects English version of clause 51 from 'any food company' to 'any food commodity'.Adopted · Oct. 16, 2012 · Senate record
How it changed on the way
59% of the text as introduced was changed or removed by the time it became law (16,795 words introduced, 14,484 passed). A committee amended it.
substantial changeintent mostly kept
The Safe Food for Canadians Act kept its core purpose and most definitions but saw 59% of the introduced text altered through amendments before royal assent. Changes focused on procedural details, licensing conditions, and formal enactment language rather than shifting the bill's direction.
- Added statutes header and chapter designation.
After: “STATUTES OF CANADA 2012 CHAPTER 24”
- Expanded licensing clause to cover export explicitly in both registration and licence options.
Before: “or both register a person and issue them a licence;”
After: “or both register a person and issue them a licence.”
- Clarified conduct of prescribed activity to include export and interprovincial movement symmetrically.
Before: “that has been imported — or that is to be exported or to be sent or conveyed from one province to another”
After: “that has been imported or that is to be exported or to be sent or conveyed from one province to another”
How precisely it is written
vagueChallenging the law: EasyDisputing a charge: Easy
The Act mixes fixed fines, time limits and defined terms with many subjective tests and open-ended powers. This leaves wide room for argument over what conduct is caught and how inspectors may act.
Open to argument
“in a manner that is false, misleading or deceptive or is likely to create an erroneous impression”
Uses the subjective standard 'likely to create an erroneous impression' without an objective test.“any additional conditions that the Minister considers appropriate”
Grants the Minister unfettered discretion based on personal opinion.“the inspector is of the opinion that the thing presents a risk of injury to human health”
Decision turns on the inspector's subjective opinion rather than a defined standard.
Clear-cut
“on conviction on indictment, to a fine of not more than $5,000,000 or to imprisonment for a term of not more than two years or to both”
Sets clear maximum penalties and distinguishes summary versus indictable routes.“Summary conviction proceedings for an offence under this Act may be instituted no later than two years after the time when the subject matter of the proceedings arose”
Provides an exact limitation period.
Discretion. Ministers, inspectors and the Tribunal retain broad power to impose conditions, seize goods, order disposal and decide what constitutes risk or deception, all subject only to loose reasonableness language.
Challenging the law itself. Vague phrases such as 'likely to' and 'considers appropriate' plus broad inspection and seizure powers readily support vagueness or overbreadth claims under Charter sections 7 and 8.
Disputing a charge under it. Accused persons can readily dispute whether an impression was 'erroneous', whether grounds were 'reasonable', or whether conditions were 'appropriate'.
Read by a language model from the royal assent text; every quoted phrase appears in the bill. A reading of the drafting, not legal advice.
Did it work?
no evaluation found
Who lobbied on it
No lobbying registration naming this bill is loaded.
Stages and dates from LEGISinfo.