SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 243 - Oct/31/23

Oct/31/23 5:38:12 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I will try to make this quick. In my speech earlier, I spoke about contempt, and I think that is what this is. The member can call it a cavalier attitude if he wants to be nice, but I think that we can call it contempt. The government does whatever it wants and acts however it wants. It launches programs and makes promises to people and then, a month later, it tells them that there is no money for the program and that their request will not be considered. It is always the same story. That is what I wanted to point out in my speech. Can we sit down with the provinces and Quebec, look at the situation, evaluate the available resources and do things right so that we have successful immigration?

135 words

Mr. Gérard Deltell (Louis-Saint-Laurent, CPC)

Oct/31/23 5:39:04 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to participate in this debate on immigration. At the outset, I want to make one thing clear. It makes me very emotional and happy to say that I am in a conflict of interest, because I am the son of immigrants. That just goes to show that when immigration is successful, this is what comes of it. I am joking around, but I would say that my parents were successful immigrants. They arrived here at 4 a.m. on August 22, 1958. They disembarked from the Arosa Star, which had crossed the Atlantic, and met the first Canadians who allowed them to settle here and live in harmony for more than 60 years in this beautiful country, which welcomed them and which they chose. Let us never forget that immigration is a choice. We choose a country and the country chooses us. Three children, five grandchildren and three great-grandchildren later, we can say that the family has had a successful immigration and we are very happy. This is what we are talking about today: successful immigration. Immigration is one of Canada's great strengths and assets, but it must be successful. My parents succeeded, but not everyone does, unfortunately. That is why the government must be flexible and wise, not dogmatic, when it comes to immigration, to ensure that it is successful. There are currently more than 2.2 million cases sitting at immigration, not being properly processed. That is a lot of people living with major worries and concerns, always wondering whether they will be able to stay or will have to leave. That is the reality of unsuccessful immigration. These people have to wait for years. It is a three-year wait for a refugee to find out whether they can stay here. That is not a good situation. That is not what we want for people who want to live in our country and make it grow, as all immigrants do. That is why we need to get tough and, above all, act wisely when it comes to welcoming these people. Integration capacities must be appropriate and consistent with our commitment. That is why it goes without saying that Canada must consult the provinces and assess integration capacity in terms of housing, health care, education, French language learning and the infrastructure needed to welcome these people. It is 100% the federal government's responsibility to work hand in hand with the provinces to assess integration capacity. Otherwise, the result is these unfortunate situations. The first victims of poorly planned, dogmatic immigration policies are the immigrants themselves. This morning, when I asked a colleague a question, I said that I am very proud to be able to count on Isabelle Turcotte‑Genest, who manages the immigration files in my riding office. I sincerely thank her. I am sure that all of the other 337 members know people who manage immigration files in their riding offices. We get new immigration files by the dozens in our riding offices. Not a weekend goes by without someone thanking me because of the work that my colleague Isabelle Turcotte‑Genest does in carefully managing the immigration files. Honestly, if we want a immigration system that is good for immigrants and for the country, then we need to set dogmatism aside and find a responsible solution, a responsible approach. We have heard many different opinions in this debate, of course. The member for Calgary Shepard, who is our shadow minister for immigration, said that he agreed with the motion. During question period, we also heard the Prime Minister say that he and his team will vote in favour of this motion, and that is good. Despite all that, the Bloc Québécois continues to forcefully question the Prime Minister. That makes sense. After eight years of this government, unfortunately, we are not seeing results in terms of immigration and an integration capacity that works for everyone. I would not call an immigration system with 2.2 million people waiting on overdue files a system that works. Mr. Speaker, I believe my allotted time is up, so I will stop there.

703 words

The Deputy Speaker

Oct/31/23 5:43:52 p.m.
Watch

It being 5:44 p.m., it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the business of supply. The question is on the motion. If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried on division or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

76 words

Mr. Martin Champoux

Oct/31/23 5:44:55 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I will accept your generous offer and request a recorded division.

13 words

The Deputy Speaker

Oct/31/23 5:45:00 p.m.
Watch

Pursuant to Standing Order 45, the recorded division stands deferred until Wednesday, November 1, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions. We have a point of order from the hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

40 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Oct/31/23 5:45:21 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I suspect that if you were to canvass the House, you would find unanimous consent to call it 5:59 p.m. so we can begin private members' hour.

31 words

The Deputy Speaker

Oct/31/23 5:45:30 p.m.
Watch

Is it agreed? Some hon. members: Agreed.

7 words

The Deputy Speaker

Oct/31/23 5:45:54 p.m.
Watch

There being no motions at report stage, the House will now proceed, without debate, to the putting of the question on the motion to concur in the bill at report stage.

31 words

Mr. John Barlow (Foothills, CPC)

Oct/31/23 5:46:33 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-275

moved that the bill be concurred in.

7 words

The Deputy Speaker

Oct/31/23 5:46:45 p.m.
Watch

If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

45 words

Mr. John Barlow

Oct/31/23 5:46:52 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I would like it to be carried on division.

11 words

Mr. John Barlow

Oct/31/23 5:47:29 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-275

moved that the bill be read the third time and passed. He said: Mr. Speaker, it is an honour and a privilege to rise in the House today and speak again to my private member's bill, Bill C-275, an act to amend the Health of Animals Act. I would like to thank all the members of the agriculture and agri-food committee who participated in the study of this bill and worked with our witnesses and stakeholders to try to bring this forward. I do want to take a moment to thank all of the stakeholders who have supported this bill from the beginning: the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, the Canadian Cattle Association, the Canadian Meat Council, the Canadian Pork Council, Dairy Farmers of Canada, Egg Farmers of Canada, Turkey Farmers of Canada, the National Cattle Feeders' Association, Alberta Farm Animal Care and Canada's Accredited Zoos and Aquariums. During the committee discussion, we did have one amendment to this legislation, which included removing the words “knowing that or being reckless as to”. This is some clarification for my colleagues in the Liberal Party and NDP and I do appreciate their participation. The second amendment was to lower some of the penalties as part of this for unlawful trespassers, but one amendment to remove penalties for groups and organizations that encourage this unlawful behaviour was not successful. It is not surprising that animal activist groups wanted these penalties removed from this legislation. These groups encourage this unlawful behaviour, which is a fundraising mechanism for them. For example, in the United States alone last year, these groups raised more than $800 million and organized more than 500 attacks on farms across the United States. We do not have specific statistics in terms of fundraising and numbers in Canada, but we do know that Canada ranks seventh in the world in the number of attacks on farms by animal activist groups. These producers and farm families are subjected to vandalism, cyber-attacks, tampering on farm and arson, but, most important, relentless intimidation and harassment. This takes its toll on farm families across Canada. It jeopardizes the biosecurity on farms and certainly the health and welfare of our livestock. Most important, we heard at committee that these illegal intrusions have a long-lasting impact on the mental health of our farm families. We had a hog farmer from B.C., Mr. Binnendyk. His family went through having 200 protesters on his family farm. I want to quote Mr. Binnendyk's comments at committee. He said: [I]t affected us as a family,...for a number of years it was basically like you were...being watched. We used to be proud to be hog producers. Now we don't tell anyone. The perception that people have about us has all been spread by lies and stuff that are not true. It takes the fun out of what you do. There aren't many farmers left, especially in B.C. There used to be 300 [hog] producers in the nineties. I do believe there are now [only] four or five producers left. It's a dwindling...industry, [to be] sure. We also had Megz Reynolds, who is the executive director of The Do More Agriculture Foundation, which is an important advocacy group for mental health on farms. I want to quote some comments from Ms. Reynolds as well, from committee. She said: [These] people showing up and trespassing [and protesting] are not whistle-blowers. They don't necessarily understand what that farmer needs [or what they] do to take care of that animal and what that animal means to that farmer. I've talked to farmers, men, across Canada, and they tear up when they talk about having to cull a full barn in response to [a] disease.... I talked to a producer in Saskatchewan, and she does not feel safe to send her children out to fix fences by themselves because of the perceived risk from protesters. These are actual things happening on farms today, where in rural Canada our farm families do not feel safe on the land that they have nurtured and cared for, in many cases for generations. I cannot be more crystal clear about this point in this legislation: This bill would not hinder in any way an individual's right to protest on public property. This bill would not prevent whistle-blowers from coming forward when they see standards of care not being met. In fact, whistle-blowers would be protected under this proposed legislation because they would be lawfully allowed to be on the premise with the animals. Canadian farmers and ranchers have a moral and legal obligation to look after their animals. Farmers operate in a highly regulated system, and the environment and strict codes of conduct must be followed to ensure the health, safety and welfare of farm animals. It was also highlighted at committee in testimony that people are showing up on farms who are not whistle-blowers. Activists are not whistle-blowers. True whistle-blowers are family members, employees, veterinarians and professionals like CFIA inspectors who understand the nuances of animal husbandry. They understand the livestock industry. They know what they are looking for if standards are not being met. Members from all parties recounted situations in their ridings where they saw these activities happening and the impact that it had on our farmers and constituents. What worried me, from some of the testimony at committee, is how brazen some of these activists have become. They are putting not only farmers and farm animals at risk, but also the public. We saw an animal rights group in Montreal hang three dead hog carcasses from an overpass. The consequences of that could have been devastating. We heard from a farmer in Ontario who was attacked by ransomware. His farm and his operation were held hostage unless he admitted publicly that he was mistreating his animals, which we know was utterly false. Mr. Binnendyk said there used to be 300 hog farmers in B.C., and now there is only a handful. The activist campaigns will work to end animal agriculture if there is not a strong deterrent in place. Opponents of this bill will say there is no proof of animal activism spreading disease. There are two problems with that argument. First, they are missing the whole point of our current situation. It is short-sighted to have an argument that justifies unlawful behaviour that could lead to unimaginable consequences on a farm. Second, it is completely false. We had one incident in Quebec with an outbreak of rotavirus, a disease not seen in almost 40 years, after trespassers were on a hog farm there. Trespassers also went on a mink farm in Ontario, which spread distemper throughout the community, again as a result of trespassing. Another argument is that some provinces have trespassing and biosecurity laws in place. That is true, but only Alberta, Saskatchewan, Ontario, Manitoba and P.E.I. That means the vast majority of provinces and territories do not have this type of legislation in place. I think it is very important that we show leadership from a national perspective, a federal government perspective, that says we understand the importance of biosecurity on farms, the importance of food security and the fact that public protests have a place but that place is not private property. Most importantly, what this bill talks about is ensuring that biosecurity protocols on farm are adhered to and protect our food security from diseases like the avian flu, African swine fever, and foot and mouth disease, which pose very real threats to Canadian agriculture. In 2014, the Fraser Valley had 10 farms with avian flu outbreaks, and almost 200,000 animals had to be euthanized. The worst outbreak was in 2004, when 17 million birds had to be euthanized. That outbreak eventually cost the industry about $300 million in losses. In the aftermath, a number of changes occurred to ensure that biosecurity protocols were more strict and were adhered to. In the most recent outbreak of avian flu, which we had this past year, 7.6 million birds had to be euthanized. The provinces of B.C., Alberta, Quebec, Ontario and Saskatchewan were the hardest hit. Farmers are still trying to recover from this outbreak, replacing flocks, cleaning out barns and getting their operations back up. Cammy Lockwood, the owner-operator of Lockwood Farms on Vancouver Island, who, ironically, has free-range chickens and sells eco eggs, talked about the importance of this legislation for protecting their farms from trespassers who very well could be bringing the avian flu virus onto their farms. They have very strict protocols. Many of us as parliamentarians have visited farms in our ridings or neighbouring ridings and understand that many times we have to wear booties, hairnets and haz-mat suits and have to clean our shoes before and after leaving farms. When we travel, we are asked if we have visited a farm in the last two weeks. That is important for not spreading viruses, but that is how easy it is to spread them and it cannot be overlooked. One example is African swine fever, which thankfully we have not had in Canada. Unfortunately, it is not a matter of if, but likely a matter of when it will come to Canada. When the first case of African swine fever occurred in China in 2018, it spread to every single province in that country in less than a year. It has since spread to the Asia-Pacific, central Asia and eastern Europe and has now been detected in the Dominican Republic. Although it is not a food risk, 100% of animals that come down with African swine fever have to be put down. If an outbreak were to happen in Canada, it would be absolutely devastating. Our Canadian pork industry has a $24-billion economic footprint in Canada. It employs more than 45,000 people, and almost 70% of our production, which is worth $4.25 billion, is exported to markets around the world. Unfortunately, many of us in Canada understand and still feel the ramifications of bovine spongiform encephalopathy, BSC, which happened more than 20 years ago. It cost our cattle industry and was very impactful in my riding of Foothills. I know it was much the same for my Alberta colleagues. It cost us almost $10 billion. In western Canada we lost 3,000 ranches. The vast majority of those ranches have never come back. Our animal herd in Canada is significantly lower 25 years later. It shows us the very real consequences of an animal-borne disease and what it can do to our industries across Canada. This is very real. It can happen. We do not want it to happen again. If there are any lessons we can take, I look back to what happened over only the last couple of years with COVID. I think if any of us had a chance to go back in time, we would have done things differently. We would have been much better prepared to ensure we had the resources in place to protect Canada. We cannot make that same mistake. Members can imagine the consequences if we had an animal-borne virus pandemic in Canada with any of these types of diseases. That is why strengthening the biosecurity of our farms is so critical, which is what this legislation is focused on doing. Certainly, these groups are raising money off of these endeavours and threatening the mental health of our farmers. Most importantly, I hope my colleagues in the House will support protecting the biosecurity of farms and our food security here in Canada and around the world. I look forward to their questions.

1972 words

All Topics

Mr. Lloyd Longfield (Guelph, Lib.)

Oct/31/23 6:00:26 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-275

Mr. Speaker, I remember being on the agriculture committee with the hon. member across the way for Foothills when we looked at the safe handling and transportation of animals, which was another issue where protections had to be put in place. Could the hon. member comment on how this is not much different than protections in the manufacturing industry, where people cannot just wander into manufacturing plants? There are safety protocols that apply to other industries, and this is another example of protecting not only the industry, but also the animals within that industry.

94 words

Mr. John Barlow

Oct/31/23 6:01:03 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-275

Mr. Speaker, I certainly have a lot of respect for the hon. member. I enjoyed our time on the agriculture committee together. He is exactly right. This would put the agriculture industry in line with most other industries in Canada. People cannot simply walk onto a dangerous auto assembly line or into a manufacturing plant. People cannot just walk into a dangerous situation without the proper training, supervision and attire. This is exactly what we are trying to do with this. Unfortunately, there seems to be this mentality out there that people should be able to walk onto farms, protest on farms or sit on farms and take videos and pictures. They really do not understand, because of the misinformation and misappropriation of what agriculture is, which makes this so frustrating, is that it is doing much more harm than they had intended.

143 words

Mr. Yves Perron (Berthier—Maskinongé, BQ)

Oct/31/23 6:02:05 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-275

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Foothills for his bill and his speech. One of the primary objections to this bill in committee was that it acts as a sort of gag by preventing whistle-blowing when there is mistreatment and that there are not necessarily other ways to blow the whistle. In fact, there are. For example, the Quebec Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food deals with complaints. Complaints can be filed with the department, which will send an inspector. If anything problematic comes up, the department will know it. I have a question for the member. Could he tell us what is being done in his province and speak to this objection to reassure people?

118 words

Mr. John Barlow

Oct/31/23 6:02:47 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-275

Mr. Speaker, certainly it is a frustrating argument that this is an ag-gag law. The wording of the amendment would protect whistle-blowers or anyone who is there lawfully and with supervision, so to say this is an ag-gag law is completely wrong. Let us back up a little on what the goals are of these so-called whistle-blowers. I have a quote from PETA, which says, “Ending speciesism is our ultimate goal. One strategy to end speciesism would be to end the use of animals as food.” PETA also says, “I consider all [animal]-eating cannibalism.” The Humane Society said, “I can assure you that when we go to Mars, it will be a vegan planet.” To say that these protesters are coming on farm just to highlight the mistreatment of animals is completely misleading. Their one and only goal is to end animal agriculture and raise a lot of money in the process. This is not about whistle-blowing; this is about ending a critical industry in Canada.

179 words

Mr. Alistair MacGregor (Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, NDP)

Oct/31/23 6:03:58 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-275

Mr. Speaker, I do believe that the intent of this bill is a noble one, but I believe that it falters in its execution. During the committee stage of the bill, we had a chance to ask questions of the CFIA senior legal counsel, Mr. Joseph Melaschenko. On two occasions, he identified that the phrase “with lawful authority or excuse” makes this a trespass bill. At the committee, I tried to make this about biosecurity so it would be applicable to everyone equally, given that we have a litany of evidence that many outbreaks on farms have been caused by people who were there with lawful authority or excuse. Why does my hon. colleague not feel that having biosecurity measures apply to everyone equally is the right way to go? If we are serious about clamping down on disease outbreaks on farms, everyone needs to be responsible, including the people who are employees on farms.

157 words

All Topics

Mr. John Barlow

Oct/31/23 6:04:54 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-275

Mr. Speaker, I do have a lot of respect for my colleague, whom I work with quite closely on the agriculture committee, and we will have to agree to disagree on the implications and the wording of the bill. I would argue that why we wanted to maintain that language is that we had support from just about every other stakeholder group other than the animal activists, who wanted that language taken out. The reason we have that language in the amendment is to protect those very people he is talking about: employees, farm family members, veterinarians and CFIA inspectors, people who are there with lawful authority. If they see something that is not up to standard, then they have the obligation to report it and make sure those things are addressed. Allowing protesters who have very different goals in mind to come on farms to protest puts our animal health and the biosecurity of our farms at risk, and we cannot do that.

164 words

All Topics

Mr. Blaine Calkins (Red Deer—Lacombe, CPC)

Oct/31/23 6:05:53 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-275

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Foothills for bringing forward this piece of legislation. He touched on virtually everything that has happened in my life growing up on a farm in Alberta. We lost the cattle component of our farm because of BSE, which resulted in my family's having to change what we did. We moved to a different type of agriculture, which actually, in some strange way, invited the same activists. I remember my father calling me and playing a recording for me on the phone, in which an animal activist actually said, “If the public knew what kind of farming you were doing, do you think your son would get re-elected as a member of Parliament?”, thereby actually trying to intimidate me into intimidating my father into stopping farming. Can my colleague from Foothills speak to how drastic, how dramatic and how intimidating these folks are? I know they stop by the farms, stay on the highway and take pictures. They intimidate, they block, they cut gates and they let animals out. They do all kinds of atrocious things that are actually very detrimental and unsafe not only for the public but also for the farm and the farm animals.

207 words

All Topics

Mr. John Barlow

Oct/31/23 6:07:12 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-275

Mr. Speaker, I doubt any of us can intimidate our fathers into do anything they do not want to do. I am still thankful that the father voice still kind of works a little. The member is exactly right. We heard those stories from farmers, which were heartbreaking. In my speech, I spoke of Mr. Binnendyk, who does not tell anybody he is a farmer anymore, whereas my generation and generations before us were very proud of what we did. Now that the next generation is ashamed of what they do because of that relentless intimidation and harassment, it is imperative for us as parliamentarians to show Canadian agriculture, our farm families, that we will be there for them and will stand up for them to ensure that this lifestyle is something we want to see for generations to come.

140 words

All Topics