Unions warn Bill C-30 endangers food safety

Unions representing federal food inspectors, scientists, and regulatory professionals are warning Bill C-30 would allow the federal govt. to exempt companies, products, and activities from food safety laws and regulations for up to three years with no public oversight or parliamentary debate.

Proposed changes

Division 7 of the Bill is proposing two amendments to the Canadian Food Inspection Agency Act. The first set of amendments would establish an explicit mandate section, confirming the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) is responsible for:

• protecting food safety, animal, plant, and human health, and the environment;
• supporting regulatory compliance;
• promoting consumer protection and public awareness activities; 
• facilitating trade and commerce; and
• considering economic and food security.

The second set of amendments, which has prompted the Unions to publicly raise concerns, would give the government the right to “exempt persons, things or activities, or classes of persons, things or activities,” from the Act if the exemption “is not likely to pose an unreasonable risk to food safety, animal health, plant health, human health or the environment and is necessary to protect national economic security, regional economic security or national food security.”

The vague language with no clear definition of terms like “national economic security” or how they would be balanced against science-based risk is concerning to the  Agriculture Union and the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada (PIPSC).

“This is a giant, dangerous loophole being driven through the heart of Canada’s food safety system,” said Milton Dyck, national president of the Agriculture Union, which represents 4,000 CFIA employees. “Food safety laws exist to protect Canadians – not to be suspended behind closed doors by Cabinet order.”

Implications for food safety

In an email interaction, Brittany Smith, who handles digital strategy and communications for PIPSC, shared the following examples of potential risk, based on the current status of the legislation:

• A feed inspector finds non‑compliant feed. Does “economic security” allow Cabinet to exempt the producer of the feed from compliance requirements to avoid a costly recall?
• A veterinarian at a slaughter plant sees a high rate of disease requiring condemnation. Does “food security” mean that Cabinet can exempt the plant operator from the condemnation threshold to avoid a local meat shortage?
• A new pesticide shows promise for protecting high-value crops from pesticide-resistant insects. However, the studies necessary to deem the pesticide safe to use have not been completed. The Cabinet could exempt the pesticide from health verification to allow it to be used immediately.

She also warned that Canada could weaken its ability to require higher standards for imported food products by creating these exemptions to regulatory requirements.

In their written submission to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance and the Senate Standing Committee on National Finance Regarding Bill C-30, PIPSC, which represents approx. 85,000 public sector professionals including CFIA employees, warned the changes could undermine the independence of food inspectors, veterinarians, and other science-based professionals, thus diluting food safety enforcement work, jeopardizing trade and compromising the reliability of Canadian products.

Sean O’Reilly, president of PIPSC, added in a media statement, “We’ve spent decades building a science‑based food safety system that Canadians trust. This bill would let the Cabinet tear holes in it overnight – with no public consultation, no parliamentary debate, and no accountability.”

In a statement to Food in Canada, CFIA clarified this is a time-limited exemption from certain legislative or regulatory requirements to address serious risks to domestic economic or food security.

“This authority is intended for exceptional situations where temporary exemptions to existing requirements may be needed to protect economic security or food security, without compromising health and safety. It would be used only in exceptional circumstances, such as major supply chain disruptions, pandemics, natural disasters requiring urgent livestock movement, or severe crop losses. It would not apply to situations that benefit individual businesses. The exemption can only be in effect for up to three years,” explained a CFIA spokesperson.

Christine Nasrallah, media relations, CFIA, added the process will be transparent.

“The government will be required to clearly explain its decision and justify the necessity of the measures taken. For example, in a recent decision temporarily authorizing the use of strychnine until November 2027, the government publicly outlined the economic and agricultural impacts of Richardson’s ground squirrel infestations. This authorization is accompanied by additional restrictions and mitigation measures designed to reduce environmental risks to an acceptable level,” she said.

She also stressed that the govt. would need to be of the opinion that exemptions would not create an unreasonable risk to food safety, animal health, plant health, human health, or the environment before issuing them.