44th Parl. 1st Sess.
May 1, 2023 11:00AM
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be standing in the House to give my remarks with respect to Bill C-275, an act to amend the Health of Animals Act, biosecurity on farms. This was introduced by the member for Foothills. I will add to my colleague's comments to say that it is a pleasure to work with the member on the agriculture committee.
Despite what the public sees in question period, we, as members of all parties, actually do get along with each other. I find some of our most rewarding work happens at committee, specifically the agriculture committee, which bucks the trend of many committees because, whatever political party one may be a member of, we all represent farmers, and we all have their interests at heart.
This is the member's second attempt. The first was in the previous Parliament with Bill C-205. I last had the opportunity to debate that legislation at second reading in late 2020. Here we are in 2023, and it may not be the most efficient process, but we had the journey of the previous bill interrupted by an unnecessary election at the time.
Let us get to the purported why of this bill, which centres on biosecurity. We know there are many diseases that pose a risk to farm animals. They include African swine fever; bovine spongiform encephalopathy, or BSE; foot and mouth disease; and avian flu. Many of these diseases do keep our researchers and scientists up at night. I recently had a conversation with the deans council of agriculture and veterinary schools across Canada. They are leading some of the efforts in looking at these diseases, and they are quite concerned, particularly with avian influenza.
Generally speaking, biosecurity at the farm level can be defined as management practices that allow producers to prevent the movement of disease-causing agents onto and off of their operations because, if one farm operator does notice an outbreak of disease, they want to contain that to prevent its spread to other farms. Generally speaking, there are three key principles: isolation, traffic control and sanitation. With Bill C-275, we are mainly looking at the principle of traffic control: controlling who is coming into contact with on-farm animals.
We know that visitors to farms can unknowingly bring harmful agents. They can bring them via contaminated clothing and footwear, with equipment and with their vehicles.
I will talk about some of my personal experiences. In my riding of Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, I have had the pleasure of visiting local farms, including Farmer Ben's Eggs and Lockwood Farms, which are both egg-producing operations. I keep a small flock of chickens on my property. I raise my own chickens, and I like to eat the eggs from them. With the dangers of avian influenza, I was not allowed to come into contact with my own birds for the space of an entire week before visiting a commercial operation, and of course, I had to take very strict measures with my footwear before I was allowed anywhere near the birds.
In a previous life, I used to be a tree planter in the interior of British Columbia. I was planting trees on the Douglas Lake Ranch, a ranch near Merritt, British Columbia, which, of course, is the largest working cattle ranch in B.C. The ranch has such vast properties that many of them are harvested in timber operations. Before our tree-planting operation was allowed anywhere onto the property, we had to have all of our vehicles sanitized to make sure that there was no danger of foot and mouth disease being transferred to the operation.
This just gives members a sense of the operations that are currently in place. I know this is replicated in farms across the country, but these are operations that I have personally witnessed and had to partake in.
Now let us get to the what. We have an existing federal statute, the Health of Animals Act. It is primarily responsible for diseases and toxic substances that may affect animals, or be transmitted by animals to persons, and it looks at their protection. In existing sections of the statute, there are provisions that deal with the concealment of the existence of a reportable disease, the keeping of diseased animals, bringing diseased animals to market, and selling or disposing of diseased animals. That is the current state of some of the existing sections of the federal legislation and what they are hoping to achieve.
Bill C-275 seeks to amend the existing Health of Animals Act by adding a proposed section 9.1. I will read the key section: “No person shall, without lawful authority or excuse, enter a building or other enclosed place in which animals are kept, or take in any animal or thing, knowing that or being reckless as to whether entering such a place or taking in the animal or thing could result in the exposure of the animals to a disease or toxic substance that is capable of affecting or contaminating them.” Of course, further on in the bill, there is a new series of penalties for individuals and groups that would violate this new section, consistent with existing provisions of the Health of Animals Act.
I also want to take some time during my speech to outline some of the concerns, because we would not be doing our job as parliamentarians if we did not look at both sides of the argument, and I think this is what our committee really needs to take into account. There are animal rights groups that feel that the legislation represents what they call “ag-gag” legislation, meaning they feel that they are going to be silenced or prevented from taking actions they deem to be in the best interest of farm animals.
As other speakers have outlined, if the bill is about stopping trespassing and not about shoring up biosecurity, it would be unconstitutional, because we all know that, under our current Constitution Act, jurisdiction over property and civil rights belongs firmly within the provincial realm. We do not want to interfere with the rights of provincial legislatures to make such laws. Of course, as I referenced in my question, there is an Animal Justice report from 2021 that lists hundreds of incidents of failures of biosecurity that were all by authorized personnel associated with the afflicted farms. I will repeat that. All of those incidents came from people who were on the property with lawful authority and excuse. I want to quote from that report:
Despite the risk to farms, animals, and the economy posed by disease outbreaks, biosecurity on farms is not comprehensively regulated at the federal level. The CFIA publishes voluntary biosecurity guidelines for some animal farming sectors, developed in cooperation with industry and government. Adherence to these standards is not a legal requirement. Provincial legislation varies, and tends to empower officials to respond to existing biosecurity hazards instead of prescribing rules that farmers must follow to prevent disease outbreaks.
These are some of the items we have to take into account when we are examining the bill.
I want to conclude by saying that, as New Democrats, we absolutely do support animal welfare. I fact, I was personally proud to support petition e-4190, which collected more than 36,000 signatures and is calling for the Liberals to honour their campaign promise of banning the live export of horses for slaughter. That is something the agriculture minister has still not met in her mandate letter, and we committed, through several elections, to updating the health of animal regulations and to making sure we modernize animal welfare legislation.
That being said, I want to very clearly state that I support farmers and I support their rights to be free from trespass. I know, not only from personal experience but also from my five years in this role as agriculture critic, that farmers are good people. They want to treat their animals well during their lives. Based on the witness testimony we heard at the agriculture committee, there is fairly strong support for a measure like Bill C-275.
I do want to note that protesters can legally get close to farms, not on the property, and it is in their interest to call for more accountability. I also want to note that on-farm employees who witness any instances of abuse to livestock could not be silenced by provisions of the bill. In fact, we do want that measure of internal accountability.
I want to say to the member for Foothills that, while I do support the legislation in principle, more work does need to be done at committee. I want to make sure that biosecurity measures would, in fact, apply to everyone and that we would not be intruding on provincial jurisdiction over trespass laws. I look forward to sending the bill to committee for further work.
1502 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I thank all of the members of the House of Commons for having another wonderful debate on an important piece of legislation, which is about biosecurity on our farms across Canada. Before I begin, the member for Foothills is not only a gentleman, a scholar and a pretty good hockey player for a dude in his 50s, but he has also always brought forward some really excellent legislation that directly relates to a problem in my great riding of Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon.
A number of years ago, the Binnendyk farm on Harris Road, which is less than 10 minutes from where I live, received national attention when protesters entered the farm illegally. To put it bluntly, this was very hard on the Binnendyk family. Another member, from the Liberal Party, mentioned that it is Mental Health Week. Well, when the illegal protesters came onto the farm, that had a lasting, negative impact on this family and on the way Canadians may perceive the work that farmers do on their behalf.
I know that many people, like me and many other members of the House of Commons, love pork. Pork products are amazing. The pork industry in British Columbia, in the Fraser Valley, where I live, has taken a lot of blows. The Binnendyk farm is one of the last remaining farms in the most productive agricultural area in all of Canada. During these past years, activists, not only on the Binnendyks' farm, but we heard about the Schetter Farm in the Foothills riding as well, have entered farm properties across Canada to denounce the living conditions of animals. In response, farm groups have expressed concerns over these incidents and are calling on the government to find ways to address this problem, because food security matters, a safe food supply matters and this is what we are here to achieve today.
Agricultural “biosecurity” refers to “those practices that prevent or mitigate disease from entering, spreading within, or being released from operations that may contain livestock.” At the farm level, “biosecurity” alludes to, perhaps, a series of managing practices designed to minimize, prevent or control the introduction of infectious diseases onto a farm, spread within a farm production operation and export of the disease agents beyond the farm that may have an adverse effect on the economy, environment and human health. A farm environment can significantly affect the spread or prevention of disease on the farm. As such, facility design, layout and traffic patterns on a farm have significant influence on the effectiveness and the efficiency of a farm-level biosecurity plan. For that reason, farm-level biosecurity plans generally include, among other things, measures to control access to certain areas on a farm.
Members of the House who, like me, have experience spending a lot of time on the farm, and my mom was a farmer, know that there were not, when I was a kid, biosecurity measures like we have today. Because of diseases, which have originated in the Fraser Valley in some cases, farmers have had to adapt to agricultural practices in the 21st century, and rightfully so, because Canadians depend on our farmers to create a safe, secure and reliable source of food that is nutritious and keeps us, as a population, healthy. The federal Health of Animals Act and its regulations, the health of animals regulations, do set out certain provisions, but they do not set out all the biosecurity provisions we need. The bill before us today would address that, in good faith, to keep our farmers safe.
Let us go back to talking about the Binnendyks and the protest that took place. I was texting them when we were having the debate earlier this morning. They said that if I could raise one thing in the House of Commons, they would want it to be that they felt that, although some people were convicted, the organization that allowed Ms. Soranno to undertake her activities should have been accountable too. I will note that there was no remorse by those convicted by our justice system for the actions they took. That is problematic. That is why we need this bill today. In fact, even during the core proceedings or after, the protesters went to the SPCA because they did not like the way that the SPCA made a decision about the Binnendyk Farm, one that did not go according to their narrative.
We need laws that protect our farmers. Importantly, we also need to change perceptions about how food production takes place in Canada. That is why this bill is so important today. I would say to the Binnendyk family that, as their MP, I hear them. We are trying to make sure that what happened to them never happens again on a farm and that there are real penalties for those who willingly enter private property without justification and put up fake videos about what farmers are doing on their agricultural property. We want to put an end to that.
Frankly, I remember I had a conversation after the incident took place on the farm with the Binnendyks' cousin Richard Schutte. He told me, as the MP for Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, that the Binnendyk farm would probably be the last farm that animal activists would want to pick on, as the Binnendyks have invested all of their livelihood into producing safe food for Canadian families. To my knowledge, they are the last-standing hog farmers on Matsqui Prairie, and they work day and night to provide a safe and secure source of food for my constituents and Canadians around this country.
I am pleased to hear that we have unanimity in the House of Commons to get the bill to committee stage, that members of Parliament are going to work in good faith to improve biosecurity, and that, as a result, our farmers are going to feel a little more protected and a little more heard.
More broadly, in the Fraser Valley, we have been dealing with other sources of biosecurity issues. There are major concerns about avian influenza. I see the work agricultural producers in the poultry sector have to do in order to completely manage their operations with respect to access to their farm and the way animals are transported between farms and processing facilities. We need bills like this one to become law to provide the assurances our producers need to do their job effectively on behalf of all Canadians. One example is that, in 2004, an avian flu event led to a 30% increase in international poultry prices. If we have another serious incident like that, we could see the price of pork, beef or chicken go up 30% or 40%. We need these protections in place. We need to do more to stop infectious disease outbreaks and make sure our producers have the tools required to do their job effectively.
I am thankful for the opportunity to speak to this bill today. When I got elected, I made a promise that I would stand up on this bill. I thank the member for Foothills for bringing it forward. This is a concrete measure that agricultural producers in Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon and across Canada have asked for, and I am pleased to stand in support of it today.
1234 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.
30 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
moved:
That, in relation to Bill C-47, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 28, 2023, not more than one further sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration at second reading stage of the bill; and
That, 15 minutes before the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders on the day allotted to the consideration at second reading stage of the said bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this order, and, in turn, every question necessary for the disposal of the said stage of the bill shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.
116 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/1/23 12:04:11 p.m.
- Watch
Pursuant to Standing Order 67.1, there will now be a 30-minute question period.
I invite hon. members who wish to ask questions to rise in their places or use the “raise hand” function so the Chair has some idea of the number of members who wish to participate in the question period.
The hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan.
66 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, the budget claims that the government plans to reduce spending on outside consultants. This is at a time when we have seen massive increases in government spending inside of government and on outside consultants.
In terms of the government's relationship with McKinsey, can the government confirm that it will be joining B.C.'s class action lawsuit against McKinsey for its role in the opioid crisis? Would the fact that the Government of Canada will now be suing McKinsey be likely to change its procurement practices with respect to McKinsey?
93 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, certainly the focus of the conversation in the House is on the budget and the budget implementation bill.
We are very pleased to bring forward a budget that focuses on affordability for Canadians, health care and dental care for Canadians and the transition to a prosperous, green economy in the future. We certainly want to move forward with the budget implementation bill, including the automatic advance for the Canada workers benefit and a range of other measures.
It is important for us to actually have this conversation, but it is also important to move this bill through to committee.
101 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question with regard to the implementation of dental care.
It is really important that the expansion take place as soon as possible. A number of seniors and persons with disabilities in my riding have been without these services and supports. I would like to ask the government about the prioritization of that and on ensuring that we are going to have it as quickly as possible, as well as other supports; obviously, cost of living has been added by the NDP.
Dental care affects people's overall life, not just their teeth. In particular, could the minister give more specifics in terms of expectations and deliverables for dental care?
117 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, that is an important question.
The move forward with respect to dental care is extremely important. I agree it is a health issue, not just a teeth issue. It is a huge priority for us to actually get this to implementation. The first step is of course getting the budget and the budget implementation bill passed through the House. I want to express our appreciation for the constructive work that has been done on dental care.
78 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my hon. colleague, the Minister of Natural Resources, about the importance of the Atlantic Loop. It was mentioned in the budget. If he has enough time, could he also address the opportunities for offshore hydrogen development, particularly offshore wind? I know that he is working with the Province of Nova Scotia and the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. Could he speak to those two really important elements that matter to Atlantic Canada and his work in the days ahead on those issues?
89 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, certainly we are working very hard on the Atlantic Loop. It is an enormously important infrastructure project. We are working collaboratively with New Brunswick and Nova Scotia to advance this, which will essentially allow the phase-out of coal in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, as well as access to clean energy, which can help power a clean economy. Certainly, the hydrogen piece is extremely important. It is a high priority for Premier Houston and Premier Furey. We have been working collaboratively with both of them.
I was in Germany just a month ago working with the Germans on how we can actually move to export hydrogen as early as 2025-26. It is certainly something that offers enormous economic potential for Atlantic Canada.
126 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, the government is now moving to guillotine debate on its own budget bill, and there is really no reason to do it. The Standing Committee on Finance is already considering the budget bill at committee and has been for many days.
The only reason to do this is to completely shut down debate on a bill that many members, both in the Conservative Party and I am sure other political parties, want to debate to bring forward issues of concern from their ridings. I know people in my riding are extremely concerned about the cost of living crisis that this inflationary budget will only make worse as the government pours more gasoline on to the inflation fire. The Liberals have no plan whatsoever to actually balance a budget in any future budget year that is available in the document right now.
There was no reason to do this; the finance committee is already seized with the matter. It is already considering Bill C-47. The only reason to do this is to slam shut debate in the House of commons once again.
I will remind members that this government passed only one government bill to the next stage last week, Bill C-27. There were more private members' bills passed last week, and I am sure it will happen this week. This government has completely mismanaged the clock. It even has evening sittings and cannot pass government legislation on time.
242 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, certainly my hon. colleague is entitled to his opinions, but he is not entitled to his own facts.
The government has focused very much on affordability issues, including the grocery rebate and, certainly from a fiscal perspective, Canada has the lowest deficit in the G7. S&P just reiterated our AAA credit rating last week. I would invite the member to actually look at that document.
The budget implementation bill has had a lengthy debate in the House. We have debated it for five days, including two extended sittings, and it is being debated again today.
The bill would do a whole range of things that address affordability concerns, which my hon. colleague says are important to him. It will make a real difference for Canadian folks, and it is time to end partisan procedural games and get this bill to committee.
145 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, it is kind of like Groundhog Day. I do not know how many times I have risen in the House to speak to a Liberal gag order.
It seems as though the Liberals do not want to debate or talk about the issues. We want to talk about what is missing from the budget. My colleague just spoke about what the budget contains. One can either see the glass as half full or as half empty. We are saying that it is half empty.
I gave a 10-minute speech on housing and about how there is nothing in the budget to address the need for 3.5 million housing units. There is only one page of the budget dedicated to this essential issue. We spoke about seniors, who are entirely overlooked. When it comes to fighting climate change, the Liberals are giving billions of dollars to billionaire companies. That does not make any sense. We need to talk about that.
I have always naively thought that we were in the House to talk, to debate and to try to improve bills by presenting arguments. Today, we are once again in a situation where we are being told that the discussion is over, we are not going to talk about it anymore and we are moving on to other things. I find that unacceptable.
227 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague knows that the budget implementation bill was debated at length in the House. I know that many of my Bloc Québécois colleagues took part in this debate. This bill will support Quebeckers and all Canadians, for example, by increasing limits on certain withdrawals from a registered education savings plan, or RESP, and by capping excise duties on alcohol at 2% for a year.
I invite the Bloc to join us in referring this bill to committee for a more in-depth study.
91 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, this place sometimes demonstrates that it has a very short memory. I have to call out a comment that was made by the previous Conservative speaker talking about a guillotine motion.
It was common practice, during the days of the Harper government, to introduce a notice of time allocation on the very first day of debate of its government bills. It did not even give the House the courtesy of debating a bill for a few days. A time allocation was announced within the first hour of debate. Let us just call out rank hypocrisy when we see it. I am no fan of it being used either way, but to ignore our history is most egregious.
Does the minister have a comment on that? I would welcome it.
131 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, certainly, I do find the hypocrisy that comes from the Conservative side of the House on some of these issues to be a bit difficult to take. It is no different from the hypocrisy we hear about when they talk about the carbon tax, which formed a key part of the platform they were all elected on. We should not be surprised.
64 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, the minister referred to the number of hours we have had for debate. Something I hear the constituents ask in the riding of Waterloo is this: When will some of these measures that were put forward in the budget and will impact their everyday lives, including the grocery rebate, come into effect? I tried to explain the process in the House of Commons and explain that the legislation needs to pass before we get it there. It is unfortunate that tools like this need to be used.
If we can keep this legislation moving, how soon will Canadians be able to benefit from the measures within the implementation act? What kinds of measures should they be looking forward to? Perhaps that will ease some of their everyday challenges. We remain in uncertain times, and our government remains here to try to make life more affordable for them.
149 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, clearly, a range of measures are in the budget. Some of them will come into effect very quickly if we can move the legislation forward, and some will require more time and consultation.
Certainly, the grocery rebate is one that we want to see move forward very quickly. It was debated in the House as a separate piece of legislation a couple of weeks ago. It is clearly a priority on the affordability side.
There are many other things that are extremely important for Canadians. We need to move this proposal through to committee and get it through the House, so Canadians can have access to the kinds of supports and programming that will help them build prosperous futures for their families.
124 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I feel a little sorry for the minister, who now has to stand up in the House and defend an indefensible position.
The finance committee already agreed with the government that it would prestudy the bill. The purpose of time allocation is usually to move a bill through the House so a committee can start to study it, but all parties agreed to prestudy this very large bill to make sure to do our due diligence properly. I have not found a reason for time allocation to be moved while we are still debating it in the House.
After campaigning on not using time allocation, the Liberals are deciding to use it for a purpose for which it is not needed. Could the minister explain why this is being done?
132 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
